Why big guys are not big?

[Harry Kerry]

Underdog wrote:

Harry Kerry wrote:

You can’t go through a one square space between two players (very frustrating when those are two prone players…)

Not so. In 2nd ED Big Guys were alowed to move over prone players as part of your move as long as your turn didnt end on top of them.

That's a good idea! I will play like that now. Thanks, Underdog.

Underdog wrote:

You could turn for free but you couldnt move diagonaly so a diagonal move would be one square forward/back and one square left/right.

I don't like this rule. I don't use it. I don't understand why a big guy should use 2 MA to make a diagonal move. That's not logical.

[Harry Kerry]

Underdog wrote:

Try making an ogre team cage up It'll drive you mad! Its especially bad when a few of them are prone. Ive all but given up on my team now .

And imagine the games between two ogre teams .

[Darkson]

Underdog wrote:

You could turn for free but you couldnt move diagonaly so a diagonal move would be one square forward/back and one square left/right.

I don't like this rule. I don't use it. I don't understand why a big guy should use 2 MA to make a diagonal move. That's not logical.

It was one of the balances to the taking up 4 squaares, stopped them being as maneouverable as single square players.

[Dr. Doom]

But back then, didn't they only had TZ's in their Front and Side squares (totalling 8 TZ's) ?

[Harry Kerry]

Darkson wrote:

It was one of the balances to the taking up 4 squaares, stopped them being as maneouverable as single square players.

I don’t like the idea that big guy should be less manoeuvrable as single square players with the four squares rule. That’s not logical. I can understand that a Deathroller should be less manoeuvrable. But a big guy? They are not tanks. They move like other single square players. But, you’re probably right. Maybe it is too unbalanced to play like that. For now, I haven’t enough experience to evaluate that.

I like the four squares rule because in my view, it is more fantasyrealist. But, the big problem is that maybe, it is not playable (too unbalanced…)
I could only discover that after playing a lot of match.

[Darkson]

The idea was that they were strong bulldozer players (like the deathroller), but didn't have the agility to make darting runs like the smaller players did.

[Harry Kerry]

Dr. Doom wrote:

But back then, didn't they only had TZ's in their Front and Side squares (totalling 8 TZ's) ?

I don’t know what the old rule was. For now, I have decided for my games that they have 12 TZ. But using the 8 TZ rule is a good way to reduce their power if they are too good. I will keep that in mind.

[Underdog]

Dooms right. They only had an 8 square TZ.

[Underdog]

I just played a test half with my ogre team against skaven using the following rules.

*BG's Occupy 4 squares and have a facing direction
*BG's Only have a TZ to the front and sides
*Only 8 players allowed on the pitch at a time.
*BGs count as two players for LOS and Wide zone set ups.
*BG's lose Bone head.
*BGs can move through prone players but may not end a move with a prone player in one of their 4 squares.
*A BG can only follow up if there is enough space for the BG to occupy 4 squares otherwise he may not follow up.
* Follow-ups are the only time when a BG is allowed to move diagonaly.

And....

I really enjoyed it! It was great. A little confusing at first particularly as I normally turn my minis 180 degrees to show they have taken an action and you cant do that with this team. Also Follow ups can be a little complicated. The 4 sqaure thing really is a double enged sword. They occupy more pitch space but are easilly ganged up on and its very hard to more them around even through quite wide gaps.

I really thought it worked well though over all. Really felt Like I was using ogres and it was refreshing not to have to roll for Bonehead all the time.

The score was 1-0 to the skaven at the end of the first half. Probably should have been 2-0 but a failed dodge kept the score low.