Topic: Huntsmen worthwhile anymore?

[Eisenherz]

Seeing as how you have to employ a minimum of 10 huntsmen now (NEB), meaning the unit costs at least 100 points, is it worth it having them?

Ususally they don't see the end of the battle (or do they?), and 100 VP might be something to worry about. Also, they don't have longbows anymore, which used to be an advantage over humble archers.

On the other hand, they do count towards the minimum core units now, so if you don't fancy having too much of them, the huntsmen might come in here.

What do you think?

[cisse]

Nope, I don't use them anymore, allthough I do miss them...

The cost is just too high for a throwaway unit, and 10 is also a high number for a scouting unit, making it harder to hide them. Also, they don't hurt anything anyway, whether they're 5 strong or 10. Skinks, for example, are actually usefull and are cheaper, so taking 10 isn't exactly a problem, but huntsmen are just not worth it in a unit of 10 in my opinion.

[Oss]

Well, they certainly do have the possibility to be worth their points, though usually not by killing. They can divert, block LOS, draw enemy fire, occupy frenzied units...  In doing so they are quite likely to die. Thus you must make sure its worth the points. For 50 it usually is, for a 100 it may be, or it may not.
The fact that actually leads to huntsmen making it to my list less often however, is that they are not essential to most battleplans (unless you intend to marchblock for firing your guns longer). In 6th Edition they were used to fill points between 50-100, once the essentials were on the table. Lacking this flexibility, I must have a plan for them to take them. This happens, but not as often as it used to.

[clausewitz]

In larger points games (2500+ or so) they are still worth it IMO.  The scout ability can have several good uses, as seen by its regular use by armies that have cheaper or more powerful scouting units.

A unit of 10 has a very good chance of beating a non-dwarf artillery crew, and as skirmishers they are resistant to most artillery fire (barring organ guns, flame cannons etc but the dangerous ones are mostly the dwarf ones anyway).  At the very least they might draw fire away from your more essential troops and more expensive knights just by getting in the way.

10 bow shots isnt going to scare much, but there some annoying units that wouldnt relish those shots being fired at them.  Light cavalry such as wolfriders, dark riders and so on are not impossible to kill with bows.  This can be especially useful if the huntsmen are in terrain that will prevent chargers from easily reaching them, delaying the cavalry further if they get stuck in the terrain.

The problem is that at the usual 2000 points (or in smaller games) the 100 point cost is perhaps too much to risk.  The old 50 point unit was, as previously mentioned, cheap enough to take the gamble that they did something useful.  Which has therefore seen a marked decrease in the use of huntsmen at 2k and below.

However, I dont think they are useless.  In some cases they are still useful, even if in a rather boring manner. For example, if you are planning on a weighted/refused flank deployment.  You can put the huntsmen on the other flank, hidden away in some woods or similar.  If they can just survive the game they get their 100 points back by claiming or contesting a table quarter.  On the other hand they might be destroyed, but usually this will divert a more costly amount of your opponents forces away from your loaded flank which is a reasonable return in itself (some armies can field cheap units capable of dealing with huntsmen, naturally you would reconsider this tactic against them).

That said its not entirely a question of "are they useful" in themselves.  At 100 points for the unit its also a question of "would it be better to spend a small amount of additional points for a unit of 'nillas?".  All too often at lower points the answer is no.

[Taladryel]

Upon considering the issue, you people are mad.

10 Huntsmen are 100 points - that's actually not bad, considering the High/Dark Elf scout units have 5 T3 guys for 75 points. [Easier to deal with, arguably worse firepower, etc.] And 10 models == 3 dead before Panic, 6 dead before under half. At worst, if the enemy has enough stuff to take down 10 Scouts, they'd easily take down 5 as well - and that means you might not need to deploy any Scouts forward at all, or else you're quibbling over 50 VPs. In this regard, 10 Scouting Archers deployed back can still screen/grab quarters/whatever just as easily as a regular Archer unit. [Ok, 5-strong Archer units are more efficient at certain tasks - but worse at others over a 10-strong unit. Balances out.] Even if you use them as sacrificial lambs to draw off some enemy cavalry - whatever, you lost a 100-point screen unit. Unless you play Chaos, your screens/draw units will tend to fall in the 75-125 point range anyway. Moving on.

Oh, you say. You can't deploy TEN models. Egads. Whatever shall we do. Lest we forget, Lizzie players had 8-12 strong Scouting Skink units since forever (and again, at worst you can just use Huntsmen as "regular" Archers, albeit not necessarily a sacrificial unit).

