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.

That's mostly wrong.
You don't hit more things by shooting in the area rather than shooting at the target. It doesn't matter what you aim at the enemy, or at the ground under him, if he's moving, he's moving. The logic of he's moving so I'll shoot the ground should mean you're hitting the ground where he no longer is at, because, ya know, he moved.

Archers sent arrows skywards to fire over their own troops and increase range. Marksmanship and contests were always at targets, not areas. Aiming at the target does help you hit the target.

If that ballistic theory was correct, gunners would not hold their shots until the enemy is up close, they would shoot their guns into the air.

Here's an example of an utter fail of your rules.
I have a unit of skirmishers in side a building. You are -3 to hit them. Under normal rules, Elves would need 6's to hit.
With your rule, 10 archers would incredibly strike 2D6 times, as their shots fall through the roof, and through the upper 2 stories, and strike true at models inside.
Or replace building with forest and repeat.

Firing through a direction you cannot see, at an area, rather than a target, is always way less accurate than firing down the direct path that you can see, at a target.
It's just how reality works.


-Matt

If the model shoots directly then there is high chances they miss, because the target is moving, however when commander of archers follows the track of the enemy unit, he orders his archers to set bows at angle and launch the arrows at a given time so they will strike on enemy, not to close not to far. Where else unexperienced soldiers are not going to predict the track of enemy unit as precisely as their commander. Of course there should be a penalty for hiting in to units that are covered. Substract d3 from every 2d6 for shooting in to soft cover and d6 from 2d6 for shooting in to hard cover. Shooting unit's under roof should be banned completly. Of course when there is a archer in a tower, then he will be shoot at directly. However firing indirectly( following orders of the commander) is more precise at the open field when enemy is moving. It is not true that unit's did't fire at an area. ( Not my stupid idea, this what other people think as well). They aimed the target as well, but you went to far saying that they did't fire at the area.

Well, that cleaned up the rule perfect.

Reducing hits for cover makes sense, that is what GW already does with -1 to hit. But what about skirmishers? If you spread out, you have less people in a given area, which still isn't taken into account in your rule.
What might make it perfect is that you roll D5's against skirmishers, and subtract D3's for cover.

They, now you have a perfect replace for a rule GW kind of already has. Much more clean the Volley Fire.


-Matt

Let's substract d3 for every -1 to hit penalty and d6 for every -2 penalty. So if penalty is -3 then d6 and d3 are substracted from 2d6.

@devastator7777777: Shooting in a volley is not more accurate. It increased your range, allowed you to fire indirectly, and increased the projectile velocity (via gravity).
The only way it was ever effective is when you have lots of archers versus lots of enemies.

Think about it: would you order one marksmen, expert or not, to shoot at a 45 degree angle at his target?
Would you have fifty archers fire in such a way at one man on a horse, standing in a field?

No. You'd tell them to aim at their foe and fire directly.

Let me be blunt: this is a stupid, terrible idea. Let's compare it to Volley Fire:

1. Volley Fire: if you haven't moved, half of the 3rd and latter ranks may fire.

2. "Indirect Fire" (which needs a new name, since that's a special ability of Stone Throwers already): if the unit hasn't moved, you may lay down a template within range (line of sight not needed) instead of firing normally. Use the large template for something-and-whatever, and the small template for a-reason-never-really-stated.
The small template scatters d6", the large template scatters the distance shown on an Arillery die (on a Misfire!, nothing happens).
Both decrease the scatter by a number of inches equal to the highest Ballistic Skill in the unit.
For every 10 models in the unit, every unit touched by the template takes 2d6 hits at the missile weapon's Strength.
If the unit touched is in cover, it takes 2d6-d3 hits (if in soft cover) or 1d6 hits (if in hard cover) instead.
Units are immune to this rule if they're in a building.

So, tell me, which of these rules is simpler? Which is easier to use, and will slow the game down the least? Oh! And does either one represent a higher level of realism than the other?
The answers, by the way, are Volley Fire, Volley Fire, Volley Fire, and No, not really, but if I had to choose one, it'd be Volley Fire.

I'm always open to suggestions, but I have no time for suggestions that needlessly complicate the game and that are based on a stubborn and willful ignorance of how the laws of physics and tactical combat actually work.

