Invent a Rule!

[Urgat]

What are you talking about? Flanking is useless, useless I tell you!

[Havock]

See my post at the top of the page.

And I fully agree with you

[The bearded one]

What are you talking about? Flanking is useless, useless I tell you!

It's useless on goblins, that's what they pay the extra point for

[The Low King]

I reckon that all terrain of any kind (including rocks, they are just a representation of something bigger after all) should completely block LOS. All warmachines other that bolt throwers should be unable to hit things with the fly special rule. Cannons should scatter D6" before the Artillery dice rolls........

That is obviously unless you want warmachines to actually have a role in the game....

[Craze_b0i]

I don't agree with that, simply because its not needed. The only thing stopping woods blocking LoS is cost; so just declare they do block LoS and job done.

Agree with this. Many people forget that distances are foreshortened in warhammer (ie. they represent a distance much bigger). This applies to area-terrain as much as open-ground. Those 3 trees on the table are more like 30.

[Von Wibble]

I reckon that all terrain of any kind (including rocks, they are just a representation of something bigger after all) should completely block LOS. All warmachines other that bolt throwers should be unable to hit things with the fly special rule. Cannons should scatter D6" before the Artillery dice rolls........

That is obviously unless you want warmachines to actually have a role in the game....

Stone throwers wouldn't be affected much at all by these changes, given indirect fire. Nor bolt throwers. Cannon are about 50% undercosted. Even at 140 pts they pay off their cost in the 1 shot that doesn't scatter (ie rolls a 4+ to hit on my proposal, not that unlikely) - I can't remember the last cannon I fielded that didn't pay off its points in turn 1.

Sometimes I wonder where these empire and dwarf players are whose war machines don't kill much of anything, because the empire and dwarfs I field and face manage it easily in just 2 turns. Not to mention distracting a cannon hunter or 2.

Didn't realise SiN was like that, presumed it applied before generals LD not after. I'd change the mechanic entirely then. Give skaven warlord ld 8 base, and sin allows skaven to claim rank bonus for up to 5 ranks instead of 3.

[Duke Ramulots]

Agree with this. Many people forget that distances are foreshortened in warhammer (ie. they represent a distance much bigger). This applies to area-terrain as much as open-ground. Those 3 trees on the table are more like 30.

The trees are to scale with the minis and each mini represents 1 man(or orc or whatever). I think your aproach worked in other editions but all the GW terrain seems to be made to scale now and there is no note in the rule book saying anything to suggest otherwise like there was in older books.

[Craze_b0i]

The trees are to scale with the minis and each mini represents 1 man(or orc or whatever). I think your aproach worked in other editions but all the GW terrain seems to be made to scale now and there is no note in the rule book saying anything to suggest otherwise like there was in older books.

Yes it is correct that individual terrain pieces such as trees are to scale with the minis. But I was talking about distances between them.

On models themselves 1" is about 1.5 metre tall. But in distance 1" represents 10 metres (approx). A bow range of 24" therefore is 240 metres (approx).

In terms of distance those 3 trees are actually standing much further apart than they appear on the table, and since the area-terrain is classified as a 'forest' we can assume the spaces inbetween them are filled by other trees.

[The Low King]

Stone throwers wouldn't be affected much at all by these changes, given indirect fire. Nor bolt throwers. Cannon are about 50% undercosted. Even at 140 pts they pay off their cost in the 1 shot that doesn't scatter (ie rolls a 4+ to hit on my proposal, not that unlikely) - I can't remember the last cannon I fielded that didn't pay off its points in turn 1.

Sometimes I wonder where these empire and dwarf players are whose war machines don't kill much of anything, because the empire and dwarfs I field and face manage it easily in just 2 turns. Not to mention distracting a cannon hunter or 2.

Didn't realise SiN was like that, presumed it applied before generals LD not after. I'd change the mechanic entirely then. Give skaven warlord ld 8 base, and sin allows skaven to claim rank bonus for up to 5 ranks instead of 3.

My Cannons dont kill much of anything. The last game my cannons got their points back was when i hit a unit of Ogres in a building with a flaming cannon and rolled 6 hits.......that was 7 games ago.

I can do the maths if you want (Again, i seem to provide this every time this discussion come up), a cannon has little chance of gaining its points back in one shot, even if it hits it has a 30% chance of killing a 5 wound monster (with no ward/regen/other save). If my opponant has 2 or more monsters, unless i take the maximum of three cannons im not going to be able to kill them all before they reach my lines.

In fact, im starting to give up on cannons, in 40+ games of using them they simply arnt pulling their weight the majority of the time (paticularly with lots of terrain on the board). I much prefer Grudge throwers atm, they do a lot more damage than cannons (wich are always the first enemy target for Flying stuff/Poison/anti-warmchine magic/cav/skirmishers/redirectors etc)

[Maoriboy007]

What are you talking about? Flanking is useless, useless I tell you!

