Suggested missile changes

[ianhambly]

I have a suggestion to make missile fire more 'realistic' (resembling histroical effect):

A. Skull rolled in missile fire only counts as a wound.
B. Skull counts as 2 'S' for movement penalty.
C. If total 'S' equal double (or triple) width or more of charging UG, the unit is stopped at 1 BW away.

I believe that shooting phase should be moved to the charge phase.  This is to counter the charge path across archers outside of 1 BW.  Alternatively, altering the shooting allowed within 1BW of chargepath to normal range.

[lionheartrjc]

Ian, thanks for posting.

We have looked at a whole range of ideas for shooting (see other posts on this forum) and this whole topic is under review.  Shooting is undoubtedly the trickiest area of the rules to get right and even small changes can have unintended consequences.

I personally like the idea of A. and B.  It would need a lot of testing, but it might be something along those lines would appear in a future edition.

After having played a lot of MeG, I can see a few issues with moving all shooting into the charge phase. Increasing the shooting at chargers to more than 1BW from the charge path could seriously distort the balance of shooting.

Richard

[Manzikert]

We had a fairly long discussion on ranged weapons not too long ago and to bring up a point from that discussion, what are these changes meant to represent? It seems the effect it will have is to make skilled shooting (and shooting at poor/unarmored targets) significantly less deadly while giving skilled shooters a decent change of stopping a charge (about 53% (see edit)). The effect on experienced shootings seems pretty minimal, far less effective on poor/unarmored and a negligible chance to stop a charge (12.5% (see edit)).

I'm assuming the intention is to represent that shooting didn't actually cause many casualties? If that's the case I'd say that the wounds caused by shootings don't represent actual casualties, but rather the moral impact. Skilled shooting tends to be reserved for units that historically expected to win their battles with shooting. I'm worried this change would make Mongol type horse archers armies very underpowered.

Edit: I'd misread the suggestion as 'S' results equal to width, the actual suggestion is 2X or 3X width. The odds of a 3 wide unit of skilled shooters getting a 2X width result is about 2%. 3X is impossible and both are impossible for an experienced shooter.

[ianhambly]

Thank you for all the replies.  Options A, B & C were suggested to be taken as a whole.  Perhaps an amendment would be that for if the amount of skulls rolled in charge phase equal the width of the charger they are stopped at 1 BW, assuming they do not break.

[badhabum]

A. Skull rolled in missile fire only counts as a wound

After thinking about it I will admit great reluctance ( but it is to be tested as well ).

That's a modification that will have a huge impact

-What about shooting at unprotected guys ? unprotected will be better vs shooting so some fleet of foot units will benefit from lesser lethality when being shot at.  So should it also impact the cost of such a unit, the cost of being unprotected (game balance)
- What about the cost of "skilled" ? should it be adapted ?
- Impact on mounted shooty armies that aften rely on green dice to kill some enemies? 
- Impact on biblical armies some do rely heavily on skilled shooters
- Impact on PB vs mounted ?

I like the idea of skull being 2 hits for slowing down.

[martymagnificent]

I'm not sure I see a compelling reason for change, but....

If you were going to remove the double wound effect of skulls from shooting you could/should up the base shooting dice from white to green. ie normal shooting on a green, upgraded on a yellow.

Martin

[Manzikert]

The more I think about Marty's suggestion the more I like it. It makes shooting damage less spiky (no risk of 2 skulls on skilled shooters decimating a charge) but on the other hand shooting is much more likely to cause a worthwhile amount of damage (2 wounds) and to cause a slow. 3 'blunt' greens (skulls causing only 1 wound) would average a slow and have an 8/27ths chance at 2 slows. So anyone charging a shooter expects at least 1 slow with a reasonable chance at 2 (instead of a 50/50 chance at a slow and negligible chance at 2).

[Wizard of Oz]

Personally, I don't quite understand the need to make shooting even less effective than it already is. Very few armies and very few units have access to Green dice. The probability of doing significant damage does certainly exist but it is hardly game changing. It does bring a bit of fun in however, I have never seen three Skulls on Green (what, one chance in two hundred and sixteen or so, and at maybe two, tops three throws in a game, perhaps once in a hundred games if you are lucky), but it would live in the memory of both players and provide a bit of unbridled joy. It doesn't happen very often so why make it impossible?
A second reason is that slowing is not the be-all and end-all of all shooting. Maybe you want to erode their strength? Remember also, that a Skull is the only result that a General can't reverse, wounds and slows are subject to a General's intervention. If you ask me what are the chances of that? I'd say a bloody sight better than your chances of throwing a Skull, even on one die, in the course of the very few shots available during your normal game.
I know I might be jumping the gun here as no real argument has been provided to justify such a radical change, but I'd rather get my two bob's worth in early rather than rage against the moon of a done deal.
Regards,

[LawrenceG]

Personally, I don't quite understand the need to make shooting even less effective than it already is. Very few armies and very few units have access to Green dice. The probability of doing significant damage does certainly exist but it is hardly game changing. It does bring a bit of fun in however, I have never seen three Skulls on Green (what, one chance in two hundred and sixteen or so, and at maybe two, tops three throws in a game, perhaps once in a hundred games if you are lucky), but it would live in the memory of both players and provide a bit of unbridled joy. It doesn't happen very often so why make it impossible?
A second reason is that slowing is not the be-all and end-all of all shooting. Maybe you want to erode their strength? Remember also, that a Skull is the only result that a General can't reverse, wounds and slows are subject to a General's intervention. If you ask me what are the chances of that? I'd say a bloody sight better than your chances of throwing a Skull, even on one die, in the course of the very few shots available during your normal game.
I know I might be jumping the gun here as no real argument has been provided to justify such a radical change, but I'd rather get my two bob's worth in early rather than rage against the moon of a done deal.
Regards,

Bear in mind that if you stop the chargers before contact, you get another round of shooting, so in effect that doubles your lethality. (OK, it's not quite as simple as that ...)

FWIW I think shooter versus non-shooter is very difficult to balance because a small change in effectiveness can change the result from Isandlwana to Rourke's Drift (shooters break, non-shooters unharmed to shooters unharmed, non-shooters break). So any change will need a lot of testing.

[SteveO]

Well said Lawrence. This is a difficult issue because the effectiveness of shooting varied so widely during our enormous time period and widely differing geographic and cultural regions. I still tend to think that shooting is ok as is, especially for those armies with a reputation for effective shooting. In any case, we should be careful to thoroughly play test any proposed changes.

[Manzikert]

I still tend to think that shooting is ok as is, especially for those armies with a reputation for effective shooting.

I'm legitimately curious, what have you seen (foot) shooting do on the table that's lead you to this conclusion?

Because my experience with shooting is very different. For sake of brevity I won't go into too much depth. But assuming you can outmaneuver your opponent you can get some long range shots that do a negligible amount of damage, averaging a single wound that can usually be picked up with a green. When charged it can do a small amount of damage, but since shooters are almost always down charge claims the difference is usually made up for almost immediately. I very rarely see slowing do anything practical. In the event you do cause a slow when it would stop a charge your opponent again usually only need a green to push through and negate the effect. So the overall effect is pretty underwhelming.

So I really am legitimately curious, how are you seeing shooters used effectively?