On an earlier note, being able to shoot in a turn you rallied and the Fire and Flee! special rule are mostly the same. But the first is a simpler one, easier to explain, understand, and play. And it's also an ability that you have/get to utilize, where the second takes place on your opponent's turn, as part of a reaction. And the second one has the potential to create some silly situations that don't make much sense. So it looks to me like the first idea is superior in most ways. Fire and Flee! has one advantage, as said before: it's more of a sure thing, in that you get to shoot, whether or not you escape the enemy. But all things considered, I think being able to shoot when you rally is still better.
And for the record: if anyone thinks that Wood Elves should be able to win by just standing there and shooting the enemy until they're all dead, you're dead wrong. Wood Elves are the finest archers in the Old World. But that's not the theme of their army.

edited out

You would have one marksman shouting in front of 50-200 archers this is how it was in the past. Not allways, but the best cordinated unit's worked like this.

If you hate the idea of indirect fire then let's just leave it. Wood elfs are mobile, however indirect fire can only be ulitilised when stationary.

Fire and flee key advantage.
Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
You would have one marksman shouting in front of 50-200 archers this is how it was in the past.

Right. And Warhammer has rules to do this, called Volley Fire. It works similar to this Indirect Fire nonsense, but better.
Because Volley Fire doesn't make each guy more accurate like Indirect Fire does, it just lets more guys shoot, without them all needing line of sight.
And because Volley Fire doesn't require you to place a template, roll for scatter, subtract BS, then roll hits and wounds, oh, and don't forget to subtract another die roll worth of hits if X situations come up, and also remember that if Y situation occurs, the enemy's immune, never mind. It's just like normal shooting.
Streamline. Elegant. Easy. A better rule.
It's not that "I don't like this rule". It's that it's completely unnecessary and doesn't actually do anything.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged.

This is a fair point. But I'd also point out that, with being able to shoot in a turn they've rallied, you could still flee through some Dryads and force your opponent to reckon with your WS4 S4 T4 A2 I6 5+ Ward combat-monsters, while the Glade Guard could rally behind them, facing another unit (probably the one that's going to charge those Dryads to help out their friends who are now in combat with them) and shoot them.
I don't think Fire and Flee! is specifically cheesy, but it's just a little more complicated than it needs to be, and it doesn't have the same strategic options that this other rule does.
Plus, if your 'Guard ever panic, this rule would let them shoot after they regained their composure.

I just want to go against the stream and say that wood elves should not be able to, control what kind of forest they or their enemy walk into. Why? well because the warhammer world is a chaotic place infused with magic. It may very well be that the wood elves are fighting close to athel loren, but is athel loren imune to corruption from chaos? Im pretty sure they are not, which is why the wood elves should have no control over it.

Athel Loren is far from immune to the corrupting powers of chaos. The Forest known as Athel Loren is essentially a lesser God of Chaos itself. Orion and the Treemen are akin to Greater Daemons, while the Dryads are just another lesser daemon, like a Bloodletter/Daemonette combo.

That said, it's a pretty minor ability. And note that in its current incarnation, the Wood Elves can only choose from one of three options, rather than pick and choose.

Since it barely does anything at all, I'd just as soon keep it; I feel like an army called Wood Elves ought to offer something that relates to how Forests function within the game.
...but I suppose the part where it says "Forest Spirits never suffer casualties and automatically pass all Psychology tests caused by Mysterious Forests".

So, you're right, but I think you're taking too strong a stance. Wood Elves should be able to have some control over Forests. Not complete control, but some.

Wardancers

- In this fandex they cost 16 points and have asf ,and a killing blow.

-In the current wood elf codex(from gw) they cost 18 points and have the ability to choose dances which will benefit them. This includes: one that grants them killing blow, asf, extra attack and 4+ward save.

This makes them more versatile and adaptive to the situation. With the current rules their able to inflict a lot of wounds and this makes them good, they need to get just a little bit stronger.

In this fandex their role is more of killing heavy cavalry, armoured troops and characters.

I wish they would become versatile and alround good again.

The ability to get an extra attack allows to scythe a lot of infantry, especially that they will majority of times get to strike first.

If they are charged or find themself in trouble and need a better survivality, then you can use a dance that provides a 4+ wardsave. Although I would change it to -2 to hit since they already have a 6+ wardsave.

Here is how I imagine wardancers:

18points asf tattoos(6+ ward save, magic resistance lev 1)

dance 1: extra attack

dance2: killing blow

dance3: -2 to hit up to a maximum of 6. This should offer them a fair survivality. They loose asf for the time of a dance since they need to be more cautious.

Well, keep in mind that these Wardancers have a 6+ "Dodge" Ward save, and that Talismanic Tattoos improves this by 1, for a 5+ all the time.

They also always have S4, instead of only in the first round. And they still have two hand weapons, and get re-rolls on most opponents (which is about as good as +1A, with lower potential wounds but less likely to brick in any given round).

