Archers shoot in two ranks? - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

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!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x0)

    Archers shoot in two ranks?

    Hi everyone,

    I'm a HE newbie. I've played about 15 games as HE, which comprise my entire WHFB experience thus far. I have done OK: about 50% in W/D/L.

    This might seem obvious to those of you who are more experienced, but I don't understand why being allowed to shoot in 2 ranks (as we are told will be allowed in the forthcoming HE book) is so valuable? I also don't find myself moving all that often with my archers. So, I find them on the whole pretty ineffective and generally leave them at home. A single unit of 10 for 120 points in a 2000 pt list is worthy of consideration, at most. I'd almost rather just hire some Dogs of War crossbowmen for the S4 hits, but the rare slots are so valuable.

    Anyway, I have to say that at 12 points, being able to fire in 2 ranks instead of 1 still just doesn't cut it for me. Their main use is just to line them up and shoot stuff every turn anyway. What they really need is a price drop. At 10 points with light armor included, I'd happily take them. That's actually not unreasonable considering what Wood Elves pay for their uber-shooters.

    So, how is it that I've been misusing my archers in general that I'm not finding myself really ecstatic about the proposed buff (of shoot in two ranks) to HE archers?

    Cheers,
    -TGK


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    36
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x1)

    To tell you the truth the last game I played my archers sat on a hill the whole game and just shot stuff. In total I killed a fair number guys but in no way equal to the total cost of the unit, even with the reaver bow on a commander. I took down a solo shaman with the reaver bow but generally speaking I killed at best 1 guy per turn with the other archers. I'm just not so impressed with the shooting prowess of the elves. I like Quarrellers much better considering that you're generally not moving your dwarves very often.

  4. #3
    Son of LO strewart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    29
    Posts
    3,348
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    139 (x8)

    Ya know, I have much the same opinion. If they stayed the same but shot in two ranks I still wouldn't take them, wow they take up less deployment room and get a rank when they get charged. I think its more a fluff thing, they have been able to shoot in two ranks in every other edition, just this one they can't. Bring it back, and lower the points a bit, then I'd take them.
    The LO ANZAC Clan!

    The Pirate's Haven BFG clan! Breathe life into this fantastic GW system.

  5. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x0)

    Quote Originally Posted by strewart View Post
    Ya know, I have much the same opinion. If they stayed the same but shot in two ranks I still wouldn't take them, wow they take up less deployment room and get a rank when they get charged. I think its more a fluff thing, they have been able to shoot in two ranks in every other edition, just this one they can't. Bring it back, and lower the points a bit, then I'd take them.
    If they were 10 pts each and shot in two ranks, I'd probably take a unit of them to accompany my RBTs. A better improvement GW could make to them is to allow them to shoot at long range without the normal -1 to hit penalty. Then they'd be worth it for sure.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    26
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x1)

    I have to admit, even after just 3 games of High Elves, I can see that archers don't do as much as the points invested into them would imply. For 20 points more than a RBT, you get less range and the equivilent of multishot with less attacks and worse armor penetration. I know that they have more survivability, but the difference in offensive capablity is massive.
    Tyranids 1850 - 10/0/0 Models sold off, but I still sometimes play with proxies.

    High Elves 2000 - 0/1/1 Starting, don't have any models.

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    5 (x1)

    How about using them as a 'bodyguard' for wizards?

    Archers are cheap (comparatively) and hang back from the front lines, maybe even on a hill for line-of-site. Keeping my wizards safe is a constant worry without such a back-line unit; they don't belong in the front rank of a melee unit. A bodyguard that can get a few kills in addition to hiding the wizards is worth considering.

  8. #7
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,221
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Never thought of it like that. Wow, I've been enlightened. Except that, for less than 20 points you can put that mage on a horse, give him High Magic or any of the ranged lores and put him on the front lines to deal massive damage. I don't know. Different strokes.

    As for the archers in two ranks, I'd like to see us get a rule that let us have +1strength or Killing Blow, at half range, or no minuses for long range fire. Elves are notoriously amazing shots, so why isn't this reflected in the rules. It takes no skill to fire over the head of the idiot infront of you, a smelly Bretonnian human can do that. But to hit a crows eye at two hundred paces? That takes an elf's skill. Why can't my archers reflect THAT aspect??
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    52 (x1)

    Honestly I think the entirety of missle combat should be overhauled across the board. I play Dwarfs and I would be willing for a phase shift even though it could only hurt me. For some reason Elves are the best archers according to fluff, but High Elves are the worst archers on the table. And even more ridiculous, Dwarfs are the best.

    I would rather have a unit of Human archers over Elves because the bow is the same, the armour is the same, and the toughness is the same. The increase in BS isnt worth the points difference in my opinion.

    While Dwarfs have better bows (crossbows/guns), better Toughness, better armour, and cost less than an Elf!

    I know there are arguments that not everything can match the fluff, but as it stands the game goes against the fluff completely and universally.
    Staunch supporter of rigid Moderation.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    26
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x1)

    I know that people say that the fluff shouldn't fully indicate the capabilities of the races. For example, slann shouldn't be automatic victories in the field of magic. They're some of the best, but they don't seal the fate of their opponents of the field. However, the abilities should imitate fluff. High Elves should be talented at range and magic. Orcs should be a furious horde.
    Tyranids 1850 - 10/0/0 Models sold off, but I still sometimes play with proxies.

    High Elves 2000 - 0/1/1 Starting, don't have any models.

  11. #10
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,221
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Audible Silence View Post
    For example, slann shouldn't be automatic victories in the field of magic. They're some of the best, but they don't seal the fate of their opponents of the field.
    haha, ever fought one?
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts