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.

Time for a thread largely without an aim, which makes a change.

This topic stems from a conversation I had in my local GW with one of the staffers, regarding how combat resolution works. Right now as it is, the system is good, and it applies fairly to everyone across the board. Ergo, the system fundamentally works.

However, we reckon it could still stand a little tinkering with an aim to making it better than it currently is. You see, to us, there just isn't enough incentive to take rubbishy things like Gobbos and Skaven Slaves in big arsed units. They are cheap, plentiful, but reach their cap all too quickly in terms of static resolution.

Now, the upside to going over your static resolution of course, are the redundant ranks, allowing you to keep your +3 longer, and of course the bonus of having a far higher 25% panic threshold.

However, compared to using these sames points to take another unit entirely, with it's own static res of at least +4, the decision is quite clear cut. As I said though, this is true of any unit, so it's not a massive problem that needs fixing by any stretch of the imagination, but it does prevent you ever really coming up against a seething mass of low quality troops, which will eventually kill your unit by bleeding profusely all over them, leading to drowning.

So how to proceed? One thing we chatted about was having a racial rank bonus. Lets look at Orcs and Goblins first, as I feel background wise, they make a good arguement. The more Greenskins you have in one place, the more aggressive and confident they feel. So perhaps this could be reflected fairly well with a high rank bonus cap, perhaps just an additional +1. Much more than that and you're going to tip things too far. Of course, then you need the reason as to why others, say, Empire and Dwarves, have the standard Cap of +3. Well, I'm afraid compared to sheer Orcy enthusiasm, strict military discipline can only carry you so far. Not a particularly great reason I'll grant you, but one all the same.

At this point I'd like to clarify I'm just throwing ideas around to set the mood of the thread, rather than looking to make them particularly workable.

One other discussion we had was about the aggravation of just having your troops stand around once in combat. It is fairly simple sure, and makes the game easily playable, but I'd like to see some kind of Warmaster 'pushback' resolution introduced. A simple way to do this is that once you have won a combat, and the enemy passes their test, the combat gets pushed D3" up the board. This represents the winning side slowly gaining ground, but the enemy trying to hold as best they can. Of course, this can then be exploited by wily players to slowly draw enemy units further into charge range for the counter, but equally, it can also be used to disappear from LoS of a flank charge. With these open, the rule as I see it becomes more or less self balancing.

So, are there any alterations or additions you would like to see dropped into Combat Resolution? If so, what are they, how do they work, and what makes them appeal to you?

Hi MDG.
I dont think fluff-races specific rules are a good way to go. As they are based purley on oppinion -interpitation .

However to take up you core objective of looking at alternative combat resolution?

If we add the number of ranks to the unit frontage to get a combat modifier, instead of just the number of ranks.
This could replace outnumbering and rank bonuses.

Eg goblin regiment of 40 gobbos.
5 wide 8 deep.
Combat res 5+8=13.

Fighting WoC 5 wide 4 deep .
Combat res 5+4=9.

This gives the hoards of goblins a basic +4 bonus over the WoC.

How about a chart to determine combat effects based on combat res?

Beat enemy by 0 to 3.Units stay locked in combat.
Beat enemy by 3 to 6 , push looser back this number of inches.
Beat enemy by 6 to 9 , enemy unit destroyed and winning unit(s) can 'over-run' this number of inches.
Beat enemy by 9+ enemy destroyed and winning unit(s) can over run this number of inches, all enemy units within 12" inches take a panic test.

Just some ideas for discussion.
TTFN
Lanrak.

I think some scalability between "unaffected" and "SQUAD BROKEN" would be nice.

Outnumber already does a pretty good job of representing those huge mobs in my opinion.

And the issue with the "wide+deep" is that wide is more cost effective than deep.

Your 40 gobbos at 5x8 equals 13.
But the guy you are playing puts his DE rbx into a 10x2. He has 1 less than you but -half- the models. Strings them all out in one line and now it is 20 to 13.

The ruberic of creating something effective and equitable becomes overly cumbersome which is the -opposite- way GW has taken the game.

Couldn't GW just, I 'unno, increase the max rank bonus of a unit? If someone's going to pay for a unit 25 big (the minimal to get past 3 ranks, and you'd probably need more unless you're going for a min-frontage), it stands to reason they should get more bonus'.

If you want to limit the aplication to balance it, you could say something like spear-equipped infantry units can get an additional rank due to their weapons (thus allowing something like Clanrat or Goblin spearmen to get a potential max of +4 Ranks as opposed to an Orc Choppa Boyz max of +3). Allow outnumbering spear units to start with a two-point advantage instead of one, slightly increases their staying power.

The biggest problem with those large blocks is that one unit with unit strength 5 or greater hits them in the side or rear, and they've lost all but the outnumber. I think it's why there's such a ridiculous preponderance of fast, hitty things and so few blocks.

So if you could find a way to make rank breaking a little tougher, you'd see the bigger units. Perhaps require at least half the US in order to bust ranks or some such. Off the top of my head, the only down side I can think of right away is that it might make some deathstars even more deathstar-y.

RZ

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think some scalability between "unaffected" and "SQUAD BROKEN" would be nice.