mattbird:
Actually, firing in multiple ranks would be a really simple way to do it. 18", Strength 4, armour piercing, X ranks can fire (adjust X to taste - I'd make it three).we tried this out last night with 12" range, fire in 3 ranks, and it was way too good...
Thommy H
Thommy H:
Yeah, Strength 3 is the way to go. Baggronor and I discussed it a little in the thread for my rules.
Alric:
Yeah, Strength 3 is the way to go. Baggronor and I discussed it a little in the thread for my rules.No way, considering Dwarf Thunderer's are - str 4 w/AP , with + 1 to hit, 24 " range. Making blunderbusses str 3 would be a killer nerf, would better to just use the current rules in RH with their str 4 and 5, 12" range.
Thommy H
Thommy H:
It’s not a nerf if they fire in multiple ranks, which is what’s being discussed. At Strength 4, three ranks being able to fire would be incredibly powerful. They need to be Strength 3 which is neither a nerf nor a buff because the rules are totally different.
Alric:
It's not a nerf if they fire in multiple ranks, which is what's being discussed. At Strength 4, three ranks being able to fire would be incredibly powerful. They need to be Strength 3 which is neither a nerf nor a buff because the rules are totally different.Eh ? I don't think so, unless with the "new rules" they shoot twice or more per turn or all auto hit ?
Thommy H
Thommy H:
Yes, but they’re a lot more effective if they cover less models. The current rules mean that they do one shot per enemy model in the fire zone so, yes, when comparing a shot against 20 models, a unit of 15 blunderbusses with the new rules would be less effective, but compare a shot against, say, 5 models. They’re three times as powerful in that situation.
Blunderbusses that fire in multiple ranks are more reliable than blunderbusses that use a fire zone. That makes them easier to balance and a lot easier to explain and use. But they have to be Strength 3 - Strength 4 is too powerful.
Alric:
And the problem with this is no one would want to use them that way. Why would any good player want to chase 5 or 10 man units worth nada victory points with a S3 weapon ? I wouldnt. Blunderbusses are there to counter large core units of 20 or more, it completely changes why blunderbuses were created for the chaos dwarf army , they’d be just a bad handgun then.
Grimstonefire:
Why should blunderbussers be able to fire in three ranks though?? Two ranks would be more balanced, though most races can’t even manage that.
Thommy H:
That’s a highly specific purpose - I don’t think the ability to kill 20 models is the defining feature of blunderbusses at all. I’ve always felt that their strength is the weight of fire they can bring (which multiple ranks shooting provides) and the fact that they’re most powerful when deployed in a deep formation instead of a long line of models. That way they can blast an approaching enemy and then actually take a charge too.
But obviously your mileage may vary. Ultimately, what we’re talking about is changing the rules here. Not everything about the old rules can be preserved, or there’s no point having the discussion.
Why should blunderbussers be able to fire in three ranks though?? Two ranks would be more balanced, though most races can’t even manage that.Because they already do: why do you think they get a Strength bonus for a third rank under the current rules?
Alric:
I thought it was obvious to anyone that ever played chaos dwarfs more than a few times that 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.
Thommy H:
I don’t see how the ability to fire in multiple ranks doesn’t meet that criteria too.
Alric:
I don't see how the ability to fire in multiple ranks doesn't meet that criteria too.? seriously?
Thommy H
It's not a nerf if they fire in multiple ranks, which is what's being discussed. At Strength 4, three ranks being able to fire would be incredibly powerful. They need to be Strength 3 which is neither a nerf nor a buff because the rules are totally different.Eh ? I don't think so, unless with the "new rules" they shoot twice or more per turn or all auto hit ?
Thommy H
Thommy H:
Yes, but they’re a lot more effective if they cover less models. The current rules mean that they do one shot per enemy model in the fire zone so, yes, when comparing a shot against 20 models, a unit of 15 blunderbusses with the new rules would be less effective, but compare a shot against, say, 5 models. They’re three times as powerful in that situation.
Blunderbusses that fire in multiple ranks are more reliable than blunderbusses that use a fire zone. That makes them easier to balance and a lot easier to explain and use. But they have to be Strength 3 - Strength 4 is too powerful.
Alric:
As I already stated the problem with this is no one would want to use them that way. Why would any good player want to chase 5 man units worth zero victory points with a S3 weapon ? I wouldnt. Blunderbusses are there to counter large core units of 20 or more, it completely changes why blunderbuses were created for the chaos dwarf army , they’d be just a bad handgun then.
I thought it was obvious to anyone that ever played chaos dwarfs more than a few times that 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.
Thommy H:
That’s a highly specific purpose - I don’t think the ability to kill 20 models is the defining feature of blunderbusses at all. I’ve always felt that their strength is the weight of fire they can bring (which multiple ranks shooting provides) and the fact that they’re most powerful when deployed in a deep formation instead of a long line of models. That way they can blast an approaching enemy and then actually take a charge too.
But obviously your mileage may vary. Ultimately, what we’re talking about is changing the rules here. Not everything about the old rules can be preserved, or there’s no point having the discussion.
Alric:
Ya and I have already said why you need them as they are in RH do you have any point to this repeating the same thing ?
I thought it was obvious that 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.
Thommy H:
Yeah, why are you participating in a discussion about different blunderbuss rules if you think they’re fine the way they are? We’re talking about new rules: by definition, they will not preserve every detail of the old rules, or they would just be the old rules. I’m of the opinion that firing in three ranks is an elegant way of preserving the core abilities of the blunderbuss - its weaker in some ways (against big units), but stronger in others (against small units and single models - like large targets), but retains the characteristic “deep formation firing” of the original rules.
If you don’t agree then that’s fine, but there’s very little point in shooting down other people’s suggestions on the basis that they aren’t the same as the original rules. Of course they aren’t the same: that’s what this thread is about.
Alric:
First from reading the post here some people dont have a good grasp on how blunderbusses work, if people are thinking of changing something they need a good understanding of it first. For the discussion its not that they arent the same rules, its that it redifines the weapon and the unit. Your suggestion of S3 defies the purpose of the weapon because of the low strength, theres nothing blunderbuss like about a S3 gun, thats called a pistol. Also the fire in ranks does not mimic the original fire zone, and the fire zone is another important characteristic of the blunderbuss, shooting in ranks is more like a longer range musket rifle.
Now if you say you are dropping blunderbusses and adopting a short range weaker musket like pistol/gun instead I would understand, a different weapon with a different strength and shooting rules, etc.
But a blunderbuss can’t be redone as a low strength fire in ranks of 2 or 3 weapon it becomes a different weapon then, chaos dwarfs with pistols or muskets.
Thommy H:
In fairness, a blunderbuss’s basic Strength is already 3. It’s just that most people field them in few ranks, so it tends to average out at 4.
The blunderbuss has a number of characteristics - when you change the rules, some of them will alter too. My suggestion preserves the characteristics that I think define it. You prefer certain other characteristics. It’s just a difference of opinion. Something has to be altered, which is the purpose of this thread, and obviously you think that my alterations are not good ones. We can keep going around in circles (literally, like just now…) or just agree to disagree.
Alric:
Yes S3 with one rank, as stated most people field in ranks to up the str to S5, which is why the rules for that is provided. As ‘fire in ranks’ S3 then there is no option to increase str and so all the attacks remain S3. Now regardless of how you set up the shooting and formation rules for them I think it’s wrong to ignore the original purpose and function of the blunderbuss, which was a high str short range weapon.
And the calculation for comparison I posted above show the gap between the 2, in targets hit and wounds done, with the original rules being better by almost 100%, wounding almost twice as many.
Your suggestions would mean lower hits and a lower ability to wound which would take a good unit away from the chaos dwarf army, changing it into a much weaker unit. As for this discussion I think if you are going to change the unit for merely the purpose of re-writing a rule that some people don’t understand or because they don’t have access to the original rules you need to preserve the effectiveness of the weapon and the unit, if you can’t do that then you shouldn’t change the rule.