House Rules: Shooting & Routing

[Hannibal]

Something a friend and I have been working on a lot lately is a suitable fix for how binary shooting is in the game.  Namely a person usually either builds the army around shooting (often a stand and shoot), or he leaves the shooting stuff in the box and instead uses the spare points to upgrade a melee unit or add more melee units (as a ~160 pt shooting unit is really only about 80-100 pts of actual shooting, with the rest of the points in dead things like Cge 12, a def 1/2, and/or a crappy melee stats).  However, almost any fix that favors shooting as part of a combined arms build will also favor stand and shoots, thus not changing the relative balance.  Only really tweaky fixes that feel wrong can address one and not the other.

Our solution was to take a step back at a more fundamental aspect of the game:  rout checks.  The idea is that what if failed rout checks from shooting don't cause a unit to rout.  The unit becomes pinned down by the fire and become disordered.  It is only when you fail a rout check when you are already disordered or when you are engaged with an enemy unit.

We drew from history in designing this, as in real life it was rare that archery alone routed an enemy.  Instead, shooting would pin the enemy down, demoralize them, and break their cohesion until they became little more than a mob.  That mob was then sent routing by a charge from designated mop-up units (usually cavalry).

With that in mind, we made the following changes to test out:

(the references are to changes in the 3.0 Rulebook)

1.0 Standing Orders
     1.1.5 Disrupted Order:  The unit does not move, and may not cast spells or make ranged attacks.  If the unit becomes engaged it will suffer a penalty when fighting.  A unit with this order may not be given any modifiers.  It costs an extra Command Action to Direct Control or change the Standing Order of a unit with the Disrupted order.

2.0 Courage Phases:
     2.1.1 Failed Rout Checks while Engaged:  If a unit fails a rout check while it is engaged with an enemy unit, erase its standing order.  (keep the rest of this text)
          2.1.2  Back Up Units:  (keep all text, just re-number)

     2.2 Failed Rout Checks while Unengaged:  If a unit fails a rout check and it is not engaged with an enemy unit, erase its standing order and replace it with the Disrupted Standing Order.  Leave the unit’s facing and do not move it any way.
          2.2.1 Failed Rout Checks while Disrupted:  If a unit fails a rout check and its Standing Order is Disrupted, then the unit Routs as per 2.1.1, regardless of whether it is engaged or not. 

     2.3 Failed Rout Checks while Routing:  If a unit that was already routing fails a rout check, it is immediately destroyed.


3.0 Combat Phase
3.0.1 Combat Phase Order:  The combat phase contains three individual steps, each described below. They are:
1)   Choose Defenders

2)   Cast Spells
   1.   Active Player casts spells
   2.   Spell Consequences

3)   Ranged Combat
   1.   Active Player makes ranged attacks
   2.   Ranged Combat Consequences

4)   Engaged Combat
   1.   Active player’s attacks
   2.   Non-Active player’s attacks
   3.   Engaged Combat Consequences

Note:  we have not fleshed this section out, but the 'Consequences' step means things like going from the Green->Yellow take effect at this point.  So dice penalties for being knocked into the Yellow take effect, but also things like Fury kick off if shooting knocks someone into the Yellow take effect.

3.2.3.1 General Combat Modifiers:
3.2.3.1.2 Disrupted:  A unit with the Disrupted Standing Order gets O:(-1)-1/-1 and -1Cge.

3.2.3.3 Ranged Combat Modifiers:
3.2.3.3.5 Engaged Target:  Remove this modifier.



This package of modifiers was playtested and the battle report will be posted soon.  For simplicity's sake, why don't we have the conversation in this thread?

[Kevin]

Interesting.

How does a unit shuck off the "disrupted" condition?

[Hannibal]

How does a unit shuck off the "disrupted" condition?

It's a Standing Order, so the owning player changes the order of the unit.  However: "It costs an extra Command Action to Direct Control or change the Standing Order of a unit with the Disrupted order."

So as far as CAs, getting a Disrupted unit back in the fight costs the exact same as a routing unit (1 CA to rally & 1 CA to change Hold to Close vs 2 CAs to change from disrupted to Close).  The difference is that Disrupted units won't run away and then have to sit still on the turn they rally, so there's not that two turns' worth of movement-gap.

[BubblePig]

I like the direction you are going with this. Especially if it can be done in a way which would not require shifting the point cost of ranged units.

[elgin_j]

Is this not an awfully convoluted means to achieve a simple end?  I've always been inclined to think that the way of creating a combined arms effect is to provide combat units a bonus when supported by archery.  I have no idea how to achieve that but I can't help but think that adding new status/phases is not the way to go about it.

Just some thoughts.

[gull2112]

I'm lukewarm to this, but I do think that if a Disrupted unit is engaged it should rout automatically. This is a step up from it being eliminated if it were routing when engaged, but much cleaner than having it still receive charges and fight after failing a rout check.

[Hannibal]

Is this not an awfully convoluted means to achieve a simple end?

Well that's a matter of opinion.     Obviously I don't think its that convoluted, but then again I designed it so I'd better have a pretty clear understanding of how it works!     I think its a radical departure from the status quo, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.

I think having a clear-cut order of "this unit who's internal cohesion has completely broken down" is no more convoluted than how the Hold order on a unit that has just rallied (i.e. "It's Hold except it's a special Hold for this turn because the unit can't do anything"). 

