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
