PDA

View Full Version : March blocked skirmishers



DeathMasterSnikch
11-08-2006, 21:54
Just wondering howmany people will be ignoring this rule?

I'll most likely try it for a while but ditch it if it's as bad as it sounds.
Yourself?

Mephistofeles
11-08-2006, 22:07
I think it's a really good rule actually, I mean, what was the point of them not being march blocked? I mean, they are supposed to be manouverable, fast and hard to hit with missile fire. That little "We can't be charged 'cause we run around to you flanks every turn" **** was just...overpowered.

McMullet
11-08-2006, 22:10
I think it will make life more interesting. Most of the time, my skirmishers (skinks) should be out of 8" or shooting. When they're march blocking enemies, it's not a problem as as soon as the enemy is too far away to be blocked, I can double pace and black them again.

I don't think this will hurt skirmishers as much as it may seem. They're still very manoeuvrable, and most of the time they're as fast. You'll just need to plan ahead a bit more to stop them get into trouble, and they may be easier to catch, but I just see it as making what used to be an easy to use unit a bit more challenging.

StormCrow
12-08-2006, 05:06
The guy i play regularly (alathir) is making me ignore the rule seeing as his army of choice is wood elves and that rule would ruin the effectiveness of some of his tactics. I've got no problem with or without the rule, i'll just charge the flanking skirmishers in the magic phase....ah, the beauty of TK magic.

Avian
12-08-2006, 10:23
The guy i play regularly (alathir) is making me ignore the rule seeing as his army of choice is wood elves and that rule would ruin the effectiveness of some of his tactics.
Would you like to come over here and play against me? There are some rules that can ruin my tactics and I'd like to ignore them, ogres having to take break tests, for example. That just spoils my day, that does. :p

marv335
12-08-2006, 10:33
i'd be happy to allow a wood elf opponent to ignore that rule. if he'll let me ignore the one that prevents my chariots from charging into the trees.
by ignoring this rule he's cheating.
if he's cheating you should get to win by default ;)
say hello to 100% win record :D

Alathir
12-08-2006, 10:46
'making you' is hardly the right way of saying it.... I was under the impression it was an agreement we both came to...

The rule seems unnecessary to me... but I'll play either way... I like our house rules.... I reckon the one we have about a -1 CR if you refuse a challenge should be in the rulebook. I would be very disheartened if my leader freaked out and ran to the back.

Flame
12-08-2006, 11:36
The WE book is a 7th edition book. It was priced with 7th in mind, which explains the high cost of Warhawk riders for 6th edition and the low cost of some of the skirmishers. With 7th, alot of the manouverabilty of dryads and wardancers will be lowered somewhat.

squiggoth
12-08-2006, 14:42
Just wondering howmany people will be ignoring this rule?

Uhm .... cheaters. Oh, and folks who have spend years trying to master the brain-mangling tactics required to field their all-Skink/Salamander army, and are now afraid that they can no longer win automatically. :p

IMO, marchblocking skirmishers is one of the better changes in 7th edition. :)

Mephistofeles
12-08-2006, 21:59
Well, there's not like there is no negative effect from refusing a challenge Alathir, I mean, the character not being able to fight usually makes you loose 1-2 CR anyway, since he can't kill anything. Isn't that enough?

DeathMasterSnikch
12-08-2006, 23:01
Uhm .... cheaters.

In a house rule way. :p

Just thinking howmuch it would annoy WE, Eshin, Skinks (not that the 'son of an unmarried couple's don't deserve it) and beastmen.

After whats been said im leaning a lot further towards the 'Yey! now the buggers arn't crawling up my ass' side of things.

DarkTerror
12-08-2006, 23:10
Sounds like a dumb house rule to me. No, don't ignore the rules which are there to balance the game.

Ravik
12-08-2006, 23:17
In a house rule way. :p

Just thinking howmuch it would annoy WE, Eshin, Skinks (not that the 'son of an unmarried couple's don't deserve it) and beastmen.

After whats been said im leaning a lot further towards the 'Yey! now the buggers arn't crawling up my ass' side of things.

As a Beasts player myself I'm not too concerned with this rule. If my beastherds (21+ models) are within 8" of a unit you can be damn sure that they're going to charge..sometimes whether or not I want them to :O

StormCrow
13-08-2006, 01:19
'making you' is hardly the right way of saying it.... I was under the impression it was an agreement we both came to...


But you had a gun in my face.

The way i've always seen it, groups of skirmishers are running around the battle field, not marching. So it makes sense to me that is they saw a cumbersome block of infantry then they probably wouldn't be concerned as they would be able to run rings around them anyway. For me, the extra mobility is what seperates skirmishers from block infantry, and i think that no ranks is enough of a hassle for skirmishers, they need to be getting flank and rear charges just to make up the difference in CR when they inevitably charge, and this whole march blocking deal kind of ruins that opportunity for them...well at least thats the case for wood elves, skinks can go to hell.

Alathir
13-08-2006, 01:47
I agree with Stormcrow, the rule doesnt seem to balance the game exponentially or anything so I don't see the point.

