Stinky Archers

[dewen]

I see a lots of differences in point value, data, and special abilities in the archers. I like the variety in the factions. Sometimes the point values seems unfair. When compared to other archers, I think the Khamsin Rangers are extremly overpriced or really stink like rotting flesh in the desert.

 

I Compared similiar archers below. I know there are more, but this is enough typing to get the point.

 

Khamsin Rangers 41pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 6, MAV 0, RAV 1, Rng 24, DV 8, CP -, MD 10

Marksman, Ranger

Isiri Archer 42 pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 5, MAV 1, RAV 2, Rng 30, DV 8, CP -, MD 10

Marksman, Volley

Ivy Crown Archers 42 pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 4, MAV 0, RAV 1, Rng 24, DV 8, CP -, MD 11

Marksman, Ranger, Volley

Ranger (generic) 28 pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 5, MAV 1, RAV 1, Rng 24, DV 8, CP -, MD 10

Ranger, Volley

 

Isiri (All this for 1 stinking point)

= Volley for Ranger

+ MAV, RAV, and Rng

- Dis

Ivy Crown (All this for 1 point)

+ Volley, MD

- Dis

Generic (13 pts cheaper)

= Marksman for Ranger (Marksman is better, but not 13 pts better)

+ MAV

- Dis

 

Looking at the comparisons strictly from the stats, I hate to say it, but I'd never use the Khamsin Rangers.

[rhino-tamer]

jeese I was just thinking about that if you look at the orc archers compared to the ivy-crown compared to the elves

{ivy crown archers

a) the ivy crown are adepts

b)they have 1rav and 24 rng!

c)dv of 8

d)42 points

{vale archers

a)are grunts

b)3 rav 30 rng!

c)dv of 7

d)44 points

{bull orc archers

a)are grunts

b)2 rav 30 rng

c)dv of 9!

d)30 points!

 

okay elfs realy good 44 points, ivy crown suck for 42, orcs very good considering they are 30 points and have the highest archer dv only 30 points!. and if you say that the ivy crown have ranger and that makes them good think about this they move up 6 inches orcs deploy ok the orc can cover the same amount of field now if there in woods sure they have some advantage but come on!

[gwawl]

There are a lot of stats that don't make sense to the group I game with. We're playing them out and correcting them as we go. Ivy crown archers (proxied) have not fared well against Reven with Bull Orc archers. At 42 points they do suck while the Orc archers at 30 points are a great deal. It seams that some traditional fantasy racial characteristics have been carried over like the notion that Elves are physically weak but Orcs become great archers. And they're not the best archers the Reven have available. I'd like to see the original matrix used to create stats and assign points values.

[dewen]

if you say that the ivy crown have ranger and that makes them good

I wouln't even go that far to say they are good, but they are better than the Khamsins and that's not saying much.

I'd like to see the original matrix used to create stats and assign points values.

I think you have a good idea of this by using the generic stats to modify generic models in the back of the book

[BunnyPuncher]

One possibility is that the designers went for faction balance over unit balance.

[shakhak]

Seems to me that alot of units with Ranger are wayed heavily. I haven't used to many models with the ability but I'm going to try it out and see what happens.

 

I am pretty sound in my decision to support the point values. Reaper has been working for a long time on the system with 2 other games using something similar in the past. I do not ever recommend changing point values. More research went into it then you can probably play out in a 100 games. Brute force is easier to use than tactics so units like Reven archers can back a punch but using SA's can prove to be a huge advantage

[shakhak]

It's hard to pick apart point values because you can't really see what stat effects what special ability. So to the naked eye points seem skewed, when in actuallity it's close to perfection.

Khamsin Rangers 41pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 6, MAV 0, RAV 1, Rng 24, DV 8, CP -, MD 10

Marksman, Ranger

Isiri Archer 42 pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 5, MAV 1, RAV 2, Rng 30, DV 8, CP -, MD 10

Marksman, Volley

Ivy Crown Archers 42 pts

#MA 1, #RA 1, Dmg 0, Mov 6, Dis 4, MAV 0, RAV 1, Rng 24, DV 8, CP -, MD 11

Marksman, Ranger, Volley

 

Isiri (All this for 1 stinking point)

= Volley for Ranger

+ MAV, RAV, and Rng

- Dis

Ivy Crown (All this for 1 point)

+ Volley, MD

- Dis

Isri

For an archer I'm willing to bet Ranger is worth more than most other units because they need to move and find cover(light woods doesn't effect them). A MAV on an archer unit is cool I admit but not as useful as DIS. most archers shy away from melee if at all possible, having a higher DIS allows them to withdrawl from melee and use distance to their advantage. DIS is a big skill for range units.

