Multiple Shots from 1 model

I remember someone around here asking about declaration of shots during the shooting phase and the order of operations. I couldnt find the FAQ that clarified this at the time, but I just found it now!

so, not really a question, just posting it out there for those who were asking before.


Q: Does a model with more than one shooting attack need to declare all of his target(s)
before rolling any dice, or can he decide before each shot?
A: He may decide before each shot


http://home.deds.nl/~mordheim/Mordheim_Errata.pdf

thx!

In my circle we have interpreted the 'may' to mean that you don't *have* to declare before each shot. You can, if you wish, declare all your shots and then fire them all at once. Sometimes and important distinction.

I really liked the idea of all shots being declared by all shooters before any die-rolling.

"I missed. I guess this guy will shoot him, too. He missed, too. The third guy will shoot him. There we go! Hit and kill! My fourth shooter then, intuitively, moves to the next target!"

You forgot the rules for chosing a target. You have to shoot the next modell. If no model is in a building than all your shooters had to target the first modell...

If you have to declare before shooting, then without a ricochet you can only hit one modell of your enemy!

Once that first guy goes down though then the guy behind him is now a legal target... also being in buildings can't be forgotten.

Saranor wrote:

You forgot the rules for chosing a target. You have to shoot the next modell. If no model is in a building than all your shooters had to target the first modell...

If you have to declare before shooting, then without a ricochet you can only hit one modell of your enemy!

I didn't actually forget it. I was trying to explain that, somewhat realistically, there's no ESP link that allows them all to know where they're shooting, and to move to the next target once a target went down.

What you mention also assumes all the shooters are standing in a bunch, and the closest target would be the closest to all of them. This would also encourage spreading your shooters around the board.

The rules are the rules, and largely, we play the same way as stated (declare, shoot, declare, shoot), but I always thought that, for some realism's sake, that people would be independently picking targets (since it's happening about the same time), and if you had seven shooters, the seventh shooter wouldn't magically pick the 5th target if the six shooters before him took out the other four, if you know what I am saying.

Ordo, your situation is as unbelievable as you make others look! lol
In such a situation with 7 shooters running around without the ability to communicate, theyre not all going to shoot at their targets at the same time, on the same second, in perfect intervals. If im looking at a target and i see him fall over dead... why would i shoot at him? id point my bow another way and shoot at something else!

On that though in that case would not Inititive take into account?
Also the battle isn't happening in slow motion; look at movement. A figure can move (human) 4" at a walking pace. 4" is about 2.5 times there hight, 8" on the run or about 5 times there hight. If the average person is about 5.5 feet tall then we are looking at a run being 27.5 feet, a walk being 14 feet. My stride is roughly 5 feet for every two steps (In this example i'm slightly above average hight). So a walk is roughly 6-7 steps for a turn.
My point in all of that is to point out the speed that a turn take place in. You have about 10-15 sec per turn going on. I understand that your not all shooting exactly at the same time but in those 10-15 sec your not going to be able to sit there and "wait" for Bob, Joe, AND Rick to take a shot before you shoot to see if they take down that filthy Ork; and if they do have the time to find a new target and shoot.

Having shooting go in Inititive order (movement last) and declare all shots before shooting takes place would make the most sense, but for ease of game play this may get confusing for the flow of the game.

You can't use the height of the models to judge scales because the game clearly isn't to scale. All the shooting ranges have been shortened so it is not unreasonable to assume the movement ranges have been shortened also. Depending on how *much* you assume they have been shortened by this means a turn is somewhere between roughly 30 seconds to a little over a minute ← easily enough time for a cluster of experienced warriors to send a volley of arrows at an oncoming group.

I think the rules assume that warriors have been fighting for a non-trivial part of their lives (not unreasonable in the WHFB world) and as a group for at least a few months. Under those circumstances, while being able to pick each target is unrealistic, so is forcing all of them to always target the nominated closest at the start of the turn.

Of the two, the being able to pick order leads to the least inaccurate end result and the most fun so, being a game rather than a simulation, they went with picking order. That is my conjecture anyway.

We only experimented briefly with declaring all shots at the start, but found it made the game less fun by weakening shooting. The best tactic in *all* circumstanses became "group everyone and charge" and the game has a big enough tendency towards that as it is. YMMV .

my group played the same way, everyone in a line, move up together.

then I started using blunderbusses.

the group doesnt do that anymore.

>:-)

Long range combat is already has enough stumbling blocks. I don't think it needs any more disadvantages.

I know the game is not all to scale and that it is a game. I am simply using it as an example to show that the game is a battle and that things are moving at a rappid pace with turns representing short time periods (other wise if a turn represented say 1 minute it is unreasonable as who could only swing one time with a weapon in close combat in a minute. 30 sec is much more reasonable for one strike (or two if duel wielding) because as you say these men/women have seen battle before. 15 sec seams to be about the perfect time frame though as it meshes with the rate of all things in the game closest. Cross bow takes about 15 sec to load a and shoot, hand gun 30 sec (i know thats a little fast for the time period), swing a sword well trying to avoid a hit your self, run some distance, ext.

if this thread has taught me anything, its that my mord players arent the only ones who run off on tandems every chance they get

aviphysics wrote:

Long range combat is already has enough stumbling blocks. I don't think it needs any more disadvantages.

