Orc Crossbows and the javelin rule?

[gull2112]

As with all polls, I'm curious what everybody thinks. Damn, this is like the third time I've tried to post this and I keep getting typo's!

[ajax98]

With my caveats; some specific rules for using the ability.
But if you really have to have simplicity...

[gull2112]

I see some early resistance to the idea which is only to be expected. The Orc faction is already so powerful as to be considered by many to be broken.

[ajax98]

I dunno. I think maybe they've been reading about the (presently) unresolved issue with the Orc's two Green card Fandango with turning a Wolf Rider into a car bomb.

[Hannibal]

I see some early resistance to the idea which is only to be expected. The Orc faction is already so powerful as to be considered by many to be broken.

Since I voted no, I figured I might shed some light on my vote.  I don't see the Orc Crossbowmen as needing the javelin rule.  Yes they certainly are a situational choice for the Orc army but I think they do have their uses.  The aforementioned hill situation turns them into (3) 6/5 while shooting and then (5)6/6 while defending that hill.  Also they work well with a refused flank situation where you don't need to advance but can stand back (any map where you have the giant lake but enough room for a single fast unit to run around and get in your back line).  Finally, they seem tailor made for the Reinforcement mission (5 Crossbowmen & 4 Orc Swordsmen is nothing to scoff at; and if I am paying in a campaign my goal is the Keep:  5 Crossbowmen & 3 Axemen) or any mission where you're going to sit back & shoot anyway. 

And while these aren't terribly common cases, and in a standard Total Warfare mission they probably won't be used much but I don't think every unit should be optimal in Total Warfare on an open board. There are lots of units that are situational:  Hawkshold Pikemen, any field artillery, most 'high Pow/mediocre skill" big monster, etc.  I don't think there's a huge clarion call to fix those either.

[gull2112]

I s'pose you could use them in a classic stand and shoot army with the twist being that these are missile troops you'd rather have shooting than swinging at you. I'll have to try a stand and shoot with orc crossbowmen, where the object is not to destroy the opponent as they cross, but rather to winnow off his green boxes, and then put him in a tough melee.

[Hannibal]

What's nice about it is your opponent probably wouldn't expect it.  I mean if he also took a stand & shoot army you'd lose, but the days of shooting dominance is mostly gone.  Used to if I saw these guys I'd target all fire on them as the weak spot in the line.  I would do the same with Dwarf crossbowmen as they have a Def 1/3 until they're engaged.

If you play a Kingdoms campaign, a whole lot of options open up when you get the Keep.  I never tried it in the last campaign because I was too busy taking 8-12 Crazed Gobbos each game.

[ajax98]

Which leads me to contemplate a previous thought on the threads about "customizations" of units and a cost table.

I've never been too concerned about having less points in my roster to take advantage of the initial set ups giving a decision point for the Army with less points.

I would rather use every available roster point for builds.

There is a huge environment of tweaks and add ons based on the rational assumptions of capabilities and associated 'costs'.

For simplicity, what would be the cost for a unit to be 'trained' better or differently? And how to notate it for the game.
For example, for a Xbow unit to get a (-1) 0, 0 Final Protective Fire (Javelin rule) with a SO only in H or R is (1 to) 5 pts additional.

Then you can mess around with subtracting courage levels and/or damage boxes for gaining build points.
Then you can mess around with adding courage levels and/or damage boxes for additional cost build points.

Additionally, I would find an agreeable method to differentiate between Green, Veteran and Elite units. This could be by entire 'deck' or 'class' or whatever discriminator you choose. Then there would be possible rational differences in what a particular 'cost' should be.

Slightly different units that add a bit of uncertainty.

[RushAss]

Additionally, I would find an agreeable method to differentiate between Green, Veteran and Elite units. This could be by entire 'deck' or 'class' or whatever discriminator you choose. Then there would be possible rational differences in what a particular 'cost' should be.

I think that has already been build into many of the factions already. 

Dwarves:
Green troops - Shortbeards
Veterans - Most others
Elite (or old pros) - Longbeards

Lizardmen:
Green troops - Hatchilings, Swarmlings
Veterans - Trogs
Elite (or old pros) - Tyrants and Ancients

Umenzi:
Green troops - Initiates
Veterans - All other core units
Elite (or old pros) - Worthy, Chosen

Rome... you get the idea.

[gull2112]

Like Ajax, I have often thought of ways to represent different levels of unit efficiency, but ultimately I came back to Rush's conclusion. I think the best way to represent a well tempered fighting force vs. a horde is to use variable Command points. So a competent commander with an elite army would get 4 command actions for a 1500 point force, and a horde commander would get three command actions and 2000 points. I'm just throwing these numbers out for example, I certainly have never playtested them and the workable values could be different. It would also be interesting, as a what-if experiment, to have equal forces engage, but with unequal command actions, just to gauge the difference.

[ajax98]

Additionally, I would find an agreeable method to differentiate between Green, Veteran and Elite units. This could be by entire 'deck' or 'class' or whatever discriminator you choose. Then there would be possible rational differences in what a particular 'cost' should be.

I think that has already been build into many of the factions already. 

That may be true but there are always variations in troop qualities. Sometimes it made a significant difference in the outcome.

Reminds me of the interesting difference in modeling in historical wargames published by GDW & SPI.
GDW was know for their Qualitative analysis of individual units. Units would have different 'combat factors' based on historical research.
SPI would tend to use Quantification in their representation of large campaigns, where all units of a type would tend to be the same 'combat factor', unless something significant presented itself.

Both 'styles' seemed to work.

[ajax98]

Also, differentiating between 'experience' levels, with regard to 'established' forms presently depicted in the game, would help establish a 'cost table' that could be used subtract points from some units to create extra Army Build points.

[Chad_YMG]

I would say, 'no'.  The javelin rule was created for a very specific reason -- to eliminate a severe difference in effectiveness based on turn-order.  If two units of javelineers (or two lines!) advance towards each other and no special rule is in place, one of them will advance into range and fire, after which the other will engage.  This is a huge swing factor and led to all sorts of ugly silliness before the rule was put into place.  Looking at what we wanted to have happen in that situation, each advancing unit should have a chance to get off one throw before engaging (assuming they were advancing normally) and the rule enables that.

The same doesn't really apply to advancing crossbowmen.  From a gameplay perspective, they will already have been shooting for multiple turns.  From a flavor perspective, they aren't just throwing a weapon in their hand but loading, cranking, firing and finally putting away* a weapon in order to draw their hand-to-hand weapon.



* A crossbow is too expensive to think they're just dropping them or throwing them at the enemy.

[gull2112]

From Chad:

I would say, 'no'.

{TAG} Oww, damn, I think I'm actually bleeding.

[Niko White]

In addition I think one big problem with Orc Crossbows is that with so few dice and already being 5 accuracy they're so unsuited to advancing.  Meanwhile Orcs pretty much never want to stand and shoot.  If there were a fix, I'd look not to the javelin rules but to removing the move and shoot penalty from them.  Of course, that's hard to justify flavor wise and also might not really be enough.

Right now I think they're honestly fine - lots of people made good points about the odd situations in which they don't suck, and I've mentioned before that I think Battleground having some units where the challenge is picking out the unusual situation in which they're good is a generally decent thing.