Greetings Generals,
I have been thinking a lot about our prohibition of large siege engines from firing on battlefield targets. The cost (of at least my engines) prohibits excessive purchases. The severed heads have an enormous impact. The game also has the built in scatter effect. I say that we remove the restriction and allow any siege engine to fire at any target.
Vote?
White Tower
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, I've always been against the restriction. Nevertheless I vote NO because by now I've invested heavily in workarounds for simply putting a trebuchet behind my walls. You can bet Heath would never have lost Dol Guldur if he could have simply wiped out my forces with an unspottable siege engine. Though I did have Gwaihir there for just that reason...
We nerfed the severed heads pretty drastically after the Black Gate battle, so they're not nearly as effective anymore.
I also vote NO. I know Richter has never understood my die-hard feeling against the large engines firing at bf targets. I know his statistical analysis says something to the effect that they're not all that effective in that role. But experientially, would Jon constantly desire to field them against my armies if he didn't feel they really lent him some advantage? I'm thinking more of just our pickup games, when this house rule is not in effect. If we play a big enough game that they become feasible, a treb is almost always out there. And I almost always pay heavily for it -- unless I get lucky with my own catapult and knock out his trebs. And we're talking non-siege games.
My point being that seeing the physics of these weapons, logically they're just not capable of being adjusted quickly enough to fire on moving battlefield targets, so it seems illogical to me to have them be so darn effective at smashing the enemy when they should be inept.
I would probably be ok with allowing large engines to fire at bf targets if they always shot at such as if they were being fired by a non-trained operator (i.e. only hits bf targets on a 6). That 16% chance of hitting is a more accurate representation of their chances of hitting moving targets with big rocks, fired from a slowly-adjusted arcing weapon. If we make this exception, I could vote YES. And perhaps say a 5+ roll for targetting a unit that did not move last turn.
Why change now after so many games.......vote for next campaign if modifications are needed. Superheros would be the most harmed by this rule so why change now?
Heath
Post a Comment