Let's work out the math. 10 20mm bases == 4000mm squared, whilst the "totally invisible" area inside a 6" round wood == a circle with a 2" radius == 3.14*50^2 == 7,850mm squared. Unfortunately, not every table has a perfectly-sized wood perfectly-placed where it's a) useful and b) in the area where your Scouts are allowed to deploy. But again - 10 Scouts on 20mm bases aren't terrible to deal with.

So I say - the fact that they come in size 10 is annoying, especially since it used to be size 5, but hey - they still work reasonably well compared with other Scouting units out there. So I wouldn't mind having them, assuming I needed the capability. As it is, the build(s) I am contemplating utilize something else entirely - and I hate the fact that I need to use the Militia sprues to make'em. Still, if I were to decide to get some non-GW archer models (e.g. from the Foundry/Perry Bros historical lines), I'd have no problem using Huntsmen.

I suspect much of the noise now stems from the fact that they're not such a no-brainer unit as before. Boo hoo.

There. My contrarian post of the week-end. Carry on.

[Spam Monkey]

no

[BAWTRM]

While I believe that it's very well possible to hide 10 Huntsmen properly and that them counting towards core is an improvement I'm not likely to take them in any 2000/2250 list while I previously did so. This is simply because of cost issues.

For a 100 pts I get a naked Captain on a Pegasus. Spend a few points on a basic knights kit and I've got myself a march blocker that moves 20", can beat up those light units that are worth shooting at with Huntsmen and can easily slay the crew of the warmachines those Huntsmen might go after. Because he has such a good combat potential he can even take down Dwarven artillery crews. Furthermore, because of his high move he can do more of these thing in a single battle. He's also great for supporting and protecting my own units.

Bottom line, for almost the same amount of points (and, admittedly, a character slot) I get a unit that is a lot better IMO.

[Graf von Carroburg]

As with a lot in the NEB, I don't think they're unusable, I think it's more a case of softening what wasn't too hard before. 2 points did seem like too cheap to get both Scout AND a Longbow, and 12 points or more WOULD have made them unusable.

I was irritated by the minimum 10 until I realised that, at least in early versions of my list, I fielded units of 7 anyway. This seemed like a nice figure where you could take some casualties and still be effective/not give up half VPs.

10 man units have a few things to recommend them. First, their shooting may actually suffice to do some damage to irritating things. Moreover, there are enough shots where you can count on them to get a wound against many things, whereas five was unreliable. This is not the best bit.

Second, three kills needed for a panic test, and six to get any VPs at all. Not to mention that to get the 100 VPs, they have to devote time and resources to catching and killing them all.

If we are prepared to spend 100 points on a 10 man Flagellant unit to sacrifice for tactical purposes, why not Huntsmen? Tactical use of the former can prevent a charge for a turn or so by holding enemies up. Tactical use of the latter may delay them to keep the guns firing and prevent them hitting you at all. Not to mention that they aren't frenzied, and hence can't be baited. On the other hand, they can bait frenzied troops. Release Fanatics. Etc. We can fight the other army's skirmishers and stop them getting amongst our artillery.

Failing all else, we can probably hide and deny victory points.

I am also thinking about an interesting little gambit, which goes like this. Hide Huntsmen in woods. Charge out into flank of expensive enemy unit. Get knocked about a bit, break, forcing unit to restrain pursuit, or follow you sideways, into woods, diverting from purpose and possibly risking enfilade fire. If they leave you, rally in woods, and come out to do it again. Could be an amusing nuisance for some enemies.

Finally, there is always the option of hanging back and using 360 fire arc and easy movement to guard against tunnelling teams etc. Sure Outriders are better at this, but I don't have the room in my army, sadly. What's more, they lack the flexibility I feel.

At least until plastic Flagellants come out and I can start playing about with multiple units as diversions, Huntsmen are going back in my list!

[Rufas the Eccentric]

no

And the award for the most concise answer goes to (drum roll...) Spam Monkey 

[Graf von Carroburg]

Now there's some truth in advertising for you for a screenname!

(Spam Monkey, that is. Though Rufus, I have every confidence, is probably quite eccentric...)

[Rufas the Eccentric]

Though Rufus, I have every confidence, is probably quite eccentric...)

I try my best.  In the present case Spam Monkey beat me to the answer I wanted to use.

[Dain of the Border Legion]

I won't bore you with why I still use them, I simply do. Even at 100 points they are still cheap.

