Pinned UD 2.0 Discussion Thread

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Herminard wrote:

    Why is it making big gribblies harder to kill that a unit that could shoot it with regular bow fire now gets access to another mode of fire. I dont get the premises of that argument.
    Unless the area attacks causes equal or less hits than normal shooting (in which case it would be pretty much meaningless), an area attack rule will make the archers achieve a higher amount of hits againg 150x100 unit than against a 150x100 monster, which is counterintuitive for multiple small individual attacks.
  • Herminard wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Forget realism then: what strategic gain is realized by making big gribblies more resistant to missile fire?

    Making it harder to shoot down the things it is hardest to handle in melee seems terrible.
    Why would it be making big gribblies harder to kill if a unit that could shoot it with regular bow fire would get access to another mode of fire. I dont get the premises of that argument.

    Currently you can volley fire an R5 Giant just as effectively as an R5 unit of Terracotta Guard.

    Your proposed change means that you would remain able to effectively volley fire the Terracotta Guard, but not the Giant (as he would only get hit once by the Area Attack).

    This is because the Area Attack rules are really bad and should be avoided as much as possible.

    Background Team

  • Folomo wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Your proposed change means that you would remain able to effectively volley fire the Terracotta Guard, but not the Giant (as he would only get hit once by the Area Attack).
    His proposal assumes you have to option of normal shooting OR area effect. Not instead.

    Not how I read it, but sure. Critique still completely applies.

    If there is ever any reason to use the Area Attack mode, it would be because it does more damage than the normal shooting would. This means doing more damage, specifically, to ranked units.

    What possible good is served by making ranked units more vulnerable to bowfire?

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Folomo wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Your proposed change means that you would remain able to effectively volley fire the Terracotta Guard, but not the Giant (as he would only get hit once by the Area Attack).
    His proposal assumes you have to option of normal shooting OR area effect. Not instead.
    Not how I read it, but sure. Critique still completely applies.

    If there is ever any reason to use the Area Attack mode, it would be because it does more damage than the normal shooting would. This means doing more damage, specifically, to ranked units.

    What possible good is served by making ranked units more vulnerable to bowfire?

    Pardon that I could not explain myself more clearly to you, but 2 different modes of fire is indeed what I meant.

    If you have any doubt of my sincerity regarding the sorry state of the rank and file combat regiments, let me allow myself to be clear:

    It needs a role defining fix. ASAP.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when they fall in malicious ways.
  • Folomo wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    Why is it making big gribblies harder to kill that a unit that could shoot it with regular bow fire now gets access to another mode of fire. I dont get the premises of that argument.
    Unless the area attacks causes equal or less hits than normal shooting (in which case it would be pretty much meaningless), an area attack rule will make the archers achieve a higher amount of hits againg 150x100 unit than against a 150x100 monster, which is counterintuitive for multiple small individual attacks.

    Pardon. I missed this.

    You are arguing along multiple lines in one sentence, so I need to break your sentence up.

    - An Area Attack can have equal or less hits than regular archer fire and still be meaningful.
    - An Area Attack does not have to be more potent against bricks than it is against monsters.

    Do you agree?

    I did not argue the Area Attack for Volley Fire from a balance perspective, I admit.

    I spoke of the nature of volley archery fire.

    When focused at a single point - it should be an area attack. It doesnt have to be as immensely potent as massed archery fire have been historically, but there is no need for T9A remove the area effect of mass converging bowfire.

    You concur @Taki?
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when they fall in malicious ways.
  • I disagree on that flavour argument as well. A volley of bowfire did not all hit or miss as a single entity.

    The Area Attack rules are good at modelling single large projectiles - a cannonball, a launched rock or a ballista bolt.

    A cannonball either hits or misses the target. Twenty arrows will have some hit and some miss.

    If you want I can see if we can get Area Attack renamed "Massive Projectile"?

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    I disagree on that flavour argument as well. A volley of bowfire did not all hit or miss as a single entity.

    The Area Attack rules are good at modelling single large projectiles - a cannonball, a launched rock or a ballista bolt.

    A cannonball either hits or misses the target. Twenty arrows will have some hit and some miss.

    If you want I can see if we can get Area Attack renamed "Massive Projectile"?

    I am speaking of the difference of a flat trajectory and a curved trajectory shot. Note; the same should apply to slingers et al.

    Edit: Ninjaed.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when they fall in malicious ways.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    What weapons do you consider to use a flat trajectory?

    Bows can use make use of a _more_ flat and a _more_ arched shot. In hunting for instance - where lethality is more important - the flat, closerange, shot is used. In warfare, the arched, less lethal - area fire was heavily applied.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when they fall in malicious ways.
  • Herminard wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    What weapons do you consider to use a flat trajectory?
    Bows can use make use of a _more_ flat and a _more_ arched shot. In hunting for instance - where lethality is more important - the flat, closerange, shot is used. In warfare, the arched, less lethal - area fire was heavily applied.

    That's nice.

    Why do you think the rules for that should work like the T9A Area Attack rules?

    Rules which, again, were designed for singular massive projectiles that do splash damage, not large quantities of smaller shots.

    Background Team

  • Half of it,

    the other half are clearly a big amount of small skulls set on fire with magic.
    These skulls could as well be arrows when falling down from the sky.


    I understand why Herminard would choose Area Attack as a way to solve the abysmal way Volley Fire works now.
    I'd also be happy with Volley Fire giving Soft Cover to the enemy.
    The rules for Volley Fire now are so weird.
    Pharaoh's Unite!

