Switch Theme:

Alternate Flanking rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

Rather than +1 combat res and stripping ranks...

Models attacking into an enemy flank roll 1 additional attack each; models making supporting attacks to the flank also gain 1 additional attack each.
Models attacking from the rear roll 2 additional attacks instead of 1.

In ancient warfare, getting hit in the flank or horrible, and usually resulted in massive casualties. In WHFB, it's a few points of combat res that usually doesn't matter thanks to steadfast.
With the alternate flanking rules, the unit getting hit may still be steadfast, but will die at much higher rates.

Flanking cav becomes a real threat with the additional attacks.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc






Southern New Hampshire

I'd rather just see steadfast go back to whatever layer of hell it came from.

"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln

Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.


DR:80S++G++M--B+IPwhfb01#+D+++A+++/fWD258R++T(D)DM+++
 
   
Made in gb
Sinister Shapeshifter




The Lair of Vengeance....Poole.

Being hit in the flank should just make you choose between IP/BSB reroll, OR stubborn.

Malifaux masters owned: Guild(Sans McCabe), Outcasts(Sans Misaki), Arcanists(Sans Marcus)

Check my blog that I just started: http://unionfaux.blogspot.co.uk/ 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





I like the more literal implications of extra attacks, but it would certainly hurt armies trying to field lots of poor troops. A small block of Goblins or Clanrats aren't going to do much with that combat buff, compared to the benefits they get now.

 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

Warpsolution wrote:
I like the more literal implications of extra attacks, but it would certainly hurt armies trying to field lots of poor troops. A small block of Goblins or Clanrats aren't going to do much with that combat buff, compared to the benefits they get now.


It's at least an extra 10 attacks. Against squishy stuff (humans/elves/goblins) that will do some damage.
Against tough stuff, I wasn't winning before, and I'm still steadfast. If I kill 2 dwarf warriors instead of 1, that is a big boost.




 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Against tough stuff, I wasn't winning before, and I'm still steadfast.
I suppose, but stripping ranks still gives me more CR than those extra attacks, where Chaos Warriors would benefit far more from an extra attack per model than from stripping ranks.

 
   
Made in gb
Agile Revenant Titan




In the Casualty section of a Blood Bowl dugout

I'd just like to see the removal of some/all rank bonuses, including steadfast. Think about it, a block of troops from medieval times is ordered such because, well, it's ordered. Everyone knows their place when fighting something in the front. If they get hit in the flank, that order goes to pot. I also think Parry Saves should not be allowed.

Personally, I think the following should happen:

1) Steadfast is removed by casualties caused, in some manner

Again, logically, if you're in a block of 50 troops fighting a dragon, you're still not going to feel safe if that dragon is munching 10 of your mates a turn. Conversely, countering many people's suggestion of flank charge = no steadfast, if you're charged in the flank by a goblin who hits someone's shield, you're not going to care. I think if your unit takes 20% casualties, it cannot be steadfast. If it takes between 10% and 20%, it is steadfast but suffers a -2 penalty to its leadership.

2) Flank Charges negate ranks and parry

Pretty self-explanatory, like what I explained at the start of the post.

3) The enemy cannot retaliate against Rear attacks, as well as all bonuses of Flank Charges

Again, self explanatory. If someone attacks you from behind, you're not going to know about it until they've finished attacking. Skirmishes would not suffer from this rule, nor would lone models.

I also think there's room for a special rule, perhaps called "Disciplined" that allows a unit to negate rules 2 and 3, or perhaps negate them on a successful Ld check.

-------------

I've got a few more ideas, might be posting a thread with them soon

DT:90S+++G++MB++IPwhfb06#+++D+A+++/eWD309R+T(T)DM+

9th Age Fantasy Rules

 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

Warpsolution wrote:
 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Against tough stuff, I wasn't winning before, and I'm still steadfast.
I suppose, but stripping ranks still gives me more CR than those extra attacks, where Chaos Warriors would benefit far more from an extra attack per model than from stripping ranks.


In my experience, elite units are usually smaller and don't have the full rank bonus.
Taking away +1 or +2 for ranks isn't that big of a deal.

