Only for shooting out of a building.
Only for shooting out of a building.
G'day chaps, thanks for discussing the rules I proposed earlier.
I know that relying on GW fluff is always fraught with danger, but here's what it says on p118 of the BRB, under 'Forests';
-Forests are excellent places for troops to lurk in ambush- the choking foliage offers a great deal of protection against missile fire.
-Forests are mysterious terrain - who knows what hellspawn lurks in there?
So clearly GW wants forests to be exactly that; dense and thick. It's hard for hellspawn to lurk behind 3 spaced trees after all. What they haven't done is design the rules to match that description/fluff/intent.
Yes, I know, it's a game of dragons and mages and daemons. We don't know how they work, but we do know how forests affect line of sight and movement of formed units. Making things realistic where we can provides a foundation for the fantastic elements of the game, making them stand out even more. Otherwise, why can't my Hammerers have M8? That would be awesome! Who cares if they've got short legs, as long as they're pointed correctly, noone can complain.....
Buildings represent a farm, village or town. I prefer this scale in my mind, as it's much more cinematic than a clash between 100 men on each side.
The thing is we're comparing Crossbows shooting at a man to Crossbows shooting at a greater Daemon. All else being equal (range and movement), the Daemon should be easier to hit because it's bigger. If the weapon is inherently inaccurate, this should be reflected in the weapon's rules or the BS of the shooter. But hitting a Plague Furnace should be easier than hitting a Skaven.
And of course a skilled marksman can hit an individual person with a crossbow or bow. It might take a lot of practice, but it can be done.
I've spent hundreds of hours marching in lines with 100 plus others. It's hard enough to do on an open parade ground. Doing it in even a 'nice' forest like an orchard or pine plantation would be bloody hard. Doing it in natural forest would be impossible at speed. Hence, no marching in forests is a realistic limitation in my view.
You do loose ranks in a forest.
Sometimes a post is so rotten I have to respond like dr.Cox My Dwarven painting log -- My Lizardmen painting log -- My Scurrying Skaven painting log -- My nurgle beastmen painting log --My Tau cadre painting log -- My knights of the white wolf -- My Ork painting log
---> Newest: 23-5-2013; Finished Riptide, broadsides and pathfinders ---> New: 13-5-2013; Lizardmen, tournament pictures, Won best painted army!
With regards to BS-based shooting and penalties for various models I believe it comes down to complexity (of rules) versus the issue of realism.
Let's see how we could make it more realistic:
Single models (infantry sized) should at the very least be effected just as Skirmishers - i.e. -1 ToHit minimum.
If you're at 'long range' that -1 should arguably be doubled, so -4 total (but this shouldn't apply to Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry I suppose).
Infantry Sized Fliers should arguably always be concidered to have 'Hard Cover' before you even apply other penalties for range etcetera.
Large Targets (given the above) could perhaps be without any penalty, but as soon as they're flying it should become slightly harder to hit them.
Ranked units, then, well something like +1 ToHit for every 20/30 models in the unit would be reasonable I suppose.
And now we can argue each and every detail of this, but the reason I typed it out was merely to underscore how the RAW currently is waay simpler and while at bit 'meh' at times perhaps that's not all a bad thing.
I actually like the general rule of 1's always failing and 6's succeeding for the same reason - I was just reminded the other day that there's actually rules in the BRB for "hitting on a 7" (i.e. first roll a 6, then you need another roll of 4+) and well, fine.. although necessary?? I don't know..
Didn't read all 24 pages of replies
Jericho's (Possibly) New idea for Disrupting Steadfast:
Steadfast could be calculated by subtracting the number of ranks of the Disrupting unit from the total ranks of the unit being flanked.
So consider Unit A, a bus of 5x8 fighting against two units, Unit B (5x5 unit on the front) and Unit C (5x4 unit in Unit A's flank). In this combat, Steadfast would calculate thusly:
Unit A: 8 - 4 = 4 ranks
Unit B: 5 ranks
A unit of 100 Skaven slaves 20 ranks deep being fully disrupted by 10 Archers doesn't quite seem fair, but Unit A in the example above retaining Steadfast despite being outnumbered doesn't make sense either. I think the subtraction method is a good compromise and doesn't make Empire Detachments hella broken.
Which is why I proposed what I felt was a fairly simple set of modifiers to BS shooting. If this is too complex, then maybe it's not workable. Or it might be that there's room to add a few more (like that flying modifier or the -1 for shooting at individuals as it was in 7th Edition).
This can only be determined through playtesting. The best rule amendments we propose should actually seek to reduce the number of things we have to remember.
While in general, I like striking in initiative order (regardless of charge), I think there should be an exception for lance wielding cavalry, which I think should strike first when charging.