    ETC Team Belgium 2018 - Undying Dynasties
    ETC Team Belgium 2019 - Undying Dynasties
  • Herminard wrote:

    Folomo wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    Why is it making big gribblies harder to kill that a unit that could shoot it with regular bow fire now gets access to another mode of fire. I dont get the premises of that argument.
    Unless the area attacks causes equal or less hits than normal shooting (in which case it would be pretty much meaningless), an area attack rule will make the archers achieve a higher amount of hits againg 150x100 unit than against a 150x100 monster, which is counterintuitive for multiple small individual attacks.
    Pardon. I missed this.

    You are arguing along multiple lines in one sentence, so I need to break your sentence up.

    - An Area Attack can have equal or less hits than regular archer fire and still be meaningful.
    - An Area Attack does not have to be more potent against bricks than it is against monsters.

    Do you agree?

    I did not argue the Area Attack for Volley Fire from a balance perspective, I admit.

    I spoke of the nature of volley archery fire.

    When focused at a single point - it should be an area attack. It doesnt have to be as immensely potent as massed archery fire have been historically, but there is no need for T9A remove the area effect of mass converging bowfire.

    You concur @Taki?
    What exactly am I being asked here?

    Queen of Pants


    To plagiarize Cato the Elder "And further WYSIWYG must be destroyed"

    facebook.com/FirebrandProductions/
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    What weapons do you consider to use a flat trajectory?
    Bows can use make use of a _more_ flat and a _more_ arched shot. In hunting for instance - where lethality is more important - the flat, closerange, shot is used. In warfare, the arched, less lethal - area fire was heavily applied.
    That's nice.

    Why do you think the rules for that should work like the T9A Area Attack rules?

    Rules which, again, were designed for singular massive projectiles that do splash damage, not large quantities of smaller shots.

    That is not the same question as _if_ an archer volley fire has the effect of area fire.

    Umh... well.. it was causing fear and anger with those that it hit, but not necessarily a great deal of damage.

    Maybe... some set damage component pluss an effect like a discipline test? That could have negative modifiers perhaps. And could result in effects like may not march, become shaken or even an enraged mechanic for single entities that are not on foot.

    If it misses - it vanishes into the same time-space continuum as the lost mortar shots travel into. Maybe the area aim was poor - or a sudden gust of wind made the shots go off target to an extent where the effect was neutralized.

    Taki wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    Folomo wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    Why is it making big gribblies harder to kill that a unit that could shoot it with regular bow fire now gets access to another mode of fire. I dont get the premises of that argument.
    Unless the area attacks causes equal or less hits than normal shooting (in which case it would be pretty much meaningless), an area attack rule will make the archers achieve a higher amount of hits againg 150x100 unit than against a 150x100 monster, which is counterintuitive for multiple small individual attacks.
    Pardon. I missed this.
    You are arguing along multiple lines in one sentence, so I need to break your sentence up.

    - An Area Attack can have equal or less hits than regular archer fire and still be meaningful.
    - An Area Attack does not have to be more potent against bricks than it is against monsters.

    Do you agree?

    I did not argue the Area Attack for Volley Fire from a balance perspective, I admit.

    I spoke of the nature of volley archery fire.

    When focused at a single point - it should be an area attack. It doesnt have to be as immensely potent as massed archery fire have been historically, but there is no need for T9A remove the area effect of mass converging bowfire.

    You concur @Taki?
    What exactly am I being asked here?

    On the nature of the arched shot as a means to provide cover fire.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when they fall in malicious ways.
  • Herminard wrote:

    On the nature of the arched shot as a means to provide cover fire.
    You might be surprised but this is a bit of a complicated question.

    So, let me start by saying that context is King. And let me follow that by saying that each type of bow out there is very different in scope of design and use; as are all the accompanying arrowheads and shafts.

    In some cultures and times the bow was considered the be all and end all, and in others it was thought to be a mere hunting tool, with very limited military applications.

    Can the bow be used to attack directly? Yes. Can archers use arcing fire? Also Yes. The advantages of each is different, and they act differently depending on how they're used. Arcing fire grants more range, and can better get around shields, but lacks penetration, and is more likely to be deflected by armor. However, that's not all. Generals often used high arced arrows as a "terror weapon" to cause low disciplined troops to panic and or become disorganized. Viking archers (as well as other cultures) would fire into melee from behind friendly units, hoping to distract and get some lucky shots in. Some armies used them as area denial/control.

    However, the straight shot was how armor was penetrated, and how real damage was done to enemy units. Recent archaeological evidence shows that this is in fact how they were used in the various English campaigns in France, particularly Agincourt. Direct shot arrows have a much better chance at penetrating armor, and even failing that, can do significant tissue damage through maille armor, and kill horses. Shields are more effective against straight shots, but the arrows that get by the shields will be much more telling than arcing fire. Many horse archers favored this type of archery, as it allowed one to pick targets with much greater effect. It also allowed your skilled archers to do other shenanigans, as I recall being told of a time when Richard I used his English archers with broad hunting heads to attack Salah ad Din's baggage and destroy the water skins.

    Depending on the training of the archer and the design of the bow would depend on how effective one tactic would be over the other

    Queen of Pants


    To plagiarize Cato the Elder "And further WYSIWYG must be destroyed"

    facebook.com/FirebrandProductions/