Archers revision?

[flankyou]

Sorry if this is redundant as I've posted this in the experimental rules section, but I think it's more appropriate here.

Just wondering if many of the archer units could be 1/2 instead of 3/1 for attacks. Or as someone else pointed out, possibly 2/1 with a 15 point discount - because it does appear that the stats vs. cost for archers was revised in WMA...

[Lex]

People seem to forget that the rules for archers as per RAW imply that

1) they are primarily meant to disrupt formations and make manouvering harder
2) they have stand&shoot, which more often-then-not make the difference in the resulting combat, and has been know to force an attacker to commit differently then intended (S&S CAN take out a stand on the charge, remember that S&S is resolved against the FIRST STAND placed during the charge, at ANY point in the charge-path)
3) some archers (goblins) are meant to be speedbumps, some archers (elves) are capabel of holding their own against similar opponents.

Tailoring archers stats means you no to revise and test all of the above (and this HAS been done, before the Warmaster Armies material was published). At that point Rick (who was still in the loop) decided against it.

The current group revising the rules may have a different take on this, so above is just the rememberings of this old geezer

[Ole]

People seem to forget that the rules for archers as per RAW imply that

1) they are primarily meant to disrupt formations and make manouvering harder
2) they have stand&shoot, which more often-then-not make the difference in the resulting combat, and has been know to force an attacker to commit differently then intended (S&S CAN take out a stand on the charge, remember that S&S is resolved against the FIRST STAND placed during the charge, at ANY point in the charge-path)
3) some archers (goblins) are meant to be speedbumps, some archers (elves) are capabel of holding their own against similar opponents.

Tailoring archers stats means you no to revise and test all of the above (and this HAS been done, before the Warmaster Armies material was published). At that point Rick (who was still in the loop) decided against it.

The current group revising the rules may have a different take on this, so above is just the rememberings of this old geezer

Well said!

[flankyou]

Lex I think we may have talked past each other a bit - look at the missile troops points costs in Warmaster Ancients (keeping in mind that Priestly said that Ancients is basically Warmaster 2.0).

There seems to have been a deliberate effort to make missile troops melee attack 2, and with a points reduction of roughly 15pts.

[Aldhick]

Giving shooty units 2 shooting attacks would completely change their role in the game from disruptors of steady approach to actual hitting force. That means it would partially change how the game is played. For my part, that is something I do not intend to do in this area of the game.
If I'd was to consider any changes in this area, it would be a sligth price reduction of shooting units (like 5 pts).
However, statwise, they seem working well to me. I play TK and that means I have to take 2 archer units for every full 1k points. Building a defensive "gun"line supported by infantry has been one my most often used tactics over last years and it's working fine in my eyes.
 Yes, a single archer unit can do little by itself, but that is the same with ever unit in WM. But if you put them in larger bodies, for example two archer units next to each other supported by another infantry, they can become a significant threat.

JJ, I could not have missed that you tend to play small format games in LA. Don't forget, that WM is optimised on 2k+ games! In my experience there is big difference between playing 1k-1,5k and 2k+ games. Trying out larger games, where you can build more solid formations using particular troop types might eventually change your point of view.   

[flankyou]

Aldhick, great points, and yes I do need a bunch of 2000pts games - we're slow growing it (at 1250 now..).

What are your thoughts on reducing the melee attack value for a more substantial points reduction? (again, more reflective of the missile units in Ancients). So like 2/1 instead of 3/1 for example..

Sorry If I'm beating a dead horse, just curious..

[Lex]

Lex I think we may have talked past each other a bit - look at the missile troops points costs in Warmaster Ancients (keeping in mind that Priestly said that Ancients is basically Warmaster 2.0).

There seems to have been a deliberate effort to make missile troops melee attack 2, and with a points reduction of roughly 15pts.

Well, as I was working with Rick at that time, is am pretty sure that we had a totally different brief for WMA compared to WM(f)

The changes introduced for WMA are specifically tailored to generated "historically acceptable" results and playing styles for various Ancient armies.....

WM(f) was always envisioned as a bit more "fast & furious, fantasy combat". Maybe the correct term would be cinematographic.

** on a different note: Hail Cesar (the system Rick wrote after leaving GW) would IMHO qualify for the WM-V2.0, much more then WMA

[flankyou]

Ahh nice - very interesting, thank you!

[Aldhick]

What are your thoughts on reducing the melee attack value for a more substantial points reduction? (again, more reflective of the missile units in Ancients). So like 2/1 instead of 3/1 for example..

I think, that reducing archers to 2 melee attack while keeping their sooting capacity the same would make them even less usable, no matter the point cost. The role of short range fire is supplementary - to disrupt enemy's advance and deal some minor damage when being charged. Yet archers are still capable of taking and dealing damage in almost the same way as generic infantry. Reducing this capability would make them obsolete imo.
Again, I think they work well as they are apart that if they were slightly cheaper, they might see more use.

[Ole]

Some might still remember that the skeleton bowmen have been raised tin points because they where way to strong in numbers.

Mistel troops are fine as they are at the moment. Please don't change something that is not broken.

[empireaddict]

For the reasons outlined by Aldhick, and seconded by Ole, my vote would also be 'no change'. 

And, unlike WMA, there are no light-infantry-skirmishers in WMR.

[olrick]

There is a rule in warmaster medieval with the longbow you can use for elves
It is +1 shoot for complete unit of 3 shooters.

[andys]

There is a rule in warmaster medieval with the longbow you can use for elves
It is +1 shoot for complete unit of 3 shooters.

That rule could potentially be used for any elite shooter unit. Or you could allow 1 elite shooter unit per army perhaps?

[olrick]

You may use this rule for elves archers