Then consider that the old War Dancers couldn't use the same dance two phases in a row (which, since you'd obviously pick the best one you could first, is a pretty big set back).
And then that these ones cost 2pts/model less.

In short, I'm confident that these guys are all-around better.
They lose a point of Ward save and 1 attack 30% of the time to be stronger, cheaper, and have all three abilities all the time.

If so then, they really are good.

It is so!
I've been comparing them to Swordmasters, actually. I felt like Wood Elves needed s'more bite at less cost.

If there is the same ammount of wardancers in the first and the second rank, then they hit the same ammount of attacks as the old wardancers used to with dance providing +1 attack. Furthermore they have killing blow all the time which awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm intrested how they gone treat wardancers in new wood elf codex. Hope just like you did it. Maybe the rulebook is delayed, just ,because you started this thread and they are using some of Ideas.

Rumors of new wood elf rulebook coming spring 2014:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24338-Wood-Elf-Rumour-Roundup

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Maybe the rulebook is delayed, just ,because you started this thread and they are using some of Ideas.

I'm flattered, really, but...I doubt it. They've got enough people cranking out cool/good ideas as it is. Thanks, though!

They are the best at balancing rules, but they are not so creative as you and some of the people from this forum. Take a look at this thread and cool new weapon ideas thread. Compare it to the ideas of gw. Gw ideas are simpler, but more boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fell like just 2 magic banners is not enough for wood elfs. Every army has one which costs 70 points.
The banner of dwindling is't that good. I would exachange it for something else.

My idea for one banner.

Banner of faith in dependability.
All units within 12 of a banner don't suffer any penalities to hit while shooting a part from the one coming from long range.
50 points

Should't the wardancer kindred get +1ws and +1I.

Simple is good. Simple is everything we want to strive for.

The Banner of Dwindling is from the current book, and I think I'm going to keep it. But now that you point it out, it does seem to be lacking. What if the unit with it could re-roll it's pursuit distance instead? Same concept, with a more drastic possible result.

I hadn't noticed that every army had a 70pt banner. I'll think about it.

And 2 banners should be fine. Magic item lists are a lot shorter now, and I didn't want to take too much away from Spites and magic arrows, so I had to make cuts somewhere. Magic banners seem the least Wood Elf-y of items. They're just not that big on rank-and-file.

What about the wardancer kindred. I think he should get + 1 ws and +1 I. Otherwise if he is a hero then he will have the same stats as average wardancers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's exchange a banner of dwindling for 70 points banner, or at least make it reroll persuit distance. In current rulebook wood elfs have 100 point banner. It grants fear to the unit of the bearer and magic resistance lvl 1 to all units within 12. It's not a solid choice thought. Maybe if it would grant all units within 12 magic resistance 2.

Glade guard just lost the title of the best archer unit in a game. For the high elf maiden guard is released. Each model has S4 at a range of 24, flamming, magical attacks and armour piercing. They can fire from three ranks and have bs of 5 , good initiative and light armour. While they cost only 20 points per model.

The game balance has been broken at least by the time wood codex get's released.

Something needs to be done in order to improve glade guard. I think of S4 at long range , or the combination of rally and shoot and fire and flee.

I'll give the Wardancer Kindred the old bonuses. And the Wild Rider one +1S and Frenzy.

I'd actually be surprised if the whole Kindred thing survived in the next book. It's overly complicated and bulks out the book with stuff most people won't be taking anyway.
But I'll leave it, for now.

The Maiden Guard are pretty crazy-good, but they're Special, right?
And what kind of saves do they have? Basically nothing?

They're certainly awesome, but 20pts is by no means cheap. 20pts for one arrow is a lot. The fact that it's a BS5 S4 AP Flaming arrow increases the situations where it'll be useful, but it's still only one arrow.
I'd want cheaper arrows before I wanted better ones.

Sounds like we should compare them to Waywatchers before Glade Guard.

And for the record, I'm not going to add or change something with the intent on making something unbalanced just because Games Workshop did at some point (Mournfangs, I'm looking at you).
I'll err on the side of Not-Good-Enough before I cross the line the other way.

Still, I hope that all my work is soon proven pointless.

Maiden guard are rare choice. I wonder thought what will gw do to return the wood elfs title of the best archers.

Compare them to Waywatchers. Against most opponents, the Maiden Guard are better at long range and they're equal at short range (though the Waywatchers can get to close range without losing accuracy).
Against Regeneration/Ethereal and models with low to medium armour, the Guard are better.
But Waywatchers win against high armour models and low mobility models.