To Mephisto, going to the back doesn't seem that bad to me, but I'm a big fan of challenges and do them as often as possible so maybe its just me.

Skinks can go to hell.

Parka boy
13-08-2006, 13:48
No more crappy unengagement skink armies sounds get to me although dwarfs are a lot better now just wished that large creatures such as great deamons and giants couldnt be marched blocked as well.

Festus
13-08-2006, 14:48
Hi

...now just wished that large creatures such as great deamons and giants couldnt be marched blocked as well.
Why on Earth would that make sense to you?

Asks
Festus

DeathMasterSnikch
13-08-2006, 15:18
Just wished that large creatures such as great deamons and giants couldnt be marched blocked as well.

I agree with Festus, I'm no keener on Greater deamons and giants rampaging around my flanks than I am skinks. Why make it so a giant can zip around to your flank avoiding charges :wtf: Giants wern't nible last time I checked, hence the 'fall over' rule.

Gorbad Ironclaw
13-08-2006, 18:06
Just wondering howmany people will be ignoring this rule?

I'll most likely try it for a while but ditch it if it's as bad as it sounds.
Yourself?

Thats one of the best changes in there!

Currently skirmish are incredibly mobile, quite possibly to much. They totally outclass other types of infantry.

They will still be very good. But at least now people have a chance to actually catch them. Instead of them always being able to go where ever they please, when ever they please.

My horde of ghouls might be a bit less abusive now.

NakedFisherman
13-08-2006, 18:10
I agree with Stormcrow, the rule doesnt seem to balance the game exponentially or anything so I don't see the point.

Then why do you want to ignore it?

DarkTerror
13-08-2006, 18:30
If you're going to make a house rule on march blocking, I think a better one is that you can't be march blocked by something you cannot see.

Festus
13-08-2006, 19:21
But then there should be a severe drawback if you are caught while marching, as you move quickly and not ready for a fight...

ZomboCom
13-08-2006, 19:51
Personally I think this is probably the best change in 7th. It's actually quite minor and only really affects disengagement armies badly. Most combat skirmishers within 8" will usually be charging anyway, and so at least this tones down the "I run round to your flank and shoot you again" tactics we see far too often with skirmishers at the moment.

In 6th skirmishers are a little too good, and this is the correct toning down approach I think.

Avian
14-08-2006, 11:28
If you're going to make a house rule on march blocking, I think a better one is that you can't be march blocked by something you cannot see.
Seriously, something creeping along in the bushes where you can't see it, but you can hear it, can often be more scary than the things you can see. How often do you see people in scary movies covering in fear of what turns out to be Jones the caretaker or something equally silly?

Yasmin
14-08-2006, 12:15
I think that skirmishers being marchblocked is a great addition.
Too many a times I was just turning around like a dumb because of a single Dryad unit running around.
And, from my observations, this rule simply prevents skirmishers from abusing their manouverability, not underpowering them too much.
It balances skirmishers IMO to a right level.

T10
16-08-2006, 09:31
I like it because it simplifies the rules. Units that want to move on the double now have to march, which has very explicit restrictions.

The way some complain one would think that skirmishers are no longer allowed to march at all. :)

-T10

eldrak
16-08-2006, 12:04
If you're going to make a house rule on march blocking, I think a better one is that you can't be march blocked by something you cannot see.

I think you meant it the other way around: You can't be marchblocked by something that can't see you.

But i would be glad to play with your wording as my large regiments would never be marchblocked by fast cav and skirmisher to their sides while skirmishers will always be marchblocked due to 360 LOS :D

Alathir
16-08-2006, 14:13
Then why do you want to ignore it?

Because it isn't necessary.

I've never had bad experiences with skirmishers, but I'll learn to live with it.

DarkTerror
16-08-2006, 14:59
I think you meant it the other way around: You can't be marchblocked by something that can't see you.

But i would be glad to play with your wording as my large regiments would never be marchblocked by fast cav and skirmisher to their sides while skirmishers will always be marchblocked due to 360 LOS :D

Skirmishers always being marchblocked would make more sense, right?

Stopping your march is supposed to be to prepare to fight, I believe. If you can't see your enemy (or whomever is in charge can't) you wouldn't stop. An infantry who heard movement to his side wouldn't be allowed to stall up the unit.

Yes, I think it's especially true if they can't see you :)

SuperBeast
16-08-2006, 17:27
Speaking as a WE player, I don't see the problem.
All the changes I've seen in WFB so far have indicated a shift towards canny maneouvring bringing greater rewards in 7th edition.

If your skirmishers are march-blocked, they're still as maneouvrable as they were before, just not as fast.
You can no longer just barrel your skirmishers head-on at your opponent, knowing you can jink around them at the last minute.
You have to plan ahead. Sorry if that idea scares some people... :rolleyes:

T10
17-08-2006, 09:19
You have to plan ahead. Sorry if that idea scares some people... :rolleyes:

I guess some prefer to plan further ahead in terms of inches. :)

-T10