Topic: Archers and other Chaff

[Grendel083]

Greetings fellow Generals! 

I'm just wondering how you use your small disposable units. Archers and other chaff..
Scouting archers ahead of the main battle line? Open or Skirmishing?
How are you positioning your detachments? Deflecting units for a flank charge?

In other words, how can we use our small throwaway units, to help the rest of the force?

[sedobren]

They kinda work as detachments of greatswords, getting stubborn. I once deployed 1 unit of 10 archers in front of the unit (geatswords as i said) to absorb the first charge from some HE Dragon princes, and in the end they worked allright for a 35 pts speedbump. You know they don't cause panic since they skirmish, so it's pretty safe to put them there.

The same thing can be done by outriders (fire and flee, skirmishers, they can pass through the unit behind to safety) witha better effect since they have a lot of shots and bs4 - i don't know if they count as msu since they are cavalry and the cost 100+ pts. In this case i'd say put them in front of spearmen since you won't be using stubborn.

[Footpatrol2]

For 87 points a captain with full plate lance and shield on Pegasus. Amazing chaff.

[madeinitaly1]

For 87 points a captain with full plate lance and shield on Pegasus. Amazing chaff.

This would be great if we had viable core choices other than archers and knights

[Footpatrol2]

6 point state troops are fine. Just don't take the veteran boost.

[Skyros]

Basic state troops with hand weapons and shields should cost 4 points.

And they still wouldn't be as good as Bretonnia peasants, which also cost 4 points.

[Footpatrol2]

Basic state troops with hand weapons and shields should cost 4 points.

And they still wouldn't be as good as Bretonnia peasants, which also cost 4 points.

Well we don't have that. 6 point state troops is what we got for light core infantry. It is still usable and you can still build blocks of infantry with that.

[Zygmund]

Scouting archers ahead of the main battle line? Open or Skirmishing?
How are you positioning your detachments? Deflecting units for a flank charge?

In other words, how can we use our small throwaway units, to help the rest of the force?

This is highly dependent on the opposing army.

Against shooty & magicky elfs, no small unit chaff can prevail. They just erase the units they need to erase. And when complete units are blown up, everybody within 6" takes a panic test. They're a liability close to your lines. So only use scouting archers near their lines, to screen & draw fire away from your important units.

Shooty Dwarfs do not have high BS and lack speed. Against them, archer screens and scouts work nicely. Just don't make them into speedpumps for the dwarfs.

Against impetuous orcs & goblins with little effective shooting, the small units work great. Position & angle them so that they delay your opponent and cause traffic chaos. I've won games by doing this.

Every small unit is good against first charge knights, to make them spend their first charge on them. Just make sure you position correctly, to avoid getting overrun where you don't want it, and to lure in overruns where you want them.

-Zyg

[Minsc]

6 point state troops are fine. Just don't take the veteran boost.

They are 7 ppm with spears, making them noticeably more expensive than any other similar spear-unit in the game, and with worse stats or rules (or even both) to boot.

They are not "fine", they are overpriced.

Compare them to brett peasants, yeomen guard, clanrats, skeletons etc. and you'll realize how subpar they are.

[Skyros]

Basic state troops with hand weapons and shields should cost 4 points.

And they still wouldn't be as good as Bretonnia peasants, which also cost 4 points.

Well we don't have that. 6 point state troops is what we got for light core infantry. It is still usable and you can still build blocks of infantry with that.

You can, but if you take three blocks of state troops (as I used to do with my previous edititon TVI lists) you're essentially overpaying enough points to field an entire powerful monster unit.

[Footpatrol2]

I'm not arguing that our state troops don't need some love or that we are not overcosted. I am stating that it is still usable and hopefully when our arcane journal comes out we will get some love.

6 ppm with just spears not taking shields btw. You guys are stating that since our state troops are slightly over costed you shouldn't take them which just isn't the case.

Our dgk knights are undercosted for what they do. State troops are over costed for what they do. So it kind of balances itself there. Unit to unit cross army direct comparisons is not a good way to evaluate the unit.

[Warlord]

Unit to unit cross army direct comparisons is not a good way to evaluate the unit.

Why? Those are literally the units they should be fighting against and winning based on their cost…

[commandant]

Unit to unit cross army direct comparisons is not a good way to evaluate the unit.

Why? Those are literally the units they should be fighting against and winning based on their cost…

Because units have different roles within armies and there are different ways that the rest of the army can impact them.

[Minsc]

Unit to unit cross army direct comparisons is not a good way to evaluate the unit.

Why? Those are literally the units they should be fighting against and winning based on their cost…

Because units have different roles within armies and there are different ways that the rest of the army can impact them.

I never understood this argument in my 20 years of wargaming.
My Clanrats and Yeomen Guard (and to some extent Skeletons) have the exact same role in their armies as my State troops have in my Empire lists, so of course I can compare them with each other.

The "you can't compare units between armies"-stance is as strange to me as the "you have to play X games before you can have an opinion on the army"-stance that some have...

[commandant]

The "you have to play X games" is because the games are very swingy so therefore you beed enough games for the luck to balance itself out.

[Minsc]

The "you have to play X games" is because the games are very swingy so therefore you beed enough games for the luck to balance itself out.

It has nothing to do with luck or swingy games: Experienced players can often tell if a unit (or a whole army in extreme cases) is underpowered (or overpowered) on first viewing.

Empire as a whole in TOW is a good example of this. The instant I read the rules in FoF I knew this army would be bottom of the barrel and here we are, ~3 months later and we're officially in dead last according to available tournament-data.

And before someone thinks I'm just tooting my own horn, I know alot of people both here and in my gaminggroup who shared those views.

Edit: With that said, I do enjoy playing my Empire to some extent, but I'd enjoy it more if the army was better balanced (both internally and externally), with more good options than Knights and (to take it back on topic somewhat) Archers in core. 

Skaven is iirc the second weakest army @2000 pts and coincidentally it's also an army I own, and while I knew that army would have issues as well upon reading their pdf for the first time, it being noticeable better balanced internally makes it much more fun to play. (You actually want to field Skaven Core.)

[Perforated]

The "you have to play X games" is because the games are very swingy so therefore you beed enough games for the luck to balance itself out.

Statistics care nothing for luck.

[commandant]

It has nothing to do with luck or swingy games: Experienced players can often tell if a unit (or a whole army in extreme cases) is underpowered (or overpowered) on first viewing.

Empire as a whole in TOW is a good example of this. The instant I read the rules in FoF I knew this army would be bottom of the barrel and here we are, ~3 months later and we're officially in dead last according to available tournament-data.

Maybe but there is some conditions that need to be placed on this.   

First the available tournament data is very small.   As far as I know there have been no non-comped tournaments, though I don't really follow the tournament scene so I could be wrong on that.
Secondly the group think could (and likely has) impacted the tournament scene.   Like people claim that state troops are overpriced and yet the tournament army that we know won a tournament heavily used state troops.   Likewise if you assume that state troops are not over priced for a second then tournament players are hampering themselves with their belief that they are overpriced.   The only way to test if they are overpriced or not (in a tournament setting) would be for a number of tournaments to be played with Empire armies that contained a reasonable number of state troops.   This hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) happened.

Experienced players can often tell if a unit (or a whole army in extreme cases) is underpowered (or overpowered) on first viewing.

 

There are no experienced players in TOW.   This is a Faux Aimee.   Players think because they are experienced in 8th edition or 7th edition or 6th edition they can safely evaluate TOW but this is not accurate.   TOW has very different interactions compared to 8th/7th/6th edition.   There are many examples of this.   I will just give one.
Many people stated that the priest in TOW is overpriced to the point of useless (regardless of whether or not it is a priest of sigmar or a priest of Ulric).  However I wonder how many of those people considered (in their comparison to priests in 8th and 7th editions) that the priest's prayers are unstoppable and that the priest is untargetable but the opponent.   On the surface the priest looks very similar to the priests of pervious editions but in reality they are not.   

[Minsc]

Experienced players can often tell if a unit (or a whole army in extreme cases) is underpowered (or overpowered) on first viewing.

