| The One Ring http://test.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| Easier to hit close-up http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25993 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | ElfLover [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Easier to hit close-up |
I was thinking, in the rules it is just as easy to hit a target whether it be 42 centimetres away or 4 centimetres away. My proposal is that if a targeted model is within 14 centimetres (6 inches) of the archer firing at it there should be a +1 to hit. I would love to hear your thoughts  Thanks
|
|
| Author: | Tezzy [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
I think that would make sense and be rather fair. It would restore throwing weapons to their previous status and then also give archers the option between running away and kiting at -1 to shoot, standing still at firing at close range at +1, or even possibly running towards the enemy but not charging, to get no penalty. |
|
| Author: | Finrod [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
ElfLover wrote: I was thinking, in the rules it is just as easy to hit a target whether it be 42 centimetres away or 4 centimetres away. My proposal is that if a targeted model is within 14 centimetres (6 inches) of the archer firing at it there should be a +1 to hit. I would love to hear your thoughts Thanks I've already done quite the same, it is something sensible. |
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
Would it apply to throwing weapons? I wouldn't think so, except maybe at 1-2 inches, eg: on the charge. Otherwise I agree, I think bows need this. |
|
| Author: | Hashut's Blessing [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
Rather than a set limit of 6", why not have it be something like 1/4 of the range (E.g. all bows 6", throwing spears 2", throwing weapons 1.5" [maybe rounded up to 2"] and so on). |
|
| Author: | Oldman Willow [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
Quote: I think bows need this They do but. +/- is not the way to do it . The in the way test is a much better way of handling shooting than +/- The -1 for movement needs to go too. Silly/inane example to Illustrate point follows. Elves always get +1 Large targets are +1 unless they are in my army. Targets in close range should get a +1 unless the target is in charge range then it should be-1 except on Tuesday or if the target is painted red. Targets in my army are always -1 unless they are painted red. Red targets are easy to see they are +1 expect in charge range then they are -2 unless it is dark. A large red troll in my army is the target of an elf. He is in close range it is dark. Roll then add +1 because the shooter is an elf +1 for short range +1 for large target -1 the target is in my army -2 red unit in charge range -1 it is dark +1 elves can see in the dark _________________________ = 0 See that was easy unless it is Tuesday or you are going to throw hammerers verse axes. On Tuesday you left your bow on the bus unless you take the train. If you drive you can get the bow out of the trunk and use it unless it is raining.  Do you remember Starfleet battles? Hundreds of pages of exceptions were added to a pocket game. It became unplayable. Look what GW has done to WH40K. Some one at GW does not think shooting is fun. I don't agree. |
|
| Author: | JamesR [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
I guess the biggest reasons I'm ok w bows as is is that shoot value is an avg really. You're basically ignoring varying winds, opponents movements etc. And I'm sure anyone with any sort of military experience could confirm its much harder to hit an onrushing target from close range than the same target 15 meters out, simply due to adrenaline and the fact you have less time to aim etc. If I were to add this +1 I'd add (for all ranged weapons that are not throwing weapons), I'd have all archers take a courage test or suffer a -2 for enemies within 8" |
|
| Author: | Oldman Willow [ Sun Jun 02, 2013 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Easier to hit close-up |
Quote: And I'm sure anyone with any sort of military experience could confirm its much harder to hit an onrushing target from close range than the same target 15 meters out, simply due to adrenaline and the fact you have less time to aim etc. Yes, I will confirm that. Compound it with pistols. That is why my large bore revolver is loaded with 000 buckshot. Quote: If I were to add this +1 I'd add (for all ranged weapons that are not throwing weapons), I'd have all archers take a courage test or suffer a -2 for enemies within 8" I agree with you in principle. I would also argue that you can run 30 yards before you can ready a weapon of any kind. So if you can not shoot because you failed the test you could not fight in hand to hand at all because you are running away. Legends of the old west has a courage test when you are hit and not wounded as well. examples from history are muskets supported with pikes or later equipped with bayonets Would take courage +0 *Colonial militia with rifles and no bayonets would test courage at a big minus. * In Legends of the High Seas muskets are improvised weapons in hand to hand. If they are equipped with bayonets the count as spears. They are better hand to hand weapons than shooting weapons. The rifles are improvised weapons. They are not military weapons so they will likely break in hand to hand leaving the militia unarmed. It is already to hard to hit in the game. I am still going to argue against the +1 -1 except when standing on one foot approach to the rules mechanism. Think of hard to hit as a mechanism that allows you not to keep track of arrows.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|