Making area attacks better

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

  • Making area attacks better

    Firstly i like area attacks rather than templates - they are simpler, quicker and arguably fairer (no barbarians getting a boost because of their larger base size)

    However i miss a bit of the fun of the scatter, i think they could be a bit more explicit and customable.

    The scatter. If an area attack missses, centre the 3" template over the centre of the targeted units foootprint then reposition according to the results of the scatter and artlliery dice. any unit touched by the template suffers d3 s3 hits.

    As for area attack, rather than area attack (4), i think it would be better to present it as area attack (4x4) and also list strength, ap, and multiple wounds - this would allow more flexibility in an area attack eg

    Trebuchet: area attack (4x4) strength (8/4), AP (1), multiple wounds (d3/1)

    Mortar: area attack (5x5), strength (6/2), AP (1), multiple wounds (2)
  • Agree with the above, area attacks are better than templates, period.

    However, I personally would like to add a layer of randomness.. Im a casual player, and part of the fun for me is getting a really good hit, every now and then, being with magic or catapults. In that sense, I miss the template and direction dice (oooohh exciting, where is it going to hit? ) The more the games becomes "chess-like", the more it loses some of its magic for me.

    I guess it would also be possible to make the area attack e.g. Area attack (d3 + 2). Then you might get lucky, and might not be. A bit more dicey, a bit less predictable, a bit more "realistic" (a catapult will hit at different angles and with different stones, wouldnt always hit in the same way! )

    Or even Area attack (d6) for the truly random ones..

    Just my two cents :)
  • I think units consisting of models with a smaller base size are getting an unfair advantage now...
    Things that do an area attack hit as many models no matter what base size they have and that's just not right!
    I'm not going to talk about the points per model this time but about the base size itself. Larger base sizes like demons and wotdg have, they come with a disadvantage allready in this form: unit footprint. Yep, that's a disadvantage!

    A larger unit footprint gives one reduced manoeuvrability. A rank of 5 small bases can squeeze trough smaller gaps and turn easier (needs less inches to wheel) than a rank of 5 larger bases.

    Another thing to consider: the smaller the base size, the more models can hit something. Let's say there's combat with something that has 100mm in base contact. Small bases give you 7 models max that can hit that thing while larger bases only give you 6 max.

    So if anything, stuff that does area attacks should hit less models when they're on larger bases because it's only normal. A rock that falls from the sky or whatever has a certain footprint, same goes for a flamethrower that attacks an area and so on. Larger bases will mean less get hit in this case!

    Every base size should have both advantages and disadvantages. As it is now, larger bases only have disadvantages!

    How to fix it?

    One way is to bring back templates, this would also bring back some stuff like flamethrowers doing more hits when directed at a wide unit's flank etc. (the first that came to my mind as i dearly miss that, hehehe)

    Another way is to keep it as is but giving some modifiers for base sizes. 25mm: normal, 20mm: +1 model per rank and +1 rank, monstrous infantry: -1 model per rank and -1 rank.

    Base sizes could also be changed to: everything on the same damned base sizes so there's no more whining about unfair (dis)advantages for base sizes.

    That's my take on base sizes vs area attacks ;)
    Smashing skulls since 99
  • I agree that area attacks might be more attractive in terms of reliability, but templates were much, much cooler. Instead of some invisible death spewing out from the other side of the table, you lay down a template to see what it touches. And template attacks are indeed worse for armies with bigger bases, but they shouldn't be. It's like as if against elves, the rock debris touches everything in a 5 meter radius, and against warriors, it's an 8 Meter radius all of a sudden.
    Plus, the scatter die was closer to realism on the board. If the shot misses, where does it go instead? A giant boulder doesn't simply vanish.

    I put forward the notion to go back to scatter templates instead of area attacks for warmachines. At the very least, bigger base sizes should get some more protection against area attacks by reducing the number of wounds generated.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • I think we all agree that templates were cooler and closer to realism? Problem is, you end with a lot of discussion and amgiguity on how many are hit, etc.
    Is there a way to make area attacks that account for the difference in base size in a straightforward way? like:
    Area attack (100mm) : This would be area attack(5) for 20mm bases, (4) for 25mm bases and (3) for 40mm bases. would this work?
  • I'de like to see scattering return, templates can stay gone since they create too many arguments.

