Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
i was making up a revised 1000pt list, and i had a question to ask the forum
Would it be better to have to big units of PB, two big units of M@A, or a unit of each?
i can see a case each, but i was wondering what everyones experience has taught them.
thanks in advance for any advice,
How about 2 normal units of M@A (20) and 1 small (10) unit of skirmishing peasant bowmen?
The M@As are there for backup and expendable units to throw before your knights.
Skirmishers are great at getting into places to annoy other people and shoot a little when you get a chance.
BUt it always depends who you are fighing of course...
It's only a lance of Grail Knights... won't hurt at all!
IMHO, there is little point in bringing a small amount of shooting. As Courvein pointed out, a small unit of skirmishers have their uses, but not as shooters, but rather as screeners.
It has been my opinion since 6th edition that shooting is so expensive now, unless you're willing to spend 25%-50% of your army points in shooting, don't bother. War machines are another matter, of course.
Yeah, I always enjoy putting a 10 man screen of bowmen before my knights... saves my knights from warmachines on turn 1. And the look on their faces... priceless
It's only a lance of Grail Knights... won't hurt at all!
I like the idea of a unit of each. Not for any particular tactical reason, but because it seems nice and symmetrical.
I'm sure that at some stage, they will prove themselves useful, but you wouldn't want to rely on either unit to win you games.
Wood Elves 2/0/1
Orcs & Goblins 0/1/0
Next Army - Tomb Kings
I like having one of each, since I actually have the models (due to the battalion box), and a sort of feeling of symetry, I dunno, it doesn't seem to be that effective, so I'm looking to change that.
My problem is that it never seems like I have enough shooting to be effective. In the tournament I recently played, I had 16 PB and a trebuchet, and it did a total of nothing (unless you count the fact that the treb scared the opponents a little, but that was hardly worth it, since it misfired twice and was destroyed on turn 1 in one game, and turn 2 in the other.) so im kind of wondering wether or not to toatally drop shooting, and go with M@A but they do not really seem to do a lot of good either in their current set-up. (20 in a unit)
So the question becomes, how many PB or M@A do you require to be effective? (by effective I mean, able to fufill their roles ie, softening up the enemy before a charge for, and helping bogged down units, for M@A.)
And all knight, not for me, how much fun would that be?
Last edited by SgtSnipe; October 4th, 2006 at 12:43.
SgtSnipe, you offend my sense of grammar! How about some capitalization and maybe even a few more periods.
As for your question, I can tell you what a guy at my gaming store does. He uses a unit of 30 skirmishing PB, and they're pretty effective. In such a great number, they always land a few wounds, and killing such a large number presents problems for the rest of us.
Let's look at the math. Say you decide to take a unit of 10 regular archers. For the first couple of turns they shoot, they're probably going to be at long range, so they'll need 5's to hit. Assuming their target is T3, they're only going to inflict 1.67 wounds (on average). And that's not even counting armor saves. Assuming your target has a 5+ save (light armor/shield), that's only going to mean 1.11 wounds get through. So unless your opponent is really stupid and only has 20 men in his unit (meaning one wound would lose the last rank bonus), that unit of 10 guys isn't going to do ANYTHING worth mentioning in the first couple of turns. Even after turn 2, when the long range penalty no longer applies, the number of wounds inflicted only goes up to 1.67 per turn (after armor). So the TOTAL number of wounds that you will probably inflict on your opponent with those 10 archers is (1.11 x 2 turns + 1.67 x 2 turns) is 5.56. That's only about 6 wounds in 4 turns of shooting. After that, your archers are probably not going to be able to shoot stuff as much. (Since the battle will have moved into H2H by then)
Against war machines, it's even worse. A common misconception in this game is that archers are good at taking out enemy war machines... Let's look at the math there: 10 Archers need 5's to hit that enemy war machine (let's face it, war machines are always going to be at long range. So that's 3.33 hits. The War machine itself acts as a 3+ ward save, so only 1.11 of those wounds is going to get through. Assuming the crew are T3, that means that only 0.56 wounds are going to actually apply (assuming the crew have no armor). So ten archers shoot at the war machine, and ON AVERAGE are going to have no effect. Nice, huh?
Using these numbers, you can then calculate how many archers you SHOULD bring to the battle. Assuming 10 archers inflicts 1.11 wounds per turn at long range, then 100 should inflict 11.1 wounds per turn. That's someone more reasonable. The problem is, 100 Bretonnian archers will cost you 600 points (before command). That's a bit steep. The rest of your army is going to be quite small. On top of that, it's nearly impossible to focus the fire from those 100 archers into one enemy unit (unless you've got some kind of mountain in your deployment zone that allows you to stack them 5 deep).
The Bretonnian Archers in 5th edition were fabulous because you COULD concentrate their firepower due to the Arrowhead formation. It would be no problem aiming 2 or 3 units of 30 archers apeice at the enemy. Even then, the amount of damage they inflicted was usually only 5-10 wounds. Now that Archers are comparatively more expensive than before and can no longer concentrate their firepower, they are not a particularly potent choice.
To be honest, they are still among the best shooters in the game because they are so cheap. The problem is, "shooty" infantry in general have been nerfed to the point of near worthlessness in this game, with only a (very) few exceptions.
The best purpose for a unit of archers for Bretonnia would be to buy a unit of 10-20 (20 would be better) skirmishers and keep them behind your lines to shoot at the annoying flyers that try to get behind your army. 20 archers can be somewhat of a nuisance to a lone pegasus rider or unit of harpies.
As for Men @ Arms, their best use is (IMHO) reserve troops. Bring them in behind your main line of knights. They'll be useful to countercharge anyone who charges your knights in the flanks (something that can happen a lot). They'll flank the flanker, negating HIS ranks, and add +3 to the combat res (not to mention cancelling the flank bonus and PROBABLY outnumbering them as well).ANY army comprised of one unit type is IMHO unimaginitive and boring to play both with and against. The first thing I think of when I see a list (Bretonnian or other wise) comprising all knights is "CHEESE!"And all knight, not for me, how much fun would that be?
Last edited by Rameusb5; October 5th, 2006 at 18:12.