V3 Annihilator comments here!

Moderators: KevinC, mattbird

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby Alric » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:49 pm

mattbird wrote:well, I'd love to come to a consensus as to what the rules for them are, before we release V4...

so I'd say try the rules in V3, and also try these:

Blunderbuss
12" range
str4
armor piercing
may move and fire
always hits on 4+ with no modifiers
fires in 3 ranks

don't worry about point cost yet (assume they are 12 or 13 pts) just try to figure out which version of the blunderbuss rules you and you opponents like best.


Close maybe
Last edited by Alric on Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alric
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:32 am

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby mattbird » Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:00 am

I tried these out last night, and the above rules were way too good. Some suggestions came from the group at the bar:

either-

make them str3 AP

or

fires in 2 ranks, not 3

or

can only fire in multiple ranks if they do not move.

This unit is turning out to be THE major challenge to figure out, so please try out whichever rules you like or anything else you think may work.

They need to be tried out, though, and not just theory-hammered. thanks

:ugeek:
jer732 wrote:Birdoff makes me want to rage quit life
mattbird
 
Posts: 5595
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby Larro » Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:19 am

Can't we just stick to the 12" death-box? All you're doing with those proposed changes is taking away the teeth from the Blunderbuss. Nobody needs massed S3 AP 12" death. They need something worth 180+ pts. per unit. Keep the death-box, and just make it so you can't hit multiple units or friendly units. The end.

- Larry
"Just being born means you've lost to Larro. Or haven't you gotten the memo yet?" - Nidal

"Larry was right. I know he never gets tired of hearing that." - Canterman
User avatar
Larro
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:52 pm

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby Alric » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:02 am

mattbird wrote:they need to be tried out, though, and not just theory-hammered. thanks


Actually since we are starting all over a bit of number crunching would help to give a base point to start at.

Example:

A chaos dwarf unit of 15 blunderbusses 3 ranks, and 2 different enemy units of 20 one T3 another T4. So just shooting at 1 enemy unit....

With the current RH (Ravening Hordes) rules 15 CD's could cover all 20 of the enemy unit.
On avg. 10 would take a S5 hit, the T3 would take 8 wounds, the T4 would take 7 wounds.

With the new 'f'ire in 3 ranks' S4 attacks, and all 15 can shoot.
On avg. 8 would take a S4 hit, the T3 would take 5 wounds, the T4 would take 4 wounds.

So even with all 15 of the new 'fire in 3 ranks' being able to shoot, they still do about 40% less wounds than the current Ravening Hordes rules for blunderbusses.

If we drop the enemy unit to 10 so it less models than the chaos dwarf unit of 15.
The current RH chaos dwarfs would wound 4 T3 or 3 T4, the 'fire in ranks' would wound 5 T3 or 4 T4.

If you change the enemy unit to a unit of 5 large multi wound creatures with 4 wounds each and T4 or T5.
The current RH rules chaos dwarfs will get 3 hits for 2 wounds vs. T4, or 2 wounds vs. T5. The new 'fire in ranks' will get 8 hits for 4 wounds vs. T4 , 3 wounds vs. T5

Against most units the current RH chaos dwarf blunderbuss units are better than the proposed new 'fire in 3 ranks' units. The current RH blunderbuss can do a lot of damage on large blocks of regular soldiers, which makes blunderbusses well suited to face large blocks of core unit types. The 'fire in ranks' units are ultimately limited by their number and require larger units to do as well as the current RH chaos dwarf blunderbusses. In combat vs. smaller units the 'fire in ranks' can do as well or a little better, but that's an inefficient way to use blunderbusses.

mattbird wrote:and the above rules were way too good,

compared to ... what ?

I just showed the current RH rules for them are better than the new 'fire in 3 ranks' rules. The current RH rules has the ability to hit more enemies in a unit , has a higher str of S5 so will wound more. The only case the new 'fire in 3 ranks' would do as well or better is when against smaller cheaper less value enemy units which is a waste.

Also remember already there is shooting in 2 ranks when elevated, so there's already a 24" range fire in 2 ranks. Dwarf thunderers have 24" range str 4 ap, move or fire , and +1 to hit , on a hill shooting in 2 ranks, gives a unit of 20 dwarfs 20 shots at 24" range, str 4 -2 save.

Reducing the str would sux , as you would greatly reduce the ability to wound at all. Reducing to fire in 2 ranks would be a nerf, plus the weapons wont wound since they wont have the str 5 they have now, so together it's a big nerf.

The idea of "Fire in 3 Ranks" doesnt make the blunderbusses more effective, they are actaully less effective in those cases where you want to use them which is against large blocks of core enemy troops.

