Slitherine

Hello, I have just a question: what is the purpose to add a +2 when doing a death roll?
I mean, i don't understand the reason because shooting hits should be so less damaging than close combat hits.

I wish somebody could provide me a satisfying explanation of such a choice by the authors of the game.

Good bye.

Death rolls for shooting hits have a +2. That makes it a lot less likely to remove a base from shooting than close combat. Eg. 3 close combat hits requires a 4 or more on the death roll to save, but if 3 shooting hits a 2 or more would be enough.

Hermano wrote: I wish somebody could provide me a satisfying explanation of such a choice by the authors of the game.

The primary objective of shooting is to force cohesion tests, not cause base losses.

The rules (shooting POA, cohesion test modifiers, BG size, etc) are balanced with this objective in mind. Try to imagine the effect of not having the +2 in the rules as they are now. For example, nobody would use BGs of 2 bases as they would vaporise from any shooting. LH bow armies would be virtually unbeatable.

peterrjohnston wrote: LH bow armies would be virtually unbeatable.

Now theres a thought......

Don't even go there...

Actually, it's not true as LH would be vaporised by counter-shooting. There'd be a lot of bow armies around though. BGs would be lucky to contact bow before the unit disappeared.

However, perhaps no +2 for skirmishers would be interesting... cue bleating from Dave...

peterrjohnston wrote:
However, perhaps no +2 for skirmishers would be interesting... cue bleating from Dave...

Should I enter along with the other Dave......no no just can't its to hot

In FOG R there is no +2, it will be interesting to see how this changes the game balance.

kevinj wrote:In FOG R there is no +2, it will be interesting to see how this changes the game balance.

As far as I know its still in place for Bows but not firearms, since there are fewer firarms or fewer BG's of eight bases around compared to Bow armed troops it might not make that much difference.

david53 wrote:

kevinj wrote:In FOG R there is no +2, it will be interesting to see how this changes the game balance.

As far as I know its still in place for Bows but not firearms, since there are fewer firarms or fewer BG's of eight bases around compared to Bow armed troops it might not make that much difference.

There's actually quite a few firearm-armed BGs in FoG:R, but not that many 8-strong or larger BG's. Given almost everyone can shoot, it changes the game balance quite significantly - especially for 4-strong BG's of skirmishers who now face a real risk of losing a base every time they approach most units of foot.

Oddly enough, once they do lose a base, they tend to bug out so as to avoid their owner losing a whole BG at 50% autobreak. This seems somehow to limit the ability of skirmishers to hang around much beyond the early phases of the game, or to be a substitute for proper units of "line of battle" shooters.

Neither of which is a bad thing IMO

tim
(advocate of a +1 on death tests for skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers in FoG:AM)

madaxeman wrote: tim
(advocate of a +1 on death tests for skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers in FoG:AM)

Good one but its still too hot......

david53 wrote:

madaxeman wrote: tim
(advocate of a +1 on death tests for skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers in FoG:AM)

Good one but its still too hot......

Changing the weather may be easier than changing FoG ....

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:

madaxeman wrote: tim
(advocate of a +1 on death tests for skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers in FoG:AM)

Good one but its still too hot......

Changing the weather may be easier than changing FoG ....

Maybe your right but look on the bright side neither will the limit on BGs change,

and the weather up here makes me feel all Southern.

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:

madaxeman wrote: tim
(advocate of a +1 on death tests for skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers in FoG:AM)

Good one but its still too hot......

Changing the weather may be easier than changing FoG ....

But fog is weather?

dave_r wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote: Good one but its still too hot......

Changing the weather may be easier than changing FoG ....

But fog is weather?

Now thats woth a