3rd Rank Archers

[DaiSho]

Hi All,

I'm just wondering if I'm missing out on anything with 3rd Rank LF archers... (for example Roman Infantry with 2 ranks of Legionaries and a third of Legionary Archers).


So far as I can tell they only shoot against non foot in the Impact phase (I.E. they add one dice per, thus the above described Legionaries would have 3 dice against mounted in the Impact phase).

Am I missing anything?

Can they shoot in the shooting phase? I'm thinking that they might be able to if they interpenetrate the block and end at the front. I can't see why they couldn't do that, but I'm just not sure.

Ian

[madmike111]

Actually I think you have over stated how good LF archers are, they only get 1 dice per 2 bases plus suffer an additional neg POA for shooting at a target at impact combat.

I have used 3rd rank LF archers in both a Roman and Arab armies. They are marginally more useful used with the Romans as they bulk out the cohort at half the price of a HF base. With an arab army they are a complete waste as they cost nearly the same as a HF base so no advantage, might as well have more spearmen instead.

Once the HF take loss the LF move to the second rank and they are still junk as until you have 2 LF bases in the second rank they provide no additional dice (remember they only get 1 dice for every 2 bases fighting).

A warning, don’t be tempted to move the 3rd rank LF into overlap positions, way to dangerous as they can now be attacked directly if the enemy move up more troops. In this case while your armoured Romans are slaying all before them, the kills inflicted on your Roman LF might be enough to loss the overall combat.

Another problem with LF 3rd rankers is that enemy LH can now safely attack the rear of your cohort. The LH will fight at 2 dice vs 1 die for the LF.

Summary 3rd rank LF are junk and over priced, I would suggest in any rules rewrite that the price of these be halved.

[philqw78]

Once the HF take loss the LF move to the second rank and they are still junk as until you have 2 LF bases in the second rank they provide no additional dice (remember they only get 1 dice for every 2 bases fighting).

No, they lose one dice per 2 in melee, so one base in the second rank provides a dice along with the Legio next to him. 2 dice. So no loss.
However when you have lost 2 bases of the fighting troops and have 2 LF in the second rank they lose 1 dice per 2 so only add one dice for the second rank

[hammy]

When I used the supporting LF it felt to me like I was able to have a BG that was essentially a 5 base BG rather than a 4 base one. The big benefit is not the support shooting it is the extra cheaper bases that are almost as effective as the full cost ones.

[madmike111]

"No, they lose one dice per 2 in melee, so one base in the second rank provides a dice along with the Legio next to him. 2 dice. So no loss.
However when you have lost 2 bases of the fighting troops and have 2 LF in the second rank they lose 1 dice per 2 so only add one dice for the second rank"

I checked the rules and you are right.

When I used the supporting LF it felt to me like I was able to have a BG that was essentially a 5 base BG rather than a 4 base one. The big benefit is not the support shooting it is the extra cheaper bases that are almost as effective as the full cost ones

Not sure how you can claim that the cheaper bases are 'almost' as effective? They are useless apart from increasing the size of the BG for the 1 per 3 hits tests. Actually even in that case they are only of marginal value, for example: 4 base BG needs 2 hits to test for missile fire, if it had 2 LF bases also it still needs 2 hits, i.e. no change.

In the case of 3rd rank LF with cheaper front rank troops there is min difference between the points between the ranks so the 3rd rank adds no value. Even with expensive troops like the Romans the LF are better used independently as a pure LF BG.

I stand by my comment that 3rd rank LF are way over priced.

[philqw78]

I stand by my comment that 3rd rank LF are way over priced

You pays your money and takes your choice, ...............but I don't think I'd ever use them.

[hammy]

When I used the supporting LF it felt to me like I was able to have a BG that was essentially a 5 base BG rather than a 4 base one. The big benefit is not the support shooting it is the extra cheaper bases that are almost as effective as the full cost ones

Not sure how you can claim that the cheaper bases are 'almost' as effective? They are useless apart from increasing the size of the BG for the 1 per 3 hits tests. Actually even in that case they are only of marginal value, for example: 4 base BG needs 2 hits to test for missile fire, if it had 2 LF bases also it still needs 2 hits, i.e. no change.

In the case of 3rd rank LF with cheaper front rank troops there is min difference between the points between the ranks so the 3rd rank adds no value. Even with expensive troops like the Romans the LF are better used independently as a pure LF BG.

If you take a dominate Roman BG of average armoured medium foot then 4 bases cost you 9 a base or 36 points, adding 2 supporting light foot increases the cost by 10 points (1 more than a 5th MF base).

With a BG of 6 bases while 2 hits causes a test it does not cause the -1 (exactly like it would on a BG of 5 were that allowed)
If you have supporting LF then when you lose the first base you can replace it with a LF base and it fights at the same effect as a MF base (exactly like it would for a BG of 5 were that allowed)
When you lose a second base a BG of 6 doesn't break (exactly like it would with a BG of 5 were that allowed)
You can also deploy three files wide with 1 MF and 2 LF in the read rank. This formation will fight with 5 dice in melee (exactly like it a BG of 5 would were that allowed)
On top of all these points if you are charged by mounted then you get an extra dice at limited effect and IMO that is worth the 1 point more than a fifth base would cost.

[nikgaukroger]

The more expensive the troops they support are, the more attractive they become as a way to make your BGs larger.