Author Topic: W: Firstborn Longbowmen  (Read 5189 times)

Offline Horned God

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: +6/-0
W: Firstborn Longbowmen
« on: November 13, 2011, 02:24:23 PM »
Need 2 firstborn longbowmen models. If you have them will paypal you or trade you. I have various minis to trade.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 04:17:53 AM by Horned God »

Offline Horned God

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: W: Firstborn Longbowmen
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2011, 05:31:28 PM »
Found a couple First born longbowmen, thanks

I'll be sticking them onto the firstborn chariot, and thus the model will become a viable model and justifying its point cost, sure its a big target and it will lose the two poleax attacks. Instead I'll stat so they archers only have handaxes, which is weak CC defense basically and limit to only those in base to base with the back 180 degrees of the model's base (which I'll use a little piece of wood). The horses don't need horse attacks, but rather simply keep the Trample and the only models they can't trample would be ones of equal size so for those perhaps the horses get a couple Natural Attack (7) attacks (x2 total). The model then is like a mobile archer (with 2 shots) but is sufficiently large that it can be targeted and killed so in no way is it unbalanced.

I'll probably finalize the stats and post them at some point.

Offline Cirith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • StygianBeach
Re: W: Firstborn Longbowmen
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2011, 02:18:39 AM »
Found a couple First born longbowmen, thanks

I'll be sticking them onto the firstborn chariot, and thus the model will become a viable model and justifying its point cost, sure its a big target and it will lose the two poleax attacks. Instead I'll stat so they archers only have handaxes, which is weak CC defense basically and limit to only those in base to base with the back 180 degrees of the model's base (which I'll use a little piece of wood). The horses don't need horse attacks, but rather simply keep the Trample and the only models they can't trample would be ones of equal size so for those perhaps the horses get a couple Natural Attack (7) attacks (x2 total). The model then is like a mobile archer (with 2 shots) but is sufficiently large that it can be targeted and killed so in no way is it unbalanced.

I'll probably finalize the stats and post them at some point.

The Archer Chariot sounds great. The crew should at least have spears though right?

I reckon make it imbalanced at first, then tone it back after play testing. I reckon the Archers should be able to shoot if the Chariot is only in combat at the front.
People willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline Horned God

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: W: Firstborn Longbowmen
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2011, 08:05:00 AM »
Yes, it would need to be split into front 180 and back 180. So if the front 180 where the horses are engaged in base to base then you can fire the bows but the if the rear were you must use the CC weapon. I wanted the CC weapon to be a bit weaker but then I thought if the arrow is 7 damage, why not simply make the axes deal out 7 damage, (ie adjust the strength of the model so the hand hand ax ST + 2 = 7 damage. Just makes it easier. Though technically the hand axes of the archers do 5 normally I think. It would not matter much to me personally. As far as a spear goes. If I did that then I think I'd just use two Iron Guard minis, OR how about 1 Iron Guard Mini and 1 Archer. Then you get 1 missile using archer and one CC defender who has a polearm (spear).

As far as the balance. Right now the thing is a big target and my past experience and from listening to other players it can make back the points you spend but it is a gamble and normally works best if you move it with other fast models or use Wither on it or something like that. Otherwise it's main ability, the speed, is largely handicapped. Of course there are exceptions and so I wanted to make it so it was a useful model as it troded along and then more than likely as a flanking unit. As it gets close it can then move in for a Trample. I thought it could retain those horse attacks but I also thought Damage 8 from horse hooves. Wow! I just felt whomever designed it put a lot of CC power in there but due to facts like it has low armor, large size (and thus you get a bonus to hit it with ranged weapons and it is hard to gain cover) means its a mobile Pin Cushion and spells can easily target it.

Thus I'd rather give up the awesomeness of those two poleaxe using knights, and 2 of the horse attacks since really at most only a couple horses probably could attack and only if some model is in the forward flank.

I should mention also that I once worked on and was thinking of finish a point system.

It is not hard to make a point system. You simply assign points to the attributes of the profile, make a base line profile, and then assign cost to the various abilities. Some abilities are hard to cost and then I thought perhaps a standard cost like +1 CC = 1 pp per CC and the base is 8 CC (yes having a 7 CC then would be -1 pts), and the base armor would be 12. Most things like that would be 1 pt per +1, except MV which costs more. Also it should either cost double for RC or else better yet, make range bands cost proportionally more as you go out.

For the problem powers/abilities like Stalk, Unseen assassailant, etc. you assign a Percentage cost increase. Thus you mostly have a set cost for base stats and some abilities, and then a percentage increase for the rest. I think they did this for UWZ. For example a model who has Infiiltrate or Unseen Assailant benefits from it differently depending on the base cost of that model. So if you cost out a guy at 52 pts and another at 22 pts the 52pt model more than likely is more effective and thus being an infilitrator or unseen assailant is more valuable.

Say then then assign a +10% increase (round up if .5 or greater, round down if .49 or lower). Then 52 pt model x 10% = 5.2 pts to be that same model but infilitrating, and a model that is 22 would only cost 2.2 to make infilitrating. In both cases you round down so 5 and 2 pts.

How do you determine how much some abilities should cost? That is really what playtesting is for, not to fight the models or units, but to test how much group attack as an ability should cost, or how useful is ranged vs close combat or how useful is a directly placed template or how useful is movement.

Range is useful so you pay per range band and it gets increasingly expensive thus models with ranged will cost more than their exact counter parts that lack ranged but we all know those points saved would get spent on great CC abilities. In a game like Warzone it means a guy like a Sniper, with a long range paid a lot more for that ranged attack, Then the damage is also bought per range band and progressively more as you go out. Thus a weapon like the Impaler which is high damage and x2 and high range is expensive but counter costed with that lack of CC attack and weak melee defense (though that is debatable as to if that is a sufficient counter cost). A modifier like Killing Stroke or x2 damage would simply be x2 cost on the damage.

I wrote out most of this but only recently gave it more thought. I will say both games would have been greatly more player-friendly and longer lasting if EE who went about redoing the point system had simply printed it in the back so we could utilize it and if all the official models used it (and their math checked out) it would have only made the game stronger. Alas that was not the attitude.

But it is easily fixed, since if you create a point system and then repoint all the models according to it and as long as any new models follow it then it would be balanced. To ensure your system is balanced, like I said, you test the effective cost of individual abilities. Keeping stuff like base 8 CC, and +1 CC per +1 pp is the easiest way to do it, though some stats like MV should be at least 2 or 3 pts per +1, in fact you might go with +4 pts per +1 MV as you can see int he official models movement is costly (and one assumes useful)

I say all that since one might have wondered 'Why are those models 59 points?" (and by model I mean anyone you are wondering about) Some of it can be reverse engineered. By my thinking Group ATtack is roughly 3 pts per model but really it should either be that or a percentage of like +5% or you can do with something odd like +7% or whatever. Again, as long as its playtest to arrive at the right modifiers it should all work. YOudon't want to assign a +50% modifier to an ability like Stalk if the models using it don't seem to justify that effectiveness when you use them. If they then that is probably good to go.