I agree with Larry don't change them, use the summary in the original chaos dwarf book (on page 10, column 2, last paragraph), they're no more complex than some of the other weapons in warhammer and they have been around for over a decade so players should know them by now, especially chaos dwarf players.
Alric
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:32 am

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby elrodogg » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:51 am

Alric - In RH there are some units which blunderbusses do great against (ranked infantry and lightly armed skrimishers), and there are some that they do horrible against like Ogres and Heavy Cav. The current rules at S4 with AP means that you're killing a full ogre and then some, while in RH you "might" do a wound. Applied to Heavy Cav (usually T3), you're talking about doing 5 wounds, which means 2-3 dead knights. So, while you are correct in that they aren't as uber deadly against ranked infantry, they do far better than they used to against things they previously had problems dealing with. The unit shouldn't be great at killing everything.
Fast, like kittens with jetpacks.
User avatar
elrodogg
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby Alric » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:10 am

The blunderbusses shouldnt be thought of as a missile archer like unit, they should be thought of as a melee unit that can do 1 or 2 vollyes of gun fire right before entering hand to hand combat.

Blunderbuss units are there to counter large core units of 20 or more enemy models. You field them in ranks of 3 or more 4, 5 or 6 across and use them to counter your opponents large core units. Their devastating volley may be only used twice before melee, but blunderbusses arent stand off and fire missile units like archers, they are melee units with the ability to soften their enemy up with a round or 2 of shots before melee.

They dont do as well against low number high wound units , like in the example I provided above with the 5 man 4 wounds per each unit, but if you read that part of my post you will see the new 'fire in ranks' only do a little better. Compare that difference to the example with the core unit type situation and the RH rules are almost twice as effective. With the new S4 w/ AP you do 1 or 2 more wounds to an ogre and only half as many wounds to every other T3 or T4 core unit which is 4 wounds instead of the 8 wounds you would get with RH rules.
Alric
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:32 am

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby Larro » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:13 pm

Ronen, I agree that it shouldn't be great at killing everything. So, again, leave the death-box, have them be anti-infantry specialists, and call it a day. The list will have to rely on HTH and possibly Magic to deal with multiple Knight/Ogre/Minotaur units, like it always has, and that'll be the inherent weakness in the book - like always.

I fail to see why we couldn't just leave well enough alone. I haven't met anyone who had real trouble understanding the death box, and if they do, they shouldn't be playing a complicated game like WHFB to begin with - you know, with clipping/sliding, drawn-in combats, a billion FAQs, casting into combat (and then not casting into combat?), Skaven leading from the rear and shooting into HTH, etc. This is not checkers. This is a game with rules that are occassionally complex, and the death-box is the least of my worries.

Seriously - try explaining the movement phase to half the people on the tourney scene who overmeasure/wheel incorrectly/move models before their opponents make a reaction.

- Larry
"Just being born means you've lost to Larro. Or haven't you gotten the memo yet?" - Nidal

"Larry was right. I know he never gets tired of hearing that." - Canterman
User avatar
Larro
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:52 pm

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby mattbird » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:21 pm

Alric wrote:The blunderbusses shouldnt be thought of as a missile archer like unit, they should be thought of as a melee unit that can do 1 or 2 vollyes of gun fire right before entering hand to hand combat.


This is an excellent point to keep in mind when comparing them to other missile troops in other armies. It cannot be a straight-up comparison. Annihilators/blunderbusses get the benefit of ranks while still being able to fire with all troops, whereas handgunners, etc. do not.

I'm not saying that in defense of any version of the rules we are considering, just something to keep in mind in terms of what the unit really is.
jer732 wrote:Birdoff makes me want to rage quit life
mattbird
 
Posts: 5595
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby Larro » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:27 pm

Birdoff and Kevin - What is the basis for eliminating the death-box, and not going with the original modified "pick a unit with 12", all models within 12" are hit" ruling that was a clearer explanation of the original RH rules and solved the issues of multiple hits and hitting friendly units, but kept the RH rules intact?

I'm just wondering why we're on version 3 of this unit, and it's changed drastically each time, with no clear indication from you guys what the problems seem to be. 12" range, move and fire, always hit on a 4+, S3 +1 for each rank up to S5, pick a unit within 12", blast away, hitting only 1 unit, no other enemy units or friendly units. Is your concern that this is really too complex?

- Larry
"Just being born means you've lost to Larro. Or haven't you gotten the memo yet?" - Nidal

"Larry was right. I know he never gets tired of hearing that." - Canterman
User avatar
Larro
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:52 pm

Re: V3 Annihilator comments here!

Postby mattbird » Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:07 pm

the 12" box was a pain to work out, on account of partial hits which made you roll a 4+ to see if you are in the template, then another 4+ to see if hit. Taken across multiple models and units, it was annoying to work out. Then you had to figure out which models were in range of all 3 blunderbuss ranks, or just 2, or just one, to determine strength.

It was doable, but was time consuming.

Then there are the non-CD players who thought it was too powerful.

Then there were the CD players who thought it was not good enough against ogres and single models.

The door is still open to just go back to the RH rules, we were just trying to see if there's a better solution. The current rules with shooting in 3 ranks seem better than the old firebox to me, with MSU armies being all the rage. The other downside with the fire in 3 ranks thing is that it really makes Eruption Guns redundant.
jer732 wrote:Birdoff makes me want to rage quit life
mattbird
 
Posts: 5595
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Core

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron