Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:55 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:06 pm
Posts: 11
I was told the RBT wast worth taking as archers would be better, so I decided to jump into the math and consider. This is me doing the math for myself, and posting it in case anyone else cares :)

1 RBT: 100 points
vs
10 Archers: 110 points

RBT, Range 25-48
T3: 3 hits, 2 wounds
T4: 3 hits, 1.5 wounds
T5: 3 hits, 1 wound
T6: 3 hits, .5 wound

Archers: Range 16-30
T3: 5 hits, 2.5 wounds
T4: 5 hits, 1.67 wounds
T5: 5 hits, .83 wounds

RBT, Range 0-24
T3, 4 hits, 2.67 wounds
T4, 4 hits, 2 wounds
T5, 4 hits, 1.33 wounds
T6, 4 hits, .67 wounds

Archers: Range 0-15
T3, 6.6 hits, 3.33 wounds
T4, 6.6 hits, 2.22 wounds
T5, 6.6 hits, 1.1 wounds

Looks like the raw numbers don't look good for the RBT. However there are two things to consider. 1. is the RBT has longer range. This means that between 31-48 inches, the RBT does 100% more damage than the archers, and between 16-24, it out preforms the archers. Thats around 24 inches the RBT outpreformes archers 2. is the RBT has a -2 to armor save. I'll make a new post with armor save stats.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:58 pm 
Offline
Centurion

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 3298
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I think the archers are the way to go, well at least for me they are. Around the same points for 10 of them, they can get into buildings and be a real annoyance for enemy units and don't look past them charging into the flank to support a unit. ASF S3 can tally up a kill or two. I think the best thing is though simply put is the 10 wounds as opposed to the 2-3 (still up for debate).

_________________
Nec Sorte Nec Fato - Neither By Chance Nor Fate

X-wing Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:15 am
Posts: 44
Your math is sound, the archers will always hit more often due to their greater number of shots in a basic unit, but it's the age-old question of quality versus quantity. Does many shots mean more casualties compared to less, more powerful shots?

Whilst the archers are fantastic against horde units (i.e. other elves, orcs, etc), who generally have lower armour than other armies core troops (i.e. Chaos Warriors, Saurus Warriors, etc), it should always be remembered that they will still have an armour save, compared to the RBT where they are at -2 to their save. Besides, with a higher strength the RBT is more likely to wound the higher toughness troops, (expecially in the 16-24 inches you mentioned earlier).

I tend to take a mixture of both, as Archers will always be better against higher toughness troops, such as monsters or war machines, due to their high number of shots, and the fact that it is always possible to cause a wound on a 6. But then, the RBT has a brilliant injury rate against heavy infantry, and also against cavalry, especially in the flank with a single bolt.

Hope that gives you some thought!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:15 am
Posts: 44
Jimmy wrote:
I think the best thing is though simply put is the 10 wounds as opposed to the 2-3 (still up for debate).


As far as I know, against missile fire the RBT has 3 wounds, ('ignore' the first one and then start taking off crew) but only 2 in C/C, for the crew.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:14 pm 
Offline
Shiny and Polished
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:26 pm
Posts: 1781
No, it has 2 wounds against any form of attacks as any wound dealt on it, that you don't save with the crew's 6+ armor save, removes one crew. At zero crew (2 wounds dealt) you remove the machine too.

The "W 3" stat for the war machine is completely ignored in 8th edition - it does not matter anymore.

Anyway, there's also the core vs rare to consider when talking about Archers vs RBTs... 25% core doesn't fill itself up! O: I'd go for archers, lots of them.

And more shots are better if you can get them enhanced from certain spells too!
Metal: Enchanted Blades of Aiban: +1 To hit, armor piercing, magical.
Fire: Flaming Sword of Rhuin: +1 to wound, flaming, magical.
Heavens: Harmonic Convergence: Reroll all 1s when rolling to hit, to wound or armor saves. (can affect multiple units)
High Magic: Curse of Arrow Attraction: reroll to hit on target unit.

the RBT's 6 shots enhanced by any of those spells are ok, but a large unit of archers makes the augments even deadlier.
Plan accordingly when choosing your mage's lores when making your list :D

Its all fun and games but its also quite boring to always see Lore of Life in every list...

Imagine Lore of Metal, with Sea Guards, augment them with Enchanted Blades and Glittering Robes. They now have 3+ armor save, equivalent of Ballistic 5, armor piercing S3 magical shots. O:

_________________
Kalandros Shadowsun


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:05 am
Posts: 469
Location: UK
The other thing to think about is close combat, both in terms of defence and offence. Archers, with their 10 ASF attacks, are very resilient against most of the enemies that are designed and taken precisely to deal with things like RBTs. Light flanking units? No problem for archers... 10 shots to the face from a stand and shoot then 10 attacks before the enemy lands a single blow. Compared to 2 attacks from the RBT, and no stand and shoot.

Offensively, you always have the option of using the archers in a supporting charge if a battle is getting hairy and oyu need that extra little bit to throw it your way. RBTs are simply unable to perform this role.

Additionally, you have the tactical benefit of archers as a garrison unit, which RBT can't do. Normally this isn't that important, but a unit of 14 archers does very nicely in the watch tower scenario, for instance (they probably won't hold it all game, but aren't unlikely to hold it until your army gets there).

Finally, as Silver said, the fact that archers are core make a huge difference. Taking a couple units of archers instead of spearmen does not greatly reduce your combat ability. Taking a couple of RBTs instead of elite units does. And if you are only taking 2 RBTs, the number of shots isn't high enough do do significant damage to very tough units (nor are the archers... but that's not what I take 1-2 units for).

Ultimately the choice between them does depend on a lot of factors. If you are going for a shooting army, you probably want a mix of RBTs and archers to deal with any enemy. But if you are trying to find some shooting support for your combat army, go with archers, all the way.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:13 am
Posts: 1983
Location: Illinois, USA
I agree with all that's been said here so far. I would just add that one should not forget about the single bolt shot either. S6 ignoring armour saves doing d3 wounds can be a nice tool that archers cannot perform.

That said, I still think that archers are the way to go, filling core needs and being able to buff them for more effectiveness are the main factors for me.

_________________
Battle Standard Bearer. Don't leave home without it.
Bolt Thrower's High Elves


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:20 pm
Posts: 12
Bolt Thrower wrote:
I agree with all that's been said here so far. I would just add that one should not forget about the single bolt shot either. S6 ignoring armour saves doing d3 wounds can be a nice tool that archers cannot perform.


Never forget this one. I have seen 3 bolt throwers that take 5 wounds of screaming bell, kill plague furnace and finish of a hellpit abomination that had lost 2 wounds while walking right throught HE left flank killing 5 DP, BSB and 14 SM on the way among other things.

Last time i played a small game (1000pts.) vs dwarfs 1 RBT destroyed organ gun before it did anything and for the rest of the game forced a panic test/turn (those stunts are hard to drive away).

I'm not saying that RBTs are a must but they are easily underestimated. Even if you don't use them you shouldn't forget them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:24 pm
Posts: 421
RBT are still good. You should still use them. We are High Elves, not Chaos Mortals, and not Empire. This means we can have a respectable shooting phase, but rarely a shooting phase that will win us the game. We need it as support. At 2k, I play with 20 Sea Guards, and 2x10 Archers as my core, and bring along 2 RBT and 2x5 Shadow Warriors. This modest but reliable firepower helps me support the rest of my phases in the game.

Yes our shooting isn't the best, but I would rather use that nifty BS4 which happens to be rarer than our WS4 to fill out my core. RBT still are a valuable asset that will probably die, but then again, what doesn't these days :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:35 pm
Posts: 235
Location: cedar city ut usa
Jaith wrote:
RBT are still good. You should still use them. We are High Elves, not Chaos Mortals, and not Empire. This means we can have a respectable shooting phase, but rarely a shooting phase that will win us the game. We need it as support. At 2k, I play with 20 Sea Guards, and 2x10 Archers as my core, and bring along 2 RBT and 2x5 Shadow Warriors. This modest but reliable firepower helps me support the rest of my phases in the game.

Yes our shooting isn't the best, but I would rather use that nifty BS4 which happens to be rarer than our WS4 to fill out my core. RBT still are a valuable asset that will probably die, but then again, what doesn't these days :D

I agree. Archers are a great way to fill core but if you need to kill a big nasty, and the Hell cannon comes to mind, the S6 is a huge bonus, not to mention the multiple wounds. I generally use at least 2 bolt throwers and one or two units of archers, although neither is all that effective in my games as I almost always play against skaven and warriors of chaos that is heavy on the warriors devoted to nurgle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:39 pm
Posts: 150
For single shot bolt throwers I would much rather rely on the bow of the seafarer, it will be used by a higher ballistic skill opponent and its much easier to position it on flanks to do multiple woulds.

A prince on a great eagle with the bow of the seafarer can really wreack some havoc on cavalry units...

Especially if you are simply trying to slow them down by parking your prince on a great eagle next to their flank, then blast an arrow right into it...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:15 am
Posts: 44
Awsten wrote:
For single shot bolt throwers I would much rather rely on the bow of the seafarer, it will be used by a higher ballistic skill opponent and its much easier to position it on flanks to do multiple woulds.

A prince on a great eagle with the bow of the seafarer can really wreack some havoc on cavalry units...

Especially if you are simply trying to slow them down by parking your prince on a great eagle next to their flank, then blast an arrow right into it...


true, the Bow of the Seafarer would normally be hitting on 2+/3+, but then that's a lot of points to put into one model (who will normally be your general) in a 2000 point game. The RBT doesn't hit as easily, but with Curse of Arrow Attraction and having a longer range you'll often find that the RBT hits more often, and is a lot cheaper (2 RBT's for the price of 1 Prince with afore mentioned equipment).

Not only that, as you can no longer move 20" on a G.Eagle and still shoot the Bow, moving 10" means more often than not you won't have a flank shot, and will normally be in your enemies' charge arcs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:39 pm
Posts: 150
Elthrain wrote:
Awsten wrote:
For single shot bolt throwers I would much rather rely on the bow of the seafarer, it will be used by a higher ballistic skill opponent and its much easier to position it on flanks to do multiple woulds.

A prince on a great eagle with the bow of the seafarer can really wreack some havoc on cavalry units...

Especially if you are simply trying to slow them down by parking your prince on a great eagle next to their flank, then blast an arrow right into it...


true, the Bow of the Seafarer would normally be hitting on 2+/3+, but then that's a lot of points to put into one model (who will normally be your general) in a 2000 point game. The RBT doesn't hit as easily, but with Curse of Arrow Attraction and having a longer range you'll often find that the RBT hits more often, and is a lot cheaper (2 RBT's for the price of 1 Prince with afore mentioned equipment).

Not only that, as you can no longer move 20" on a G.Eagle and still shoot the Bow, moving 10" means more often than not you won't have a flank shot, and will normally be in your enemies' charge arcs.


You can but I won't get into that arguement here.

Even if it wasn't the case you can still forgoe the shot on the first round to get into position.

The question is of utility. You get much more utility out of archers and bow of the seafarer than you do with RBT's, RBT's serve one purpose while archers and a prince with bow can serve MANY purposes. This makes you more flexible to adapt to each opponent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:47 pm 
Offline
The Cavalry Prince
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 1022
Location: London, England.
I'm not sure we need to have an either/or debate, do we? Have both!

In my experience, the units that most hack me off are enemy scouts, skirmishers, flyers and archers/crossbows/handguns: all of which tend to be cheap and numerous but all of which can cause my expensive T3 army some serious headaches. If I can get rid of enemy support units, I fancy my chances of surrounding and annihilating enemy blocks or just crushing them in hand-to-hand with combo-charges. As is often discussed on this thread, battles against Dark Elves, for example, are often won in the shooting phase.

I have two units of archers and two repeater bolt throwers to achieve this: the latter are superb at tilting these kind of contests in my favour with their range and hitting power and, therefore, at shielding my combat units aggressively from enemy fire. They are particularly suited, above and beyond other war machines, for killing units in shallow formation (who are hard to hit with a template). The Str6 bolt is an optional extra which just gives you that extra tactical flexibility.

Further, since my shooting phase is respectable without magic (I choose Lore of Life), I can concentrate on using my power dice on other things, like buffing and repairing my elites.

_________________
The Cavalry Prince - List Design, Tactics, Battle Reports

It just ain't cool if your chrome don't shine.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:15 am
Posts: 44
Awsten wrote:
You can but I won't get into that arguement here.

Even if it wasn't the case you can still forgoe the shot on the first round to get into position.

The question is of utility. You get much more utility out of archers and bow of the seafarer than you do with RBT's, RBT's serve one purpose while archers and a prince with bow can serve MANY purposes. This makes you more flexible to adapt to each opponent.


I know the argument you're probably taking here Awsten (i saw the lengthy debate in another thread), and while it is completely logical to say that a monstrous cavalry that can fly should be flying cavalry, I've checked with 3 different GW managers, and their staff members and all agreed that flying cavalry is a special rule that must be specifically stated, not gained because of the combination of 2 rules (as per the rulebook). Crap I know, because I used to use the same sniping character, but don't think he'll do much help as now he can't march and shoot.

At least if he's on foot he can always stand and shoot! I've started taking a Prince on foot with dragon armour, and enchanted shield, g. weapon and Sacred Incense, and the Bow, then pop him in a unit of Seaguard - I do the same with Alith Anar in another unit - makes people think twice before charging those two units! PLus the -1 to hit them with missile fire is fantastic when facing armies with low BS, or Dark Elves with multiple shots.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 72
archers is better as they are core and you cant lose the hole unit too a cannon in one shot

yes the RBT still shot well but so do 2 x 30 archers back up with shadow and high magic and they can fight in hth just as well as spearmen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:34 am 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12734
Location: Otherworld
I like the magic bows as they don't suffer from the increased fragility of RBT, they are quite likely to see a game out and Reaver in particular is great for the VP collecting endgame.

The problem with them IMHO (especially at 2000pts) is that they eat magic item allowance. This is particularly relevant to the BSB. Under 7th, Reaver Bow and Talisman of Loec was a great combo for him but now it looks too fragile to me.

Sure you can put a magic bow on a Prince but at 2000pts that pretty much rules out an Archmage. So to get a decent magic phase you have to take a Mage and the BSB is almost a given. You can't also put Radiant Gem on the Prince as he needs protection.

So what I'm thinking is that taking a magic bow at 2000pts or so pretty much rules out magic offence. I know some guys have had joy with Life and Silver Wand but the defence looks too dodgy to me. Of course you can take a second Mage but that's a lot in characters.

Maybe the way to go is Prince w/Bow, BSB, Mage with High Magic and Crystal and go purely defensive magically?

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:24 pm
Posts: 421
@Spell Archer

The only way to know for sure is to try it :D
But really try these new things and ideas, don't dismiss them after you fail a couple times (because you will).
These things have hidden potential you can't really see on paper, they need to be tested on the battlefield extensively.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:44 am 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12734
Location: Otherworld
Well, I took a long hard look at the magic bow and magic phase options under 7th and played them extensively and I was mostly right. My builds were full of new ideas and controversial but they worked.

I'm not saying "oh you can never try a magic bow and a magic phase at 2000pts" I'm just saying I can't see how to make it work. The purpose of my post was to get guys to say "I play it this way and it works" and so the debate moves on.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 246
(forgive me if i say something stupid as i am totally new to High elves)

But i dont completely understand the added value of archers being core, as i dont think most people will use their maximum rare slot allowance.

_________________
BORKS WAAAGH ON DA WARPATH
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Orc__Goblin_Warpath/index.php?showtopic=25246


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:39 pm
Posts: 150
BorkBork wrote:
(forgive me if i say something stupid as i am totally new to High elves)

But i dont completely understand the added value of archers being core, as i dont think most people will use their maximum rare slot allowance.

The added value of them being core is they can act as a suitable replacement for bolt throwers while at the same time eating up that 25% requirement. HE players thrive off their special choices so when there are ways to minimize core cost but gain utility we take it.