A block of Chaos warriors in the flank is already throwing out ~18 to 24 attacks, more often than not, at S5. Hitting on 3's, killing on 2's (against WS4 or worse, and T3 or worse), gives the warriors an additional ~5 kills. That's instead of +3 for ranks and +1 for the flank. Total combat res isn't that much of a swing. Warriors are still winning by a fist full, and steadfast ends slightly sooner.

I'm not for the total removal of steadfast, I think it's a decent rule. I would just like units that get surrounded to die faster. More attacks for the flank/rear seems a good way to do that.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Adding more attacks that aren't capped really benefits horde armies with like, poison or something. Which you don't think is the ultimate crushing flank unit fluff-wise. Because 5 mournfangs at 400 or so points are going to do a whole 5 attacks extra. A horde of gnoblars will get, depending how much they can touch, let's say +21+ attacks. The mournfangs are way better, but if you could buff those gnoblars (and you can) that's an awful lot of hits.

A giant hitting you in the flank would get basically nothing. Similar for other big monsters with low attacks. A steggadon ramming you from the side is way inferior than a bunch of skinks doing the same.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Adding more attacks that aren't capped really benefits horde armies with like, poison or something. Which you don't think is the ultimate crushing flank unit fluff-wise. Because 5 mournfangs at 400 or so points are going to do a whole 5 attacks extra. A horde of gnoblars will get, depending how much they can touch, let's say +21+ attacks. The mournfangs are way better, but if you could buff those gnoblars (and you can) that's an awful lot of hits.

A giant hitting you in the flank would get basically nothing. Similar for other big monsters with low attacks. A steggadon ramming you from the side is way inferior than a bunch of skinks doing the same.


5 mournfangs in the flank would get 10 more attacks (1 for each ogre, 1 for each mount).
21 gnoblar attacks is 4+ or 5+ to hit, and 5+ or 6+ to wound (gnoblars are S2).
S3 goblins would do 4+/5+ to hit and 4+/5+ to wound. Before armor, it's ~2 to 5 wounds.
I'm totally cool with a unit taking 5 more wounding hits for getting so out of position that a 10 wide horde can hit them in the flank.

After saves, the extra kills from the mournfangs and the goblins work out pretty close.

As for the monsters flanking, it's true they don't gain much. But, in the current rule set, they already don't gain much. They don't strip rank bonus, all a monster gains is +1 attack.
IMO, 30+ infantry slamming into the flank should be worse then a giant. It's lot easier to get a solo monster into a flank (2" wide) then it is a horde of infantry (8 or more inches wide).

I did get a trial game in with this, and it was a null test. The only flank charge that came up was combined with a front charge and obliterated the unit anyway. On the other hand, we both positioned a lot more to protect the flanks. More tests needed.


-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Extra Attack doesn't apply to mounts. If it did you would be making generic cavalry the go-to guys. Which makes a little more sense, but not everyone has them and they would be a 40K must-have like AV. Because if anyone lines up with troops you can zip out there swiftstride and lay down 20 attacks on their flank for like <150pts.

This shouldn't be about buffing attacking units but debuffing targets. Being hit in your flank hurts YOU it doesn't make an enemy suddenly a berzerker battlemaster.

Because when you buff a unit, it is going to affect ones very differently. Like monsters get almost nothing. A 30 foot sludge monster hitting your side is woefully inferior to 2 ranks of 5 cavalry or a horde of nearsighted goblins.

There isn't a problem with attacking units. There is a problem with steadfast and flanks/rear. Put the solution where the problem is.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Extra Attack doesn't apply to mounts. If it did you would be making generic cavalry the go-to guys. Which makes a little more sense, but not everyone has them and they would be a 40K must-have like AV. Because if anyone lines up with troops you can zip out there swiftstride and lay down 20 attacks on their flank for like <150pts.

This shouldn't be about buffing attacking units but debuffing targets. Being hit in your flank hurts YOU it doesn't make an enemy suddenly a berzerker battlemaster.

Because when you buff a unit, it is going to affect ones very differently. Like monsters get almost nothing. A 30 foot sludge monster hitting your side is woefully inferior to 2 ranks of 5 cavalry or a horde of nearsighted goblins.
There isn't a problem with attacking units. There is a problem with steadfast and flanks/rear. Put the solution where the problem is.