That, and if you consider a shooting match between Glade Guard and Maiden Guard, the Wood Elves come ahead in points every phase.

I will be surprised if the new Waywatchers don't have changes extremely similar to the ones above. A point drop and a little power/versatility boost. It's all they need. They are, hands down, the best archers in the game.

Were the best archers in the game.

The recent nerf to Killing Blow really reduced their effectiveness.

What recent nerf?

Waywatchers don't win against armoured targets. Since Maiden guard are S4 and armour piercing. Let's assume they both shoot sv 2+ t3 target. Close range.Waywatchers. 5/6*1/6+5/6*1/2*1/3=0 2,7777. Chances to hit are 5/6, 1/6 is a killing blow, 1/2 is wounding without killing blow and 1/3 is p that enemy fails armour since waywatchers are S4. Maiden guard 5/6*2/3*1/2=0,27777. If Maiden guard have moved then it inflicts 0,2222 wounds instead. Waywatchers beat Maiden guard only at short range vs 2/3+ armour assuming it did move. If it did't move then it beats waywatchers vs 3+ armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can have 5 glade guards for cost of 3 Maiden guard. Glade guards deal 5*1/2*1/2*5/6 wounds = 1+1/24. Maiden guard. Haven't moved. 3*2/3*2/3=1+1/3.Have moved. 3*1/2*2/3=1.

Hm. Well, let's consider the most iconic "heavy armour" unit: Chaos Knights.

5 Waywatchers:
4.2 Hits, 1.4 Wounds, .8 Wounds after saves (.7 Killing Blow and .1 regular).

5 Maiden Guard: 4.2 Hits, 2.1 Wounds, .7 after saves

So it's a very, very close call. Maiden Guard are more fragile and can threaten a larger array of targets and are vulnerable to the Dragon Helm/Bane Gem items.

As for Glade vs. Maiden, let's assume 15 of the Maidens (300pts), which is 25 Glade Guard.

Against T3 with a 5+
- Glade: 4.2 (long range) 9.2 (short)
- Maiden: 5 (long, moved) 6.7 (long/short, moved), 8.3 (short)

Against T4 with a 5+
- Glade: 2.8 (long), 7 (short)
- Maiden: 3.8 (long, moved) 5 (long/short, moved), 6.3 (short)

Lower armour will swing the numbers for the Glade Guard, since AP won't help. Higher T/armour will start to see a smaller and smaller difference between S4 AP and S3/4, so then it just comes down to whether or not 5 BS4 (no penalty for moving) shots is better than 3 BS5 shots. Which they usually are. Because it's more arrows.

The Maiden Guard do not seem in any way broken to me. They're use is limited, but they pack a great punch at range for little table space.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What recent nerf?

Killing Blow can no longer be used on characters who are on Chariots, Monsters, or Monstrous Beasts.

Warpsolution wrote:
Hm. Well, let's consider the most iconic "heavy armour" unit: Chaos Knights.

5 Waywatchers:
4.2 Hits, 1.4 Wounds, .8 Wounds after saves (.7 Killing Blow and .1 regular).

5 Maiden Guard: 4.2 Hits, 2.1 Wounds, .7 after saves

So it's a very, very close call. Maiden Guard are more fragile and can threaten a larger array of targets and are vulnerable to the Dragon Helm/Bane Gem items.

As for Glade vs. Maiden, let's assume 15 of the Maidens (300pts), which is 25 Glade Guard.

Against T3 with a 5+
- Glade: 4.2 (long range) 9.2 (short)
- Maiden: 5 (long, moved) 6.7 (long/short, moved), 8.3 (short)

Against T4 with a 5+
- Glade: 2.8 (long), 7 (short)
- Maiden: 3.8 (long, moved) 5 (long/short, moved), 6.3 (short)

Lower armour will swing the numbers for the Glade Guard, since AP won't help. Higher T/armour will start to see a smaller and smaller difference between S4 AP and S3/4, so then it just comes down to whether or not 5 BS4 (no penalty for moving) shots is better than 3 BS5 shots. Which they usually are. Because it's more arrows.

The Maiden Guard do not seem in any way broken to me. They're use is limited, but they pack a great punch at range for little table space.

5 Maiden Guard: 4.2 Hits, 2.1 Wounds, .7 after saves

Chaos warriors don't have a 1+ armour so it gets modified to 3+ and 2/3 of wounds are saved. If they have ward save then this works against killing blow as well. What ward save and what kind of armor save do they have?