And yes, despite what I said (only for the sake of realism), I actually agree with this comment, too.

I sometimes feel that Mordheim (and well, most GW games) really encourage hand-to-hand; that seems like it usually has a better chance of landing and killing.

Pervavita wrote:

I know the game is not all to scale and that it is a game. I am simply using it as an example to show that the game is a battle and that things are moving at a rappid pace with turns representing short time periods (other wise if a turn represented say 1 minute it is unreasonable as who could only swing one time with a weapon in close combat in a minute. 30 sec is much more reasonable for one strike (or two if duel wielding) because as you say these men/women have seen battle before. 15 sec seams to be about the perfect time frame though as it meshes with the rate of all things in the game closest. Cross bow takes about 15 sec to load a and shoot, hand gun 30 sec (i know thats a little fast for the time period), swing a sword well trying to avoid a hit your self, run some distance, ext.

A single roll in close combat should not be considered a single attempt to strike. It represents the chance of any of a number of blows traded during a round of combat having a chance to hit. If you like you could consider the same for long range weapons. Given that on average a police officer with a modern pistol only hits with 1 out of 6 shots, it seems reasonable that it might take a few tries to hit someone with a weapon in game.

At any rate as you said, the game is not to scale.

If the way you view the rounds bothers you but the rules work fine then you should try to change the way you view the game. Nobody complains how unrealistic it is that a horse in chess can only move in that "L" shape.

ironicly my whole "off topic" was to Zekk's post about guys sitting watching for some one to drop dead and then turn to find a new target. That was the whole point of what I was saying isn't realistic and why the whole "time" of a turn was what I was talking about.
Say 5th guy down the line, he waits for Bob to shoot, determin he missed, then Tim, Joe, Ed, and then finnally Rob will make his shot after he has seen all the other guys take shots one at a time and miss/not wound.
From a game play I'm ok with this, from reality this can't happen as a turn would go too fast (and the guy your shooting at would be moving the whole time probably).

Pervavita wrote:

ironicly my whole "off topic" was to Zekk's post about guys sitting watching for some one to drop dead and then turn to find a new target. That was the whole point of what I was saying isn't realistic and why the whole "time" of a turn was what I was talking about.
Say 5th guy down the line, he waits for Bob to shoot, determin he missed, then Tim, Joe, Ed, and then finnally Rob will make his shot after he has seen all the other guys take shots one at a time and miss/not wound.
From a game play I'm ok with this, from reality this can't happen as a turn would go too fast (and the guy your shooting at would be moving the whole time probably).

Imagine that they are all taking several shots though. In this case all Tim, Joe, and Ed may be imagined to having fired several times starting with the easiest target without hitting anything. One of Rob's shots lands and takes out the target. The other archers then move to the next target.

In this case all archers fire at whomever is the easiest target to hit at the time they shoot each shot. The fact that each archer only hits once is a mere approximation of the odds that they hit at all. The rules do not represent this with perfect accuracy but may be thought to be a reasonable approximation that you would perhaps find more satisfying,

That actually makes even less sense to me. It counters the concepts of x-bows, black powder weapons, and the attack stat.
As I said I'm not contesting the rules in what I'm saying. I was just throwing out a comparison of reality of how the shots are with declairing shots one at a time... declare shot, fire, declare shot, fire... the logic of "RL" isn't there. I don't mind it from a game mechanic as it works best. It is the same as taking turns for movement, in RL I would not expect "Hey you guys it's your turn to move and we will just stand here". But again as a game mechanic it's how it is because again it's the simplest way to do things.

Pervavita wrote:

That actually makes even less sense to me. It counters the concepts of x-bows, black powder weapons, and the attack stat.
As I said I'm not contesting the rules in what I'm saying. I was just throwing out a comparison of reality of how the shots are with declairing shots one at a time... declare shot, fire, declare shot, fire... the logic of "RL" isn't there. I don't mind it from a game mechanic as it works best. It is the same as taking turns for movement, in RL I would not expect "Hey you guys it's your turn to move and we will just stand here". But again as a game mechanic it's how it is because again it's the simplest way to do things.

This reminds me of my explanation to one of our players about why you can shoot someone even if just a hand is showing. He says it is stupid an not realistic. I tell him to just imagine that everyone is moving all at once and that the partial cover rules represent that the guy is not just standing there but moving around. At the moment the map represents he is perhaps almost totally concealed but at the moment before or after he was just diving behind cover, making a dash for the next spot or just poking is head out.

I really don't see why my argument fits your description of what is happening any worse. You just have to be flexible in how you imagine the rules describe any particular scenario. If you are looking for the ways the rules don't fit reality you will certainly find plenty of them. Much better to just look for creative ways that allow you to imagine that the rules make sense.