Useless? No, but worth the hassle?That where the question marks come up, but you might as well hit a flank if it becomes available.

[Urgat]

Useless? No, but worth the hassle?That where the question marks come up, but you might as well hit a flank if it becomes available.

Of course it's worth the hassle. Sometimes I feel like I don't play the same Warhammer as the other warseerians.

[Duke Ramulots]

Yes it is correct that individual terrain pieces such as trees are to scale with the minis. But I was talking about distances between them.

On models themselves 1" is about 1.5 metre tall. But in distance 1" represents 10 metres (approx). A bow range of 24" therefore is 240 metres (approx).

In terms of distance those 3 trees are actually standing much further apart than they appear on the table, and since the area-terrain is classified as a 'forest' we can assume the spaces inbetween them are filled by other trees.

I think you assume to much, the terrain has three trees(if you use the GW peice). The range of weapons was only decreased so that you wouldnt need a football field to play in, nowhere do they say that there is a ten to one ratio for ranges. Otherwise we would have to assume there are whole towns instead of one building and rivers hundreds of feet wide. The game would start to break down pretty bad with your 10:1 ratio.

[Duke Ramulots]

Useless? No, but worth the hassle?That where the question marks come up, but you might as well hit a flank if it becomes available.

Flanking is worth a lot, you get all your attacks and they dont get supporting attacks or even parry saves.

[Maoriboy007]

Of course it's worth the hassle. Sometimes I feel like I don't play the same Warhammer as the other warseerians.

Like I said, you might as well hit a flank if its available and it not useless, but honestly if its gonna be a steadfast vs steadfast clash anyway...meh I'm not gonna make too much effort to make it happen. Usually I only get offered a flank if thier steadfast/stubborn is going to hold me up in a position to inconveniance me, which seems kind of backward...

And you might play a different warhammer, different meta's playstyles and tactics might abound in your playgroup, do you get lots of cheap high initiative, ld steadfast/stubborn armies in your playgroup.

Flanking is worth a lot, you get all your attacks and they dont get supporting attacks or even parry saves.

Its worth something, and it depends on how much supporting attacks and parry saves applies to victory.

Its also much more advantageous to flank unstable units I suppose, no steadfast or stubborn to benefit from.

[Urgat]

And you might play a different warhammer, different meta's playstyles and tactics might abound in your playgroup, do you get lots of cheap high initiative, ld steadfast/stubborn armies in your playgroup.

Do marauder hordes count?
Love your sig, very smart

[TheDungen]

You miss my point; easy math-hammer: how many big bosses can I field in a 2K game?

True but in a 2k game i an field 1.9 bloodthristers in my lord limit (which means a massivly beefed up bloodthirster) in a 3kgame i can field 2.7 bloodthristers (two beefed up bloodthirsters) unless you have cannons that is going to be a problem. ofcouse picking a combat monster out of an overpowered book is a little low but its to prove a point.

[Craze_b0i]

I think you assume to much, the terrain has three trees(if you use the GW peice). The range of weapons was only decreased so that you wouldnt need a football field to play in, nowhere do they say that there is a ten to one ratio for ranges. .

Well its not actually 1:10. As I said the minis are roughly 1" to 1.5m and distance is roughly 1" to 10m. If you do the math its more like 1:7. The thing about foreshortened distances was stated in the 5th edition Battle Book, which I sadly don't have with me so I can't pull the direct quote.

Otherwise we would have to assume there are whole towns instead of one building and rivers hundreds of feet wide. The game would start to break down pretty bad with your 10:1 ratio

You don't necessarily have to assume a building is an entire town since a building is a singular piece of terrain. What matters is the distance between that building and the guys shooting at it. Rivers are probably in the same category. I draw the distinction with forests because they are area-terrain, also in my view if 3 trees is simply meant to represent 3 trees they wouldn't call it a forest.

[Petey]

The rule I would add is that armies should have their own terrain generation. The way I would handle it with the current rules is that the army would get to automatically pick some of the terrain that goes down on the table, for example.

Whenever empire rolls up arcane building, they may always opt to make it a chapel to sigmar instead of rolling.
Whenever wood elves roll hill they may instead place a forest.
Whenever high elves roll a monument, it can always be a waystone, instead of rolling.

I'm sure each army could have a really good and characterful addition like this

[theunwantedbeing]

I'm sure each army could have a really good and characterful addition like this

That or they get a terrain chart to generate from within their own books.
I do like that idea, very characterful and largely eliminates the pointless terrain that has no real bearing on the armies taking part.

[Petey]

That or they get a terrain chart to generate from within their own books.
I do like that idea, very characterful and largely eliminates the pointless terrain that has no real bearing on the armies taking part.

I agree, but this is GW, not Sparta, we need to move in baby steps first. If you like, we can start making a list to expand on the 3 ideas above and make a couple of special terrain rules for each army book. I'd be happy to work on something like that. What do you think, should we start a new thread?