The extra attack does apply to mounts.
10 cav is ~220 points for empire, 210 for high elves, 200 for brettonians; and they are doing something like ~10 kills against a T3 opponent on the charge, and 3-4 kills after the charge.
200ish point of any cheap unit will hold against that charge, but will break sooner than it would before.
150 points of cav gets you fast cav; 12 wolf riders or spider riders. If somehow none of the WS2 Init 2 wolf riders are lost from enemy attacks, they're doing ~9-10 wounds against T3 on the charge.

From the actual game test, it isn't all that easy to zip out and get a flank charge. It's pretty easy to cover your flanks with enough infantry units, and it isn't until I punched a hole in my opponents battle lines that I did get a flank charge. The early flank charge my opponent had lined up, I had partially covered. He would have only been able to clip, due to my unit partially covering the flank. Only 2 of his models would have fought, and even with the bonuses he'd have no hope of breaking the infantry.
I still remember 6th edition where the only infantry you took could shoot, and the game was all about cav and sludge monsters.
In a game where the abstraction is a guy gets 1 attack, and only fights for 6 turns, which is the whole battle, I'm fine with the further abstraction of more attacks for the flank. Being frenzied makes you a killing machine. Historically, hitting an enemy in the flank makes you a killing machine.

Fixing steadfast, where steadfast is modified results in an all or nothing effect. They either pass the steadfast (or modified steadfast) and are fine; or they fail and they all break (and possibly die).
I'd rather see the more historic effective of dying at much faster rate; which can eventually break steadfast.
Furthermore, if you "fix" steadfast and flanking where the 30 foot sludge monster becomes effective on the flank, then you run into a huge problem. The 20 point flying sludge monster totally wrecks units.
If you tweek steadfast, you'll need to tweek flying, or just count on the armies with effective flying monsters to dominate.
I'd rather see monsters supporting the battle, than monster being the battle.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Giving extra attacks to units who can flank is pretty huge. It benefits faster, cheaper units as I said. I don't think speeding the game up is a goal worth entertaining. It takes the same amount of time to setup no matter how fast it is. And slow, elite armies will be disproportionately affected both in their ability to flank and get flanked.

As for sludge monsters, again, stop trying buff the attacker directly. In no way does an attacker become more powerful when attacking certain ways, a target becomes weaker. If someone is kicking you in the groin, you lose the protection of your skeleton/muscles/arms blocking, etc. But the person kicking you doesn't suddenly grow an extra foot. It's your weak spot, not their strong spot.

The equivalent would be something like flank attacks are resolved at -1T on the target (off the cuff). That scales perfectly with every attacker. A bunch of blind gobbos are still blind gobbos and a 30 foot sludge monster is still itself. They are both just hitting a more vulnerable target. Which is kind of the definition of flank/rear.

   
Made in us
Charging Bull




While I think this has merit, it still does not fix the issue, I still fill the easiest way to fix the issues is that if you are attacked in the flank and are steadfast, you cut the difference in half, rounding up. So if you loss by 5, but you are stead fast and have a unit in your flank, you take a break test at -3. If you are attacked from the rear, you cannot be stead fast. Also Large Targets count as 3 ranks for terms of stead fast, not combat resolution.

Also I feel that you should get +1 combat resolution for attacking on more than one flank.

2011 Throne of Skulls Champion (Lord of the Rings)
 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Rear attacks means 'You never saw it comin'!'

Imo, Rear attacks should reflect autohits similar to impact hits (first round of combat only). It would be silly to think you'd miss swinging at a guy whose back is turned to you.

If that's too much, at least provide ASF/Hatred on first turn.

Also, there should be no "Make Way" rule available on the first turn of rear/flank combat.

---

Monsters should negate steadfast. This should provide some incentive to bring monsters in lieu of Cannonhammer.

---

Sorry but I highly disagree with a small unit of calvary capable of breaking and/or running down a 50+ unit of infantry. (I'd be running tons and tons of units of Marauder Horsement on flails). Monstrious Infantry/Calvary/Beasts however, I think should be able to negate Steadfast only on the turn they charged.

   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: