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.

 sebster wrote:
Probably best for you to ignore me, and then we can ignore these stupid games of 'DukeRustfield makes an outrageous claim and then I spend a week in a teeth pulling exercise trying to get him to stop playing stupid rhetorical games and accept he said something that wrong'.

I give everyone permission to call me stubborn. Often I am and pointed it out to me will make me take another look at my logic.
Anyhow, on the shooting, I kind of think that you need a working knowledge of strong shooting armies (empire, dark elves, now high elves) to discuss shooting rule changes.
A blanket +1 to hit would make the empire long rifle army pretty stupid.

-Matt

DukeRustfield wrote:
Those are mutually-exclusive statements. When is a dwarf anti-magicing you fine and shutting down your magic phase not cool? Should they stop throwing dispel dice at some point to make your game more fun? To me it seems like you're taking issue when someone is either too good at it or concentrating on it too much.

Okay, I see why you might get that idea. I'll try explaining: an army with a super-mega-ultra-strong magic defense is a poorer choice in game design than an army with good magic defense and offense. Because if all you're doing is preventing me from casting spells, you're making the game have less stuff in it.
If you take away some of my spells and then try to get some of yours through my magic defense, that's better. Because now we've got more stuff going on, and even more interaction between us.

The more I think about it, the more I like that; a decent way to start measuring a game's quality is the number of actions and counter-actions the players take. Game A, where Player 1 takes an action, Player 2 counters, then takes action, then Player 1 counters, is a better game where one player is taking all the actions and the other player is just countering them.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Your issue is you can't counter it using whatever army you feel like bringing. Well, yeah.

My issue is that some lists have the purpose to deny me a chance to counter. Let me attack, and then be thwarted by your defense. Let me prepare my shield wall, and have it smashed aside. Just let me try. A list that revolves around doing everything but this (the Double Slann Skink Cloud comes to mind) isn't fun to play against. Even if I win. It's just frustrating.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Your example of the dwarf could have been countered by some of the best ranged weapons in the game, which Skaven possess. You didn't bring them, which is your choice.

I brought two Cannons, two Weapon Teams, and a team of 5-7 Gutter Runners. And I took the Storm Banner. He cannoned my cannons, Anvil'd my Teams, and the terrain and his deployment made my Gutter Runners obsolete.

DukeRustfield wrote:
If he had faced a nurgle flying doc army or hexwraith army or khalida army, he would have lost. And it wouldn't have been because he was out-maneuvered, it's because he took an army that can't compete with them.

Oh, overall he got stomped. Let me emphasize once more that I couldn't possibly care less about winning or losing. But the fact that his list was designed to do its thing and keep me from doing mine, and that he abused the crap out of the tournament's rules? That is the stuff I care about. His list was a detriment to the game. Everyone said so, even the people who stomped him flat.

DukeRustfield wrote:
One trick armies are fine. It's only when a one trick becomes all-comers. Gunlines aren't remotely all-comers. They suck. That's why this entire thread was created.

Agreed; they are generally pretty terrible. But I don't think it should be a viable tactic. It's not dynamic. It doesn't offer a whole host of tactical options. It doesn't lead to crazy-awesome stories later on.

DukeRustfield wrote:
He said some builds are boring FOR HIM to play against. One of which had lots of shooting one of which had...lots of cc. So let's nerf everything that isn't all comers?

Okay, here you're just absolutely dead wrong.
I mentioned the first army (the Warriors with the trolls and the chariot), because I knew I was beat before we finished deploying, and the whole game was one big downhill slide towards total annihilation. And that it was okay.
I got to roll my dice, he got to roll his. He had more of them, and need much lower numbers than I did, but I still got to try. I got to use my magic, and my shooting, and my re-directors, and my combat units. None of that changed the fact that I didn't stand a chance, but I got to play the game.
I had more fun getting crushed by that list than I had beating the High Elf Avoidance/Comet list.

@devastator7777777: adding 6" to a unit's range is going to be problematic. Add 6" to a longbow, that's okay. Add 6" to throwing axes or blowguns, that's not okay. +1 To Hit Benefits everyone to the same degree, except those rare units with BS5 or more, of which there are...what, 3?
And even those would still hit on a 2+ at long range, or in a Stand and Shoot, or shooting into some light cover, etc. There's plenty of ways to take advantage of it.
But those units aren't the ones that really need the boost, anyway.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I give everyone permission to call me stubborn. Often I am and pointed it out to me will make me take another look at my logic.

I can't recall ever getting that impression from you. We've disagreed some times, and while I don't recall ever changing your mind, I never felt you were sticking to your guns just because.

Anyhow, on the shooting, I kind of think that you need a working knowledge of strong shooting armies (empire, dark elves, now high elves) to discuss shooting rule changes.
A blanket +1 to hit would make the empire long rifle army pretty stupid.

The long rifle army still wouldn't be that impressive, as you'd still be paying 9 points per handgunner, and then another 20 points per unit for the champion and long rifle. The unit that would become frightenly good would be the helblaster. In fact, that one change is such a big deal that it's making me reconsider moving the range penalties.

Especially with High Elves becoming a much stronger shooting army just through army book changes. Maybe the best option is just army book by army book reforms.

Well, army book reforms and a rule for +1 for shooting from a hill. I really do like that rule, it's minor, but it might mean more armies including just one unit of shooters.

Why not extend the range of each unit on a elevated position by 1/3 or 1/6? Every range is divisible by 3 and most are by 6. If the range is 9 or something not divisible by 6 then you can have 1,5 inch of extra range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A part from 9 inches, I think there is no weapon with range not divisible by 6.

Because 1/3=33%, which can be huge. Wood Elves with 32" bows, and--more importantly--16" short range?
But it can also be nothing. Longbeard Rangers go from 6" to 8". Woo-freakin'-hoo.

But more over, it's just more math and more complication. Give 'em a +1 to Hit. It's good. It's simple. I state once again: who is this ability not helping? Waywatchers, Sisters, and Shades. That's all I know of. And that's assuming their not shooting at long range, or moving, or into cover, or through an active Stormbanner.

Instead of listing an alternate way to extend units' range, tell me why you think it's necessary, given the evidence above.

I think 50% is as much fractioning as should be done. Though I guess they have 25% core. And there's nothing stopping them from having odd number ranges or ones not cleanly divisible.