Ivy

We run into the problem with DIS again, this time an even bigger hit. The bonus to MD is a bonus, especially since they were also given volley so they'll be in tight spaces. In another topic people have also been saying Volley is not that big of an advantage. It adds 6" to range but also forces units together, making you vulnerible to AOE.

[gwawl]

Looking at the generic stats from the book, Ranger cost is only 3 points. Comparing Generic Ranger stats to other archers is interesting. Compared to generic the Ivy Crown Archers are -1 Dis/-1Mav/+1MD and +Marksman. Points-wise the Mav and MD cancel each other out. So you are paying 14 more points (42) for Ivy Crown Archers to lose 1 of discipline and gain Marksman. In that case Marksman is worth 14+ points but in other comparisons it is worth as little as three points (Vale Archers). It would be nice to know some of the values not listed on the generic card creation chart but Reaper has done a lot of good things with the game so I'll just mod a few things based on 40+ years of wargamming experience and have it my way.

[shakhak]

What you're forgetting is that generic stats are for people to put together a quick playable unit for use with DHL models and others that won't have stats, at least not for a long time. They also are not allowed in official tournaments.

 

Personally I won't be playing with Generic built units at all. While a cool feature to add in for GMing and creating unique encounters, in a game it breaks the system fairly quickly. There is no testing or SA dependencies to go with it. Increading a units #MA and MAV should increase the cost more than it does. Good guideline but not great for unit comparisons.

I would suggest that if you don't like stats, then sacrifice your faction abilities and get the best of everything, use mercs.

[Froggy the Great]

Or, use Mercs and use the Merc SA: Change of Heart, and get three of the best of everything.

[gwawl]

What you're forgetting is that generic stats are for people to put together a quick playable unit for use with DHL They also are not allowed in official tournaments.

 

Good guideline but not great for unit comparisons.

I would suggest that if you don't like stats, then sacrifice your faction abilities and get the best of everything, use mercs.

I know what generic stats are for and used used them only as a baseline to compare all of the Warlord archers to a specific value. An excellent tool for my purposes.

When the value of tournament prizes exceeds the cost of going to a con I'll give consideration to what is legal. Since the people I'm gaming with are interested in modifying the game and playing with non Reaper models anyway why wouldn't we fix the inequity in stats and have some fun with it.

[smokingwreckage]

Well, having played the last while purely skirmish games that allow troop building, I think it could be premature to attack the points of different abilities based on simple addition. Reaper may have used a simple "+points" system for building generic troops, so as not to fry the brains of casual gamers, but that doesn't mean the formula for their in-house units isn't more complex.

 

For example, ARES uses a grid comparing offensive to defensive capabilities, then some mulitpiers, then a square root, THEN addition. Starslayer / "Defiance: Vital Ground" uses two separate sets of multipliers: first weapon value (with a lot of variables) then multipliers for weapon special abilities, then infantry cost derived from morale, toughness and speed as well as movement type, with multipliers for hand-to-hand combat, then the two are combined and the total halved, rounding up. Then some addition for grenades etc.

 

 

For us players to really pick the points values apart we'd need to see consistent problems across a few hundred games (or preferably, games groups), or of course, a math nerd or two to scrutinise the values.

 

 

OTOH, you could be right.

[Froggy the Great]

I'm with SW on this one, actually.

[shakhak]

I'm with Frosch and SW also. Thanks for showing examples for what I was trying to say.

[dewen]

For us players to really pick the points values apart we'd need to see consistent problems across a few hundred games (or preferably, games groups), or of course, a math nerd or two to scrutinise the values.

I haven't played a few hundred games, but I have been playing with the OLE for a few months and now the official rulebook. There were some changes to the stats between those editions. The comparisons in the examples I gave are siginificant, especially with the Isiri Archer. That is a big difference for the cost of 1pt. I really like Nefsokar (that should be obvious). I feel cheated on the range unit when comparing the cost of other factions' range units. Maybe there will be an adept released in the future that is a more affective range unit.