Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Single-Shot Indirect-Fire Blasting War Engines

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    This is certainly the biggest remaining area where the balance feels a bit off that I was hoping the RC would address. I know that in my games with Dwarves, I find the Organ Gun much superior (for the points) to the Bombard or the Cannon simply because of its reliability, despite its short range. I'd consider a 4+ d3+1 Cannon (with an additional +1 vs larger targets) to be a much closer call given the range advantage just because of the increased reliability.

    Comment


    • #62
      Hi All,
      Its been a long time since I have been on these forums. This issue has come up before, and I know one of my regular opponents who plays Dwarves has really come to feel his cannon isn't worth it for the reasons that have been stated above for blast weapons. I had a thought about a potential part of a solution and I was wondering what everyone would think. From what I can see there are three "issues" with blast weapons (one only applying really to indirect weapons).

      1. Unreliable - everything hitting on 5+ with a single shot really makes them feel like all or nothing, which can easily make for a disappointing gaming experience.
      2. High Spike - Some war engines can produce such high amounts of damage that when they work, your opponent feels blind sided, again giving a bad experience.
      3. Can't hide - with indirect weapons, even having a sliver of a unit exposed is sufficient for it to be targeted, and the long range of these weapons mean that there is very limited ways to counter them through maneuver or positioning. The only way to really counter them is to deal damage. This can also be frustrating, particular when combined with 2 above.

      Not sure if everyone agrees with the above points but in my mind it encompasses all the issues. My proposed solution would be to address #1 without making the other two worse. What about adding a "Suppression" rule to all weapons with blast. This rule would state, when a unit is targeted by a unit with blast, if the shot misses, one point of damage is still done to the unit, but no nerve test is taken. If the shot hits, follow the normal procedure. This allows the weapon to reliably do something each turn, does not increase its spike damage, but also wont let you auto delete that unit that miraculously passed a nerve test on double ones last turn.

      Comment


      • #63
        I think the RC did a good job in trying to thread a tricky needle with blast weapons, but I think in the end it wound up coming to naught. The really really good ones are almost an autoinclude (Really, just the big Abyssal Dwarf mortars in groups of three). Everything else is meh. It always sucks for someone when you pull the trigger, and that's the problem. Either it sucks for you because your 100-300 point investment failed *again*, or it sucks for your opponent because they watch a Horde vanish without every getting it to the center of the board when your guns go nuts.

        There's no easy solution. You can't do the template thing (though, I do sometimes long for the excitement of the scatter die...). I don't know what the answer is, other than to think a bit outside the box and ask - what if you had *units* of artillery (say, a troop of 2), and they had less piercing but more attacks, etc? What if they were more like batteries of artillery that you could then make more abstract and less spikey?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Montegue View Post
          I think the RC did a good job in trying to thread a tricky needle with blast weapons, but I think in the end it wound up coming to naught. The really really good ones are almost an autoinclude (Really, just the big Abyssal Dwarf mortars in groups of three). Everything else is meh. It always sucks for someone when you pull the trigger, and that's the problem. Either it sucks for you because your 100-300 point investment failed *again*, or it sucks for your opponent because they watch a Horde vanish without every getting it to the center of the board when your guns go nuts.

          There's no easy solution. You can't do the template thing (though, I do sometimes long for the excitement of the scatter die...). I don't know what the answer is, other than to think a bit outside the box and ask - what if you had *units* of artillery (say, a troop of 2), and they had less piercing but more attacks, etc? What if they were more like batteries of artillery that you could then make more abstract and less spikey?
          Maybe the answer is two shots and smaller damage per hit? War machines have a role in forcing people to come forward and fight, and evening the odds in a battle and giving armies with slower units as lacking many fast and flying options (Goblins, Dwarfs-good and evil, KoM, and Goblins are the traditional war machine armies) a chance to even the odds a bit. But having war machines like the Abyssal Heavy Mortars taken in three and then having a chance of lucky rolls and double hitting and taking out 300+ dragon lords and big hordes each turn at times is quite a bummer for opposing players while having them whiff entirely is a bummer as well for the player using them.

          Balance is very tricky. Slightly too good (Abyssal Mortar and Goblin Rock Lobbers and some breath weapon war machines) and they'll get spammed (except where sports scoring matters); having them not good enough means not being taken at all (Jared Bombards, Cannons).

