Archers in Impact

[CYRANOINLONDON]

I haven't played FOGAM for 3 years or more so I've completely forgotten the first iteration. I got the new rules last week and had my first game tonight.

At one point a group of 6 Thracians (Protected with HW) charged a group of 6 MF Longbowmen (3 wide 2deep). If I read it correctly the Thracians got 6 dice in Impact but the Longbowmen got 9 - 6 from the 3 front rank bases and 3 additional dice from the 'supporting' archers in the second rank. The POAs appying to the 6 dice that each group got for being in contact are decided on the Impact POAs but the 3 dice from the 'support' are on the Shooting POAs. Is that correct?

If so it makes archers a worrying opponent for MF. The Thracians had HW so had 6 dice needing '4s', but the archers had 6 dice needing '5s' plus 3 needing '4s'.
The odds in impact were therefore with the archers, which rather suprised me.

Thanks
C

[gozerius]

You did it correctly. Yes. Bow have become a bit more resistant to charges in 2.0. Crossbow too, a little, not enough. (Someone who owns a lot of armies with compulsary crossbows )

[Vespasian28]

The odds in impact were therefore with the archers, which rather suprised me.

An interesting change this and as Gozerius says this makes archers better at impact. Certainly needed by Classical Indians and anyone else not terribly good at melee as this is the only chance they get of hammering the enemy. Now, if your longbowmen are protected and sword equipped thereby equalling your opponents in melee then the shooting at impact swings the fight decisively in your favour.
Given a choice I would rather be on a + during melee than having an advantage at impact which is essentially a one shot weapon.

[philqw78]

But impact is more decisive now with the extra -1 CT. A single minus but more dice in melee makes it even again.

[kal5056]

Impact is not as decisive as it could be.
While they have added the -1 for Lost Impact they took away the potnetial -1 for 2 hits more than gave out.
This actually just made a potential -1 a garrantee.
I would have perfered that they keep the potnetial and actually ADD another -1
Imagine -1 loss Impact -1 Hits per base -1 2 hits more than gave -1lost to Lancers Net (-4 first test)

That would be far more decisive.

Gino
SMAC

[hazelbark]

Impact is not as decisive as it could be.
While they have added the -1 for Lost Impact they took away the potnetial -1 for 2 hits more than gave out.
This actually just made a potential -1 a garrantee.
I would have perfered that they keep the potnetial and actually ADD another -1
Imagine -1 loss Impact -1 Hits per base -1 2 hits more than gave -1lost to Lancers Net (-4 first test)

True but that assumes a big difference in hits. and tends to mean 1) abnormal luck or 2) larger frontages contacting.
You're plan makes double drops also more likely and would create more bias in favor of certain kinds of shock troops. In fact you might end up with a game that over emphasizes impact.

This is unscientific but I think the most common impact is probably 2 bases to 2 bases. Unless you had a big mismatch in POA or luck the odds of getting more than 2 hits are pretty low. So the authors favored making it easier to get to -3 as a way to make impact more critical. In my games in V2 so far I have witnessed a profound difference in impact overall.

[marty]

I think its the archers with the free Light Spear that give the best bang for buck (even if they are crossbowmen they are good). Once your opponent has made it through shooting he has to face an impact phase where most troops will be at a disadvantage against the archers and then in the melee generally only be POA+ thanks to the changes to how armour works.

All that for 6 or 7 points a base (assuming protected average) so you can afford an absolute s%$# load of them. I think we will be seeing a lot of these guys.

Martin

[philqw78]

Something you sussed out a bit ago

[hazelbark]

I think its the archers with the free Light Spear that give the best bang for buck I think we will be seeing a lot of these guys.

No big deal. Having run them before and after V2 they fall into two broad categories...Asian armies and biblical armies. *Graham B likes to point out EAP too.

The former were decent before but the lift these get is modest in relation to the army. The later need a lift outside their period. The Asian armies that get a light spear and elephants can get onto the table now. Huzzah.

It is an incremental (good) change not revolutionary.

[marty]

Something you sussed out a bit ago

And I was not alone. At Cancon as well as my Ming an Ach Persian and a Mayan did well.

No big deal

Possibly true. People will adapt and in 3-4 comps time they might seem to have lost some of their lustre. For the moment though I would design my comp lists on the assumption I was going to be dealing with a few of these armies. I'm not sure what a list designed to beat one of these armies would look like. I've been trying big blocks of IF/SW with mixed success.

Martin

[Custor]

Do you still get the extra -1 for shooting into combat in V2?

[grahambriggs]

Do you still get the extra -1 for shooting into combat in V2?

Yes during the shooting phase, but not for support shooting at impact.

[grahambriggs]

I think its the archers with the free Light Spear that give the best bang for buck I think we will be seeing a lot of these guys.

No big deal. Having run them before and after V2 they fall into two broad categories...Asian armies and biblical armies. *Graham B likes to point out EAP too.

The former were decent before but the lift these get is modest in relation to the army. The later need a lift outside their period. The Asian armies that get a light spear and elephants can get onto the table now. Huzzah.

It is an incremental (good) change not revolutionary.

The trouble with the light spear types, particularly the protected ones is that they are still be vulnerable to many of the tough combat troops. A sensible opponent will have general (who could be an IC) and rear support. So will usually ride out the shooting. They may lose the impact and still be steady. After which they'll usually be on a +. Even if they are disrupted they will often then commit their general. So you end up in one of those "8 dice looking for 5s vs 6 dice looking for 4s rerolling 1s" fights. If you lose, you'll be on something like -2 cohesion test.

The benefit in v2 I think is that the enemy have more need to form deep/general/rear support to keep their morale up. so the army with archers may then have a points advantage on the flanks.

[Vespasian28]

The benefit in v2 I think is that the enemy have more need to form deep/general/rear support to keep their morale up. so the army with archers may then have a points advantage on the flanks.

That's exactly what happened when the Spartans took on the Achaemenid Persians in a recent game. Rear support and an IC general enabled the Greeks to shrug off the shooting but lost most of the impacts at which point the IC general can only help out the one BG. After a few scary moments the Spartans got the upper hand in all but one of the melees.

The Persians definitely had the flanks which the Spartans countered by stacking up on one side and using lights to slow down the overhanging flank.