 

There are no experienced players in TOW.   This is a Faux Aimee. Players think because they are experienced in 8th edition or 7th edition or 6th edition they can safely evaluate TOW but this is not accurate

I'm not gonna go deeper on this than say that I think you are absolutely wrong.

(And Priests are bad. )

[Perforated]

First the available tournament data is very small.

It is "small", but it is also large enough that we can start seeing general trends.

As far as I know there have been no non-comped tournaments, though I don't really follow the tournament scene so I could be wrong on that.

Define comp. A "rule of three" comp (which seems to be at least "not uncommon" will have little to no bearing on the inclusion of state troops.

Secondly the group think could (and likely has) impacted the tournament scene.   Like people claim that state troops are overpriced and yet the tournament army that we know won a tournament heavily used state troops.

One data point means absolutely nothing and should be seen as nothing but anecdotal evidence at best. The thing about the group (I mean tournament players) is that they are generally quick to learn what works and what doesn't.

The only way to test if they are overpriced or not (in a tournament setting) would be for a number of tournaments to be played with Empire armies that contained a reasonable number of state troops.

Given the superior efficiency of other choices in the Empire list the "reasonable" number of state troops is likely the bare minimum.

There are no experienced players in TOW.   This is a Faux Aimee.   Players think because they are experienced in 8th edition or 7th edition or 6th edition they can safely evaluate TOW but this is not accurate.   TOW has very different interactions compared to 8th/7th/6th edition.

The very core of the game remains the same as it always has. While a player might not be "experienced" with ToW in the same way they are with an older edition the general principles still apply and conclusions can be made based off of those. If other troops do the same job or better job as state troops but at a lower cost then that points to the state troops being overpriced.

There are many examples of this.   I will just give one.
Many people stated that the priest in TOW is overpriced to the point of useless (regardless of whether or not it is a priest of sigmar or a priest of Ulric).  However I wonder how many of those people considered (in their comparison to priests in 8th and 7th editions) that the priest's prayers are unstoppable and that the priest is untargetable but the opponent.   On the surface the priest looks very similar to the priests of pervious editions but in reality they are not.

Bad analysis IMO. The priest of old brought channeling of power/dispel dice as well as the real deal, i.e. Hatred for the whole unit against everything. The prayers were mostly a tactical way of drawing out opponents dispel dice in the "mini game" called Magic Phase in 8th edition.

It is true that the ToW priests prayer cannot be stopped, but with Ld 7/8 the odds of those going off are not great and fall into the same box as those in 8th edition, i.e. nice when they go off but cannot be trusted to do so. Magic resistance seems to be generally better in this edition, so that is some real value.

Had they still been Ld 8/9 then for their price-point I feel they would be a viable option.

[commandant]

Bad analysis IMO. The priest of old brought channeling of power/dispel dice as well as the real deal, i.e. Hatred for the whole unit against everything. The prayers were mostly a tactical way of drawing out opponents dispel dice in the "mini game" called Magic Phase in 8th edition.

It is true that the ToW priests prayer cannot be stopped, but with Ld 7/8 the odds of those going off are not great and fall into the same box as those in 8th edition, i.e. nice when they go off but cannot be trusted to do so. Magic resistance seems to be generally better in this edition, so that is some real value.

Had they still been Ld 8/9 then for their price-point I feel they would be a viable option.

This is part of my point.   The fact the old priest brought channeling of power/dispel dice (or indeed just dispel dice if you go to 6th edition) is not relevant because that entire power and dispel dice game is gone.   Therefore when evaluating the benefits and worth of the priest this is not something that should be considered.   

The chance of a prayer going off at ld7 is 58%.   That is better than 1 in 2.   The chance of a prayer going off at ld8 is 72%.   This is not even close compared with 7th and 8th where the chance of a priest's prayer going off was practically 0%.   Your opponent could chose to allow it but that was pretty much the only time that they would be successful. A priest's prayer can be relied on to go off roughly 60% of the time and a lector's prayer 72% of the time.   