Dain

[Frosty]

They find thier way into most of my lists beause...

March Block the enemy
Bait & Flee to send enemy units into woods etc
Suicide squad (to trigger fanatics or feed a nasty monster/unit)
Rear, Flank charge stuff
Pure diversion... use them to distract/annoy the enemy so he wastes resources/time to kill them

My lads rarely survive a game & rarely fire unless they really have nothing better to do that turn as I usally find the extra movement far more usefull than the crappy bow shots.

It's 100vps Im happy to give away as I try to make sure the effect they have disrupting the enemys plan is worth it.

Sceptics.. go on, give them a go, use them carefully & you will be surprised how usefull they can be.

[Grutch]

This is a perfect example of Graham McNeil's lack of qualification as a game designer. 

Graham: Greatswords had their 0-1 restriction lifted and we felt that being able to take a magic rag on a stick as well would mean we’d see every banner in the Empire arsenal being brought out… as to the Huntsmen, well, it made things a lot easier in terms of rules just to keep them as upgraded Archers.

Helstrom: As a follow up - 10+ greatly comlicates actually using them as scouts - is that intentional and, if so, something we'll see in future books as well?

Graham: I suppose it does make them trickier to use, but I guess that’ll be a new challenge for generals. As to whether it’s something you’ll see more of…I can’t say, as I’m not part of the team that develops the rules now.

Seriously WTF?!?

Had this man done any research at all, you would find plenty of Empire Generals employing scouts to marchblock in assistance of their gunline.  This change apparantly took no thinking through at all.

Graham: I suppose it does make them trickier to use, but I guess that’ll be a new challenge for generals

Are you kidding me?!  How about we just pass up on huntsmen Like we pass up on the ruined Helblaster?  Thanks Graham! 

-Grutch

[Midaski]

I have no complaints about losing the longbows - it always seemd a bit odd that your regular archers who would be back with the battleline had ordinary bows, when they would require 'range' to hit advancing enemies as early as possible, and the scouts creeping around in undergrowth stealthily would be more likely to use a shorter bow for ease of carrying and because they were probably closer to the enemy.

The minimum 10 is just stupid and has to be an error they refuse to admit to.

[Taladryel]

Unless they took a look at Lizzie players using Scouting Skink units of 10 models and said - oh, this is fine then.

With GW, you never know. They have previously confirmed stuff that people thought could only have been typos or mistakes to be actual design decisions.

That aside, it's a unit of 10 Scouts. With bows. That don't take up a character slot (and can go in terrain, unlike any Pegasus Captains), and that are costed on par with most other balanced Scouting/Fast Cav units (but count as Core). People with enough WFB experience should know what to do with them.

On a separate note - would I have been happier to see GW do something like 5-with-longbows-at-12-points-each? Yes. Forces people to think more. Breaks up the monotony. I can get a whole unit with just one Perry Brothers blister rather than two. But then we'd have posts up and down this very board on how they're overcosted (and again - try playing with Elf Scouts some time...), and how 5 die too easily, etc. etc.

And on a concluding note - in THIS regard, Graham McNeil, as "ignorance-is-bliss" as he was of a game designer, was actually not far off. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is NOTHING inherently wrong or bad with a unit of 10 Scouts (at least not on 20mm bases). But they're not as no-brainer to use as a unit of 5 Scouts (although they do present more tactical possibilities as well - right down to some HTH applications).

[ProFF7]

i agree that almost for the same cost i would rather get a unit of nillas, or a pegasus captain. even some pistoliers

[jlutin]

The silliest thing is that I can take only 5 flaggies, but have to take 10 scouting archers.   

[ProFF7]

The silliest thing is that I can take only 5 flaggies, but have to take 10 scouting archers.   

or a unit of 5-6 flaggelants for half the point cost 

[Eisenherz]

Thanks for all of your thoughtful arguments. I think I might give them a go, increased in number as they are - if only because I run an Ostland theme and foresters are pretty much part of my Ostland idea.

[Rufas the Eccentric]

When in doubt, always go for the good story line. 

[Pistol Pete]

I'd like to see an option to replace thier bows with shields, extra hand weapons, or even a halberd (woodsman's axe- counts as a halberd).  Like archers, thier pathetic Str 3 BS 3 shooting is worthless, and only thier movement is valuable.  I'd gladly pay for a points upgrade if we got some kind of small combat boost.

[unheilig]

for me, the issue isnt the minimum unit size of 10... its the loss of the longbow.