December 18, 2017, 03:18:40 AM

Author Topic: Archers not very good at shooting..  (Read 435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flankyou

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • Loc: los angeles, USA
Archers not very good at shooting..
« on: July 16, 2017, 09:38:11 PM »
Does it bother anyone that Archer units are actually better in melee than at shooting? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'm not trying to radically change the game, but shouldn't archers be 2/1 or 2/2 instead of 1/3 attacks?  (edit: sorry I meant 1/2, 2/2 instead of 3/1 respectively).
« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 07:52:29 PM by flankyou »

Offline Stormwind

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2515
  • Ben Sibbald | Cookham Dean, Berkshire, UK
    • Maidenhead and District Gamers
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2017, 04:19:19 AM »
Even in the original rulebook, it says that shooting is not meant to be a way to destroy units, but a threat to disrupt / confuse enemy units.

If you shoot into a brigade, even if you only score one hit, that has the chance to confuse the enemy.  Then as they are driven back, they might cause further confusion as other units make way.

The only armies that don't suffer for shooting are Tomb Kings and most of Vampire Counts who don't suffer from confusion rules.
My Local Gaming Club >> http://madgamers.co.uk/

My Personal & Modelling Blog >>http://theancienttrack.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline flankyou

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • Loc: los angeles, USA
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2017, 04:29:58 AM »
Yes I understand, but even so, the stats question remains...

Offline Aldhick

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 418
  • The End is nigh
    • Loc: Czech Republic
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2017, 12:00:51 PM »
Well since the missile units have been ment to work like less armoured infantry with the role of distrupting the enemy lines, rather than eating whole stands - I think it works well as it is.
WM - Toomb Kings
My Mordheim guys (and gals)
http://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t2734-aldhick-s-gangs

Offline greenskinchief

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • Loc: Saffron Walden
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2017, 12:35:07 PM »
i prefer WMA archers which only 2 in melee but it is fantasy so why not 3 in melee the lower armour makes them much less effective than an equivalent cost non-missile unit

Offline Dark Omen

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 62
    • Loc: UK - Midlands
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2017, 01:12:06 PM »
Does it bother anyone that Archer units are actually better in melee than at shooting? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'm not trying to radically change the game, but shouldn't archers be 2/1 or 2/2 instead of 1/3 attacks?

I play Warmaster and Warmaster Ancients and I do agree that giving missile infantry the same number of melee attacks as close combat infantry seems odd.

In WM Ancients, missile infantry units generally have one less melee attack than the equivalent melee infantry, and are usually cheaper, not more expensive.

Example: Roman auxiliary infantry is Att 3--Hit 3--Save 6+ for 45 pts.
Roman Archers are Att 2/1--Hit 3--Save 0 for 40 pts.

You can draw a direct comparison between the Roman auxiliary infantry with Empire halberdiers - same profile as auxiliary infantry and same cost.
But Empire Crossbowmen have three melee attacks and cost 55 pts, far more than the Roman archers. In effect you are paying +15 pts to get an additional melee statistic that add very little benefit to the missile infantry.


Optional Idea: Warmaster fantasy missile infantry units could be given -1 to melee attacks characteristic (minimum 2 attacks) for a -15 pt cost reduction.

-By doing this maybe players would not feel so short changed for having to take compulsory missile infantry units.
-Also you might see more missile infantry in the game as generals could feel they were more cost effective.
-It would also help to differentiate between the combat effectiveness of melee troops and missile troops a little more.
-Presently, most missile infantry is just as good as melee infantry in causing damage in close combat, this does seem odd.

Armies that would benefit from this change include; Empire, High Elves, Dwarfs (maybe only for Thunderers), Araby, Kislev, Witch hunters, Wood Elves, Dark Elves,  Skaven, and Bretonnians. Other armies either already have missile troops with 2 melee attacks or don't have suitable missile infantry.

Food for thought.

Comments welcome

Offline flankyou

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • Loc: los angeles, USA
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2017, 08:30:45 PM »
Yes I'd rather see 2/1 with a discount. For High Elves it seems that archers are just easy break points for the opponent after one turn of shooting. To be fair though, I do see the value of archers as screening units, I just think the cost vs. stats is a bit awkward as you pointed out.

Offline cjbennett22

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 522
    • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Re: Archers not very good at shooting..
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2017, 03:51:31 AM »
I play dwarves and have played at Adepticon tournaments twice now, The dwarves are weird in the fact that the rangers definitely do not qualify for a reduction, those guys are supposed to be tough as nails and more resourceful in a fight than anybody.  With that I think its a tough sell as any archer could have a sword as well and prep to take a charge like anybody in luau of any armor or shields.  Also I feel like high elf archers would be just as good at dishing out some pain in combat. 

My last potatoe chip as food for thought, any missile troop receiving a charge should be able to have their stand and shoot.  So in the first round each stand should essentially have 4 attacks and then support from the actual infantry men behind them.  All these things coming into play make them very hard to win against in a fight but if you cant kill an infantry unit with next to nil armor that's just bad luck  ;)

My second army is chaos, so those poor boys need to hit hard in the first round of combat, usually lose, but kill a couple of stands in the process and will need to fight even harder next turn taking counter charges from initiative.

In fact, just last tournament at Adepticon my thunderers took a charge in a defensive position and killed all of the orcs in the first round of combat and with no support, really good luck for the dwarves but anything is possible with dice  :)

Its a very good thought, I like it, but I don't know if it could work straight across the board.