Author Topic: Range vs. Height  (Read 6286 times)

Offline DogOWar

  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Karma: +35/-0
Range vs. Height
« on: October 09, 2006, 01:06:06 PM »
     Ok, this came up years back while playing 1st edition.   Say you have archers on a section of wall that is in the 1st height band ( 3 inches up) shooting down at a warband marching toward them.  Would not the fact that they are higher up add range(maximum) to there bow?  Now, I know that shooting up changes the range (p72 2nd edition), and would this just be the reverse for shooting down?  Our house rules were that you added 1/2 the height to your maximum range ( you do not adjust your close or medium range at all since modifiers are used for the difficulty hitting the target not the distance a weapon may travel).  Waht does everyone think?
Its not the dog in the fight, its the fight in the dog!

ebay "handle": irishdog143

Offline joshuaslater

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Homebase: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2006, 12:51:56 PM »
I like your take on it.  I'll get back to you with some more on this tomorrow.  The revised flying rules had something to say about height and range, and if they're not on this forum somewhere, they will be in the near future.  Cheers.
May the Dark Lords of Lead-Free Pewter smile kindly upon you.

Homebase: Philadelphia, PA

Offline Coil

  • Board Member- First Crusader
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Karma: +88/-1
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2006, 01:32:14 PM »
By the rules you add the inches even when shooting down.

As for the revised flying rules, I found them rather unneccessary.


Offline Southpaw

  • Board Member
  • The Board
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 515
  • Karma: +44/-0
  • I see lead people.
    • Topkick's Trading Post
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2006, 06:33:05 AM »
By the rules you add the inches even when shooting down.

As for the revised flying rules, I found them rather unneccessary.



I agree.
Webmaster/Manager
Topkick's Trading Post

The one truth of the Dark Lord is this: death is inevitable, flesh decays, and power commands...

From The Scrolls of the Dead
Negral Zar'akin

Offline joshuaslater

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Homebase: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2006, 10:47:26 AM »
The thing I liked about the revised flying rules was the die indicating how high the model is.  As for the rest, I don't say they are integral to the game.  People can get by with just the basics just fine. 

How 'bout this for a house rule. 
When shooting at elevated or flying models, add the inches up to the distance. 
When shooting from elevation at something lower, subtract the difference.

This would give elevated archers a good reason to take that higher ground, and not penalize them.  It would change balance, I'm sure, but not having tested it, it's only a hypothesis.  Why don't we try this in our games and report back? 
May the Dark Lords of Lead-Free Pewter smile kindly upon you.

Homebase: Philadelphia, PA

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2006, 11:13:30 AM »
Except for subtracting for higher models, that is how it works in UWZ.  The distance is measured, on the ground, then height is added - 1" per altitude level - and range is figured on the combined distance.  Hence, if a model is flying at altitude level 2, and attempting to shoot a target below it from 23.5" away, the combined distance is (23.5" +2" = 25.5") Long Range.  If the model's weapon gets a bonus or penalty, apply it for the combined range.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline joshuaslater

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Homebase: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2006, 12:03:52 PM »
Warzone is like Chronopia, except everyone's got an assault rifle!  This range idea of mine might be a disaster when considering arrows and crossbow bolts!  For the time being, simply adding the numbers seems to work.  I don't think Chronopia should be dominated by missiles--the real fun is in grisly close combat. 
May the Dark Lords of Lead-Free Pewter smile kindly upon you.

Homebase: Philadelphia, PA

Offline DogOWar

  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Karma: +35/-0
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2006, 02:25:41 PM »
     Ok, my problem with the way the rules read now is that you can actually shoot FARTHER(linear) while standing at 0 height band than at say 2nd height band.  What happened in my game(actually several times) was that some archers on a wall were firing at some militia(me) and I thought I had stopped out of range.  When we measured, I was 26.5 inches away, so by the rules my militia were out of range(when range is adjusted for height), but if the archers had been on the ground then they would have been (just) in range( 27 inches is MX for longbow).   Even though this worked out to my advantage, I thought it was just silly.  At this point we came up with the house rule to add 1.5" to MX per height band to redress this.  Once again this does not adjust range for figuring up the modifier "to hit" just the actual distance(linear) that a misssle can travel.  Maybe another easier way would be to just say that no matter the height you use the MX(linear) to determine how far out a missle could reach.  What does everyone think?  Anybody got a better suggestion(s). 

     I know alot of people have concerns on the "power" of missle troops, but with the second edition I think that that has been pretty well taken care of, IMO.  Higher mod. for range and the new "run" rule seriously reduce the "power"  of missle troops, and if you use a decent amount of terrain you can't affford to take to many missle troops anyway( I never use more than one and never come close to 40% of my force).
Its not the dog in the fight, its the fight in the dog!

ebay "handle": irishdog143

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2006, 06:53:57 PM »
     Ok, my problem with the way the rules read now is that you can actually shoot FARTHER(linear) while standing at 0 height band than at say 2nd height band.  What happened in my game(actually several times) was that some archers on a wall were firing at some militia(me) and I thought I had stopped out of range.  When we measured, I was 26.5 inches away, so by the rules my militia were out of range(when range is adjusted for height), but if the archers had been on the ground then they would have been (just) in range( 27 inches is MX for longbow).   Even though this worked out to my advantage, I thought it was just silly.  At this point we came up with the house rule to add 1.5" to MX per height band to redress this.  Once again this does not adjust range for figuring up the modifier "to hit" just the actual distance(linear) that a misssle can travel.  Maybe another easier way would be to just say that no matter the height you use the MX(linear) to determine how far out a missle could reach.  What does everyone think?  Anybody got a better suggestion(s). 

     I know alot of people have concerns on the "power" of missle troops, but with the second edition I think that that has been pretty well taken care of, IMO.  Higher mod. for range and the new "run" rule seriously reduce the "power"  of missle troops, and if you use a decent amount of terrain you can't affford to take to many missle troops anyway( I never use more than one and never come close to 40% of my force).

I am going to bow out of this discussion, as I feel that muscle-powered missiles should gain a height advantage.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline joshuaslater

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Homebase: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2006, 02:47:24 PM »
I think we'll try simply subtracting the distance up in inches from the range and see how that plays.  When more of us try this and chime in, we'll have some notes to compare.
May the Dark Lords of Lead-Free Pewter smile kindly upon you.

Homebase: Philadelphia, PA

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2006, 06:35:26 PM »
I don't think Chronopia should be dominated by missiles--the real fun is in grisly close combat. 

Nicely stated.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline wmeredith

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Karma: +47/-1
  • Ebay sig. 9390william.
Re: Range vs. Height
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2006, 08:51:22 PM »
Especially when that grizzly close combat happens to involve ALOT of pewter ;). I think we almost bent the table on one side that one time with the 5600 point bloodbrawl. WOOO!! ;D.

wmeredith.
Wise men say absolute power corrupts absolutely I am not a wise man.