Where is the point in archers?

[datrixzero]

I am not great with statistics, I usually leave that to ABG.  Though I can say that having played a good many games of battlegrounds that I find archers invaluable.  even the mid range and short range.  infact i really like the units like centaurs from elves and the javeliers from umenzi and I always take bowman in my hawk army.   I am not sure my play experience can match up to stats but I have always felt they have made their points back in spade.  I especially like the weaker ranged units if they are core since i like to take my melee in non core usually and fill my core requirments with ranged units.

[Niko White]

I am not great with statistics, I usually leave that to ABG.  Though I can say that having played a good many games of battlegrounds that I find archers invaluable.  even the mid range and short range.  infact i really like the units like centaurs from elves and the javeliers from umenzi and I always take bowman in my hawk army.   I am not sure my play experience can match up to stats but I have always felt they have made their points back in spade.  I especially like the weaker ranged units if they are core since i like to take my melee in non core usually and fill my core requirments with ranged units.

I agree with this, especially on the Hawks.  I've developed something of a loathing for 2/2 defense line units (ok, loathing is a bit strong, but I find them frustratingly fragile compared to their points cost) and the Hawk core line units all have that going on, so I find filling in the cores, or at least some of the cores, with the cheap archers is a great solution.  Particularly if the line is going to involve something like heavy infantry that will hold up forever but not get a lot of damage in, the archers can add some weight of fire to tip those fights and create some opportunities to pinch faster, etc.

[sentient bean]

I tried to create a hawk army that resembled that of an army similar to that taken by the English at Crecy. 

Perhaps it was my lack of finesse in allocating command points or standing orders, but I've found that bowmen are very ineffectual.  It's really bugging me and if anyone has some advice as to how to effectively run a 2000 point force with a heavy component of that force being made up of bowmen, I'd be grateful.   

[G0BL1NK1NG]

I agree with the point that archers must be used in conjunction with melee to reach their pinnacle of effectiveness. Perhaps the original poster is fielding an army that does not coincide with his/her playing style. In historical battles, I can't remember a military conflict that consisted only of archers trading shots for the entirety of the battle. I could be wrong, so correct me if need be. The closest battle that comes to mind is Agincourt, but even that was mostly calvary and footmen.

[G0BL1NK1NG]

This weekend I played a game with a Ravenwood Army vs. Dwarves. I had three units of the basic archers and I truly have to say that they had a HUGE impact on the game. Of course, I used Spirit Guidance to assist me, but that's just smart thinking on my behalf. In my opinion, my points were well spent, especially against the slow-moving dwarves. However, had my opponent fielded a faster army, I still think the archers would have done well.

[Kenntak]

Under the factions folder players are discussing their first impressions regarding the High Elves.  Those players have indicated that the archer units are particularly effective because they can run away full speed from enemy units because they suffer no maneuver penalty while under direct control.

[Niko White]

Yep, the high elf ranged units are saucy.

Also, because they are so saucy and able to move so freely, they help improve the value of archer units (and cavalry) in other factions because melee is going to have a very hard coming to grips with them if they're competently commanded.

[ZiNOS]

I think we will see more armies fielding fast cavalry just to get to the archers. And maybe we will see more ballistas and scorpions and chukkas just to get rid of the pesky Elven archers....

The more variety the merrier i say.

[ApokalypseTest]

I might be mistaken, but as far as I understand, they don't have to pay the MC reduction for manoeuvering under direct control, all the other penalties, including the -0/-1/-0 modifier for moving and the no shooting after a reform penalty persist.

[Kenntak]

I might be mistaken, but as far as I understand, they don't have to pay the MC reduction for manoeuvering under direct control, all the other penalties, including the -0/-1/-0 modifier for moving and the no shooting after a reform penalty persist.

No shooting after a reform?  I did not see that in the latest rules, did I miss that?

[Niko White]

I don't see it anywhere either, as far as I can tell you can indeed shoot after a reform.  (It seems unclear why you couldn't...)  You'd still take the move and shoot, obviously, even if you just pivoted, since maneuvering is movement, but unless it is listed in some really obscure place in the rulebook you can still shoot.

To the original question: they do take the move and shoot penalty, yes.  They have 6 accuracy though because they're awesome

[Karasu]

I have this suspicion that there are going to be Horse Archers in the 2M set and look forward to them muchly.  Bowriders are good, but somehow don't make me think of Mongols or Parthians.

Also, I'm surprised nobody's answered the OP correctly yet: The point in archers is at the end of their arrows! 

Roderick

[Chad_YMG]

Your suspicion is correct. 

[Hannibal]

So looking forward to that.  The HE bowriders adds this awesome element to the game.  No longer do you need to have "two units of archers, two swordsmen, okay now I can fill my line."  Allows for some really different army builds.