Also magic defense is not better in this edition.   Magic defense is a lot harder in this edition than it was in 6th/7th and 8th.   In 6th/7th and 8th you had scroll caddies who could ensure that 2 spells were stopped.   You could ensure that your dispel dice were used against the spells which were really needed.   You could target priest to kill them before their spells were used.   There was no such thing as an uncontestable spell.   Meanwhile in TOW it is possible to position your wizard outside the dispel bubble of your opponent and then they have one faithed dispel which is rolled at a -2 - -5 against the casting roll.

Admittedly losing hatred against everything (which was nice despite it being a stupid rule) hurts the warrior priest but on the other hand their prayers are better.   

First the available tournament data is very small.

It is "small", but it is also large enough that we can start seeing general trends.

As far as I know there have been no non-comped tournaments, though I don't really follow the tournament scene so I could be wrong on that.

Define comp. A "rule of three" comp (which seems to be at least "not uncommon" will have little to no bearing on the inclusion of state troops.

Secondly the group think could (and likely has) impacted the tournament scene.   Like people claim that state troops are overpriced and yet the tournament army that we know won a tournament heavily used state troops.

One data point means absolutely nothing and should be seen as nothing but anecdotal evidence at best. The thing about the group (I mean tournament players) is that they are generally quick to learn what works and what doesn't.

The very core of the game remains the same as it always has. While a player might not be "experienced" with ToW in the same way they are with an older edition the general principles still apply and conclusions can be made based off of those. If other troops do the same job or better job as state troops but at a lower cost then that points to the state troops being overpriced.

It is not 100% clear that other troops do the same job at a lower cost.   There are no other troops (except skeleton archers I think but I need to look into that) which have the same action economy as Empire State troops at the same price point.   Elves have the same action economy but they are more expensive.   I am still investigating the different infantry core option and I'll write some more posts on it but the action economy of detachments is quite important.

Also changes like FBIGO mean that things like leadership are more important now than they were in pervious editions.   Again some more work is needed.   

Secondly the group think could (and likely has) impacted the tournament scene.   Like people claim that state troops are overpriced and yet the tournament army that we know won a tournament heavily used state troops.

One data point means absolutely nothing and should be seen as nothing but anecdotal evidence at best. The thing about the group (I mean tournament players) is that they are generally quick to learn what works and what doesn't. 

Yes and no.   1 data point does indeed mean little but the fact that there has not been many tournament armies that have had a lot of state troops is evidence that the idea that state troops are overcosted that his common among tournament players (at least on this forum) is perceived wisdom based on pervious editions rather than expressed wisdom based on this edition.

[Perforated]

@Commandant

A kind request that your properly format the second half of your post. It's a tangled mess and thus very hard to parse what you responded to.

[commandant]

Will do. 

[Perforated]

This is part of my point.   The fact the old priest brought channeling of power/dispel dice (or indeed just dispel dice if you go to 6th edition) is not relevant because that entire power and dispel dice game is gone.   Therefore when evaluating the benefits and worth of the priest this is not something that should be considered.

Is it though? The channeling ability has effectively been replaced with magic resistance and we can to some extent compare their relative merits.

This is not even close compared with 7th and 8th where the chance of a priest's prayer going off was practically 0%.

This is just patently false and shows a complete misunderstanding of how warrior priests could be leveraged in the magic phase.

Your opponent could chose to allow it but that was pretty much the only time that they would be successful. A priest's prayer can be relied on to go off roughly 60% of the time and a lector's prayer 72% of the time.   

A point of form. Why are you rounding the percentage? It's 58% or more accurately 21/36. It's not "roughly 60%" which implies a plus/minus margin of error.

You could target priest to kill them before their spells were used.

And I cannot do this now?

Admittedly losing hatred against everything (which was nice despite it being a stupid rule) hurts the warrior priest but on the other hand their prayers are better.

It being a "stupid rule" is just opinion. Fluff-wise it makes sense. In very real game terms the loss of the rule severely hurt the warrior priest as the main reason for taking him was to get hatred for whatever unit you put him in. The rest (channeling, prayers) were just gravy.

Will do. 

Thank you, I appreciate it

[commandant]

Is done