          One thing that was really clear to me as a math nerd was that less time appeared to have been spent costing the war machines out and/or some things were over and underestimated (too much points value to piercing 4 and flexibility-Bombards- and underestimation of the difficulty of hitting with most reload machines without indirect fire meant a lot of war machines like cannons are simply not playable given their points costs). Thus, the point costing of war machines is on average significantly more uneven in terms of getting them right than for the more standard units. Many war machine options are not seeing play or not seeing much play.

          With the limit of 3 in place (I'd also limit total war machines to say 6 in an army) and unlocks required, war machines should probably be cheaper in points cost and less deadly than say the Abyssal Heavy Mortars. That way they have a role in creating balance for slower armies; 1. are not a serious points sink where if they miss or are played on a table with a lot of terrain that limits or blocks line of sight then the player investing in war machines often loses; and 2. are not so powerful that they cause "no fun" games where it feels like Pickett's charge or the charge of the light brigade in the Crimean War against a shooty army where half of the army is lost before the beginning of melee.

          Comment


          • #65
            I had another idea about how to 'fix' indirect fire. Maybe change the rule to "this unit ignores cover granted to the target by terrain or units that have a lower total height than the target". This makes more conceptual sense to me, as the indirect firer would still get a pretty good sense of the target's footprint, but if you've got 0.5" of a height 1 horde visible from behind a forest the indirect filters wouldn't really have a great idea of where to aim to hit center mass. Plus then if a height 2 unit is hiding behind several height 4 monsters, the mortar shots would be less likely to arc over the height differences and still be able to hit the intended target reliably. Point is, the targeted player would be able to tactically act against indirect fire as opposed to now where the options are either don't be seen or be hit on a 5+.

            I mean, it's a moot thought exercise more than anything, but still.

            Comment


            • #66
              Now I've weighed in on this topic before, but one thing people always exspect to beable to do with these kinds of weapons which they can is put them in the back and shoot over people. I'd really like to see them either made into height 2 models or "counts as hight two for purposes of shooting", to allow them to do what seems kind of silly they cant

              Comment


              • #67
                They should be cheaper and do less damage, if somewhat more reliably. Maybe the existing Mortar could be a Living Legend and H2, which you could then pair up with a couple of lesser ones. Lurker covered all the major issues, but I think the general opinion is that the cannon type ones need a slight tweak up and the indirect ones need a tweak down. I think having cheaper less expensive war engines would still be taken, but it wouldn't create situations where two hits from Mortars deletes a unit with no recourse. Something like the Chinese Rockets from the Mongol Historical army might be a decent baseline.

                Also, no war engine should EVER be an individual, unless its doing a utility effect or does minimal damage. If you get to that fire team, then you earned those triple attacks. Plus BW teams are powerful enough (even post COK) that they don't need the further benefits that individual conveys.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Phazael View Post
                  Also, no war engine should EVER be an individual, unless its doing a utility effect or does minimal damage. If you get to that fire team, then you earned those triple attacks. Plus BW teams are powerful enough (even post COK) that they don't need the further benefits that individual conveys.
                  One could just change the rules so that War-engine take preference over Individual when it comes to triple attacks, in case a unit have both rules.
                  So long and thanks for all the Brains - My undead painting log on the Mantic forum

                  Zywus' log of random KoW stuff

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    At risk of thread necro, I had another random thought come to me after hearing the comment of "why does a cannon care about a hedge row?". To expand the design space between direct and indirect firing war engines, what if they each ignored cover, but from different sources? So indirect fire would ignore cover from other units, while direct fire would ignore cover from terrain. It doesn't 100% fix indirect fire to me by any stretch, but it at least prevents indirect fire from being better than direct fire 99% of the time.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by TarcMaylor View Post
                      So indirect fire would ignore cover from other units, while direct fire would ignore cover from terrain. It doesn't 100% fix indirect fire to me by any stretch, but it at least prevents indirect fire from being better than direct fire 99% of the time.
                      This sounds like a good idea, although it might start the need for 'soft cover' and 'hard cover' possibilities. A cannon might not have to worry about a hedgerow, but a building would hamper line of sight for the cannoneers as well as taking some of the impact. If a siege rules book was to come out, I think grades of cover might be a possibility, but as many have said, part of the beauty of Kings of War is its simplicity.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X