Also Alith Anar is a great option for the purpose of magic bows, at 245 points he is basically 38 points cheaper than the illegal build that is inferior. At 2500 points you can take Alith Anar and a level 4 mage with bow of the seafarer, seerstaff and 6+ wardsave to basically have 2 single shot bolt throwers. Plus Alith Anar can easily be positioned on the flank to start chewing away at your targets from the get go.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:34 pm 
Offline
Tactician

Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: USA
BorkBork wrote:
But i dont completely understand the added value of archers being core, as i dont think most people will use their maximum rare slot allowance.
They help meet the minimum core requirement. Meeting min core is a big problem for HE, and almost certainly a bigger problem than for any other army book. Since you have to buy cruddy core anyway, if you get your shooting from there, you have effectively saved points.


On the original post, the extra armour piercing on the RBT multi-shot is almost always useful, and you ignored it. What target that you care about has only a 6+ armour save, or no armour save?
The RBT can also shoot 360 with no penalty. Combined with the range, that allows RBTs much more flexibility of positioning, and means the enemy has a much harder time avoiding them. And the RBT costs less.

In practice, equal points of RBTs will almost always kill more than equal points of archers. But not a lot more. With good targets harder to find in 8th, and the need to spend a lot of points on low value core, I don't think RBTs are worth taking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:06 pm
Posts: 11
dabber wrote:

On the original post, the extra armour piercing on the RBT multi-shot is almost always useful, and you ignored it. What target that you care about has only a 6+ armour save, or no armour save?


I posted as much in my original post and said I would do the math for it at a later time. It takes time for me to do this type of math and I haven't gotten around to it yet.

As far as the archers are core argument, it's really invalid. It depends on your list your trying to make. For example the list I was trying was shooting heavy. I know thats not an ideal list for HE to run in a tourney, but unless I play it, I don't know how viable it is. The reason this came up is because I had 2x20 LSG and 10 archers as core. Then 2 RBT. I was told I should just drop the 2 RBT and get 20 more archers, thus I decided to do the math.

I see armored horde units all the time, and I think the -2 AS will prove RBT are better than archers assuming I'm making a shooting list.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:15 am
Posts: 44
Cobra7, I decided to try out a few things from this thread in a game I had this evening - in 3000pts I took 2x10 Archers, a unit of 31 Seaguard with a BSB carrying the Reaver Bow, and 2x RBT.

The Seaguard did very little damage against the Saurus Warriors, and nothing against the Cold One Riders, with the BSB having an unfortunate run of bad luck with missing shots often, but doing some decent damage (when he hit) against all comers.

The Archers were next to useless. They were only ever able to kill Skinks, simply because 10 archers over half range, against T4 means avg. 5 hits, 2 wounds, and 1 save, compared with the 31 Seaguard over half range, moving, against T4, meaning avg. 10 hits, 6 wounds, and 3 saves.

The 2xRBTs were actually fantastic, as the extra range meant that after the Lizzies first movement, they were in already in half range, meaning 12 shots, avg. 8 hits, 4 wounds, and a 15% chance to save only 1!

The BSB was, in all honesty, not much use, as because he was moving forward with the Seaguard was normally at a -1 and sometimes -2 to hit due to long range.

It seems that when you factor in the armour modifier, and the fact they do not have to move to be in short range after the first turn, then the RBT is the way to go. The magic bows are fantastic items, but I think they'll work better in games when you plan to let the enemy come to you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:13 am
Posts: 1983
Location: Illinois, USA
Elthrain wrote:
The 2xRBTs were actually fantastic, as the extra range meant that after the Lizzies first movement, they were in already in half range, meaning 12 shots, avg. 8 hits, 4 wounds, and a 15% chance to save only 1!

The BSB was, in all honesty, not much use, as because he was moving forward with the Seaguard was normally at a -1 and sometimes -2 to hit due to long range.

It seems that when you factor in the armour modifier, and the fact they do not have to move to be in short range after the first turn, then the RBT is the way to go. The magic bows are fantastic items, but I think they'll work better in games when you plan to let the enemy come to you.


This surprises me about the magic bows as you are still hitting on 3's even if you move and are at long range which is the same as the RBT in range. I find the Reaver bow to be especially effective for the points.

_________________
Battle Standard Bearer. Don't leave home without it.
Bolt Thrower's High Elves


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:15 am 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 7282
Location: The city of Spires
Elthrain wrote:
The Archers were next to useless. They were only ever able to kill Skinks, simply because 10 archers over half range, against T4 means avg. 5 hits, 2 wounds, and 1 save, compared with the 31 Seaguard over half range, moving, against T4, meaning avg. 10 hits, 6 wounds, and 3 saves.

of course, for the price of 31 seaguard you can get 36 (and a bit) archers that have a longer range. So for the same amount of points you would actually hit more often (you loose the spear and armour bonus of course).

Just multiply the archer results by 3 and you'll see the same numbers as the seaguard unit come up. Which is of course what you expect with 2 units with the same BS and strength bows. The archers have longer range, but this is (partially) compensated by the fact that Seaguard are less likely to stay in 1 place all game.

Rod

_________________
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:15 am
Posts: 44
Bolt Thrower wrote:
This surprises me about the magic bows as you are still hitting on 3's even if you move and are at long range which is the same as the RBT in range. I find the Reaver bow to be especially effective for the points.

I think this may have just been my bad luck, as the first two times i rolled to hit with the BSB, I rolled two 1's!

rdghuizing wrote:
of course, for the price of 31 seaguard you can get 36 (and a bit) archers that have a longer range. So for the same amount of points you would actually hit more often (you loose the spear and armour bonus of course).

Just multiply the archer results by 3 and you'll see the same numbers as the seaguard unit come up. Which is of course what you expect with 2 units with the same BS and strength bows. The archers have longer range, but this is (partially) compensated by the fact that Seaguard are less likely to stay in 1 place all game.

Rod


Very true about the points, but as you've already mentioned, the armour save is always very nice to have, plus if they do get charged then at least I can have all of them attacking, rather than just a unit of 10 archers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:18 am
Posts: 560
Location: Tasmania, Australia
RBT's are good for wounding those tough Monsters and also heavily armored troops.

Archers on the other hand are good vs. lightly armored troops and as mentioned help soak up the Core points needed to get to the 25% minimum.

_________________
2008-2013 Wins:Draws:Losses
7th Ed High Elves 18 : 9 : 4 Bargle Con I, Best General, 3rd Overall
New High Elf Book 16 : 1 : 5 Bargle Con II, 2nd Overall, Conviction 2nd Overall & Best Sportsman

MSU List: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=48650


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:37 am
Posts: 426
I'm more of the opinion that quantity is better than quality. I tend to mess up my single shots (or even the mulit-shots) with the BTs and thus prefer to throw 10 dice with the Archers. Yes, the BT would likely be better against tough monsters but I would prefer the ability to manouver and run away from my enemy to deny points with the Archers than stand and be mauled as with the BT. Perhaps I will try to field one BT and one unit of Archers instead of fielding two Archers next time. That is, if my Core minimum won't suffer.. :)

_________________
ETC Team Scotland 2013 - High Elves
ETC Team Scotland 2014 - High Elves

Twitter: @kingpash

If you're interested in getting involved in the Scottish Warhammer scene then check this out - http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=121047

Glory to the Asur!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RBT vs Archers
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:29 pm
Posts: 237
Ok so in defense of the RBT I decided to run the numbers including armor. This includes a no modifier to hit for 10 archers or an RBT.

This is amount of wounds (after saves) difference between RBT and Archers (so RBT-Archer)

Save 6+ 5+ 4+ 3+ 2+ 1+
t3 -0.11 0.44 0.56 0.67 0.78 0.33
t4 0.148 0.518 0.56 0.592 0.629 0.296
t5 0.407 0.592 0.56 0.518 0.481 0.259

So RBT does better against everything with armor, except t3 6+ save where archers do better. This is helped by the fact that the RBT should have a better ability to be in short range. Of course standard caveats apply like 2 wound warmachine compared to 10 archers, as well as the fact that archers are core. But I thought this might help justify the warmachine a little bit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group