    So you'd shoot at an enemy unit like this
    1. Pick a target enemy unit
    2. Roll to hit, applying any modifiers (long range, cover, whatever)
    3. If you hit centre the hit on the centre of the target unit (even if it isn't visible or is out of range)
    4. Scatter 2D6" - the shooting units Ballistic Skill to a minimum of 0"
    5. Apply the normal Area attack (X) hit to the unit under the scattered point
    It's still fairly abstract in that a missed shot lands on nobody when realistically it wouldn't necessarily miss everyone and you do a set amount of damage whether you hit the centre of a unit or the edge of it, but it's simpler and more intuitive than the current rules without requiring players to need to make their own templates.
  • I also liked templates.... I didn't like the arguing..... There was NEVER agreement.

    Shooting player said 10 other play says 8... Always...

    If there is a way to clear cut show how many models got hit I am in favour of templates... Best thing was shooting at many enemies and don't care which you hit :) or shotgun between 2 different units and hit them both

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin


  • Interesting post. I think that area attacks should be relevant to the area footprint.
    I mean they are...area attacks right?
    Can you miss throwing a rock to a shamble of thousands of slow moving zombies?
    I'd personally

    -Include positive modifiers for footprint. Area of X square cm--> +1 to hit, area of 2x + 2 etc.
    - Include negative modifiers regarding previous action. Unit marched, -1 to hit.
    - A "1" is always a misfire.

    So, in real life a 60 strong goblin unit that didn't march is hit on a 3+ (wanna volley fire vs catapults? Good luck)

    PS. I've played many battles vs the zombie horde with the Von Carstein tower with hard target bubble in the middle. Really. How can anyone miss?
    Coolest misfit ever
  • I think that the idea of if you hit, then fine, but if you don't, you scatter that point in the centre of the unit 2d6 in a random direction and if you hit another unit you resolve against that, is a good one.

    I also dont see a problem with targeting a piece of ground. If you hit, then well done youve hir some earth, but if you miss, you scatter, potentially 12 further away and hit a target that was previously out of range - now thats tactics and the sort of cunning that is remembered from battles years previously
  • Vulgarsty wrote:

    I think that the idea of if you hit, then fine, but if you don't, you scatter that point in the centre of the unit 2d6 in a random direction and if you hit another unit you resolve against that, is a good one.
    ...that's not what I'm proposing.
    You roll to hit, then if that hits you scatter.
    If you roll a miss, the shot missed and there is no scatter.

    You'de need a points increase if there was no roll to hit and you just pick a point and scatter from there.
    You'de need a bigger points increase if there was a roll to hit, but you only scattered on the miss.

    Vulgarsty wrote:

    I also dont see a problem with targeting a piece of ground. If you hit, then well done youve hir some earth, but if you miss, you scatter, potentially 12 further away and hit a target that was previously out of range - now thats tactics and the sort of cunning that is remembered from battles years previously
    It's less abusive if you do it my way where you only get a scatter if you roll a HIT, not when you MISS.
    Since that makes it a lot harder to shoot at things you can't target, but not impossible.
  • I'm just wondering what kind of people you played with where you regularly had arguments. As far as I remember, 90% of catapult shots went like this. "Okay, shooting this at the center of your warriors, can you hold the template? Three inches left, thanks. Okay, I ccan't see, how many hits is that? Five? Great, three wounded."

    Also, scattering was fun and I miss it. Especially occasionally hitting your own stuff.
    we are small but we are many
    we are many we are small
    we were here before you rose
    we will be here when you fall

    we have eyes and we have nerveses
    We have tails we have teeth
    You will get what you deserveses
    When we rise from underneath
  • Why not this for catapults?:

    -Choose a spot where you aim at.
    -Scatter 2d6 - BS, a natural roll of 11-12 is a misfire.
    -Every unit within X inch suffers d6 hits at the catapult's strength. If only one unit is hit, roll a d6 and on a 4+ that unit suffers X times d6 hits instead with one of those hits at double the catapults (throwing) strength.

    I imigine that X being 3 for most catapults, 4 for a select few?
    Smashing skulls since 99
  • Klexe wrote:

    I also liked templates.... I didn't like the arguing..... There was NEVER agreement.

    Shooting player said 10 other play says 8... Always...

    If there is a way to clear cut show how many models got hit I am in favour of templates... Best thing was shooting at many enemies and don't care which you hit :) or shotgun between 2 different units and hit them both
    I also liked the templates, never argued. There where always agreement.