To me it seems simple:  if you're engaged, you rout.  If you're unengaged, you're Disrupted.  Then you look up Disrupted to see the effects.  But again, I wrote it.   

I've always been inclined to think that the way of creating a combined arms effect is to provide combat units a bonus when supported by archery.  I have no idea how to achieve that but I can't help but think that adding new status/phases is not the way to go about it.

Yeah, neither do we and we've been kicking around ideas for almost 3 months now.

We originally started in the same place as you:  give a bonus only to the build that is perceived as weak, i.e. combined arms.  However this runs into two problems.

First, any bonus you give a combined arms ranged unit will almost certainly also benefit a stand and shoot.  We worked with bonus as short range, bonuses while archers are backing up enagged unit, etc, but all of those would benefit stand and shoot as well.  So the relative power stayed the same:  stand and shoot was better than combined arms shooting.  So any bump to combined arms would really just be making stand and shoot stronger vis a vie close & hose, which was not the intent.

Second, when you come down to it, there is no such thing as Stand & Shoot or Combined Arms.  There is only "who has more shooting."  The player with more shooting should always stand and shoot and the player with less should always close with the other guy.  You can twist and tweak all you want to encourage combined arms, but in the end you'll run into the simple fact that you can achieve decisive results from shooting alone.

So to us the solution seemed was change that underlying fact.  If you cannot achieve decisive results (i.e. rout someone) by shooting alone, then just standing and shooting is a poor strategy.  You have to engage in melee at some point.

From there we introduced little bonuses into shooting, since we'd basically just nerfed the hell out of it:  shooting goes first and there is no penalty for shooting into melee.  Neither of which is a big bonus, unless you're pairing shooting with something.

I dunno if that convinces you, but at least I hope I'm showing how we've done our due diligence on this one.

I'm lukewarm to this, but I do think that if a Disrupted unit is engaged it should rout automatically.

Originally we did that, but it just felt wrong.  We were of the opinion that if a 300 pt unit blows a Cge 13 and then gets charged by a 70 pt unit that they just rout automatically (and possibly be destroyed) was just a little silly.  Our opinion was that even though those Celestial Guard had ceased to be a unit and more a rabble, it still was a rabble of High Elf Paladins, which does have some intrinsic fighting ability.

[Chad_YMG]

I have a very positive initial reaction to this.  As Hannibal points out, it feels a bit "off" to have units rout as easily from missile fire as when engaged, and having units go into disorder is more flavorful than just giving a courage bonus to unengaged units.  Another possibility would be a middle ground where a unit that failed its rout check by X (say, 4) or more would rout but a more 'normal' fail would lead to disorder.

This opens up some fun design space as well.  One of our first scenarios had Men of Hawkshold being ambushed by Orcs as they marched down a road.  The main challenge was that the Hawks all began the battle on hold.  Scenarios with units starting in disorder could be pretty interesting as well.

[Kevin]

I have a very positive initial reaction to this.  As Hannibal points out, it feels a bit "off" to have units rout as easily from missile fire as when engaged, and having units go into disorder is more flavorful than just giving a courage bonus to unengaged units.

I like it as well.  Time to put on my Tinpot Dictator Hat (tm) and declare in in effect during the Championship Tounament.

[Hannibal]

Cool.

Now I can begin work on my Skirmisher revamp.   

[Kevin]

I'm thinking that the Disrupted Rule as it stands doesn't work well with skirmishers.  WIthout the rule, the shot-up skirmisher routs to behind your line and reforms.  Now it would get "disrupted," and not-move, forcing you to either waste 2 CAs on a little twerp which will likely go down next round, or to spend 1 CA to recall the skirmishers to get it to go behind your line.  Basically, skirmishers become less-than-uselss as a missile screen.

A couple options off the top of my head to deal with this issue:

- The rule doesn't apply to skirmishers; they rout normally.

- Skirmishers only cost 1 CA to change their orders from Disrupted.  (Their auto rally meant that it only costs 1 CA to get them moving forward after routing, rather than the typical 2 (rally + orders).)

[Hannibal]

A couple options off the top of my head to deal with this issue:

- The rule doesn't apply to skirmishers; they rout normally.

- Skirmishers only cost 1 CA to change their orders from Disrupted.  (Their auto rally meant that it only costs 1 CA to get them moving forward after routing, rather than the typical 2 (rally + orders).)

I could see either, frankly.  Both would be very fitting with how skirmishers acted, and it really is a matter of game play.

[Chad_YMG]

My gut reaction would be to have skirmishers still rout as normal.

[Hannibal]

That makes them less useful as a missile shield, as there's a decent chance they'll bounce through the unit they're shielding.  Not a deal breaker at all, but just something to keep in mind.  (I'm especially okay with this because its less of a limitation with the skirmisher house rules I'll be posting soon)


What about Flying?  Disrupted is much less of a nuisance when you have little fear of being Charged next turn, and if you're starved for CAs, you could leave them Disrupted with impunity.  My thought is to have Flying units rout like Skirmishers.

[Kevin]

I don't think Flying needs its own exception.  If a unit is flying, presumably it got damaged with ranged attacks.  Remember, you can't land on the turn that you get new orders, so it keeps the units from attacking for at least 2 turns and gets them shot again.

Not that I have any real objection to them routing other than KISS -- only treat something differently if it really needs it.