Hey all,
I found list building for Song pretty 'feel bad' until it clicked - the lack of combat shy feels like a tax on the list.
Comparing the cost differences of combat shy to poor for crossbowmen - the discounts are 22 points and 24 points respectively.
For a melee unit this minor differential probably makes sense as if they're not in melee they're not really contributing much. But for ranged TUGs whose primary purpose is to avoid melee, Poor is significantly worse than just combat shy, as you are now down on ranged exchanges which is the one place you want to be with your TUGs. You're also worse off on KAB tests.
Overall, given the choice between the two I'd pick combat shy every time. Do others find combat shy a burden that you wouldn't pick it up?
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. If I'm looking to save points and combat shy is an option I will take combat shy over a poor downgrade. If I'm looking to create a junk unit I'll do both and make them unskilled. If my cbmen are protected I'd look not downgrade them in anyway as should they end up in combat they'll live longer.
Its all contextual to the particular army I'm looking at.
and as to whether its too cheap, no I dont think it is. It makes the unit more vulnerable and on the whole to be of use the ug has to go near the enemy so odds are it'll end up fighting at some point
Quote from: Hayung_is on November 01, 2024, 11:22:44 PM
Hey all,
I found list building for Song pretty 'feel bad' until it clicked - the lack of combat shy feels like a tax on the list.
Comparing the cost differences of combat shy to poor for crossbowmen - the discounts are 22 points and 24 points respectively.
For a melee unit this minor differential probably makes sense as if they're not in melee they're not really contributing much. But for ranged TUGs whose primary purpose is to avoid melee, Poor is significantly worse than just combat shy, as you are now down on ranged exchanges which is the one place you want to be with your TUGs. You're also worse off on KAB tests.
Overall, given the choice between the two I'd pick combat shy every time. Do others find combat shy a burden that you wouldn't pick it up?
Of course the other possibility is that Poor isn't cheap enough (or it is some mix of the two)
Martin
My concern is the ability to both downgrade quality and downgrade shooting skill at the same time.
A possible future general list change would be to allow downgrading of one or the other but not both.
So average, experienced could either be downgraded to poor, experienced or average, unskilled. They could not be downgraded to poor, unskilled.
Richard
Gets my vote.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 02, 2024, 01:52:54 AM
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. If I'm looking to save points and combat shy is an option I will take combat shy over a poor downgrade. If I'm looking to create a junk unit I'll do both and make them unskilled. If my cbmen are protected I'd look not downgrade them in anyway as should they end up in combat they'll live longer.
Its all contextual to the particular army I'm looking at.
and as to whether its too cheap, no I dont think it is. It makes the unit more vulnerable and on the whole to be of use the ug has to go near the enemy so odds are it'll end up fighting at some point
To clarify, I mean that combat shy is a flat rate - for both melee focussed units and ranged units. While the disbenefit to ranged units is generally lesser than a melee unit as they can still contribute to a battle via shooting which is unaffected by combat shy.
Quote from: martymagnificent on November 02, 2024, 08:00:58 AM
Of course the other possibility is that Poor isn't cheap enough (or it is some mix of the two)
Martin
Maybe but it would be in the magnitude of a few points. Whereas I think combat shy, for Ranged TUGs specifically, is probably a bit too cheap - as you can play around its disbenefit and it doesn't directly affect their main combat role.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 02, 2024, 10:23:40 AM
My concern is the ability to both downgrade quality and downgrade shooting skill at the same time.
A possible future general list change would be to allow downgrading of one or the other but not both.
So average, experienced could either be downgraded to poor, experienced or average, unskilled. They could not be downgraded to poor, unskilled.
Richard
Is this in reference to poor costs?
Its probably a good change I reckon but doesn't affect the combat shy costing between melee and ranged TUGs.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 02, 2024, 10:23:40 AM
My concern is the ability to both downgrade quality and downgrade shooting skill at the same time.
A possible future general list change would be to allow downgrading of one or the other but not both.
So average, experienced could either be downgraded to poor, experienced or average, unskilled. They could not be downgraded to poor, unskilled.
Richard
I would support that two hundred %
My feeling is even to forbid any changes unless allowed by the list .
If you want to represent levies, newly conscripted units, then it should be in the army list 8)
Also combat shy downgraded to poor ... it is too much but allowed so you get the uneven UG for nearly nothing
Quote from: badhabum on November 03, 2024, 10:42:00 AM
My feeling is even to forbid any changes unless allowed by the list .
If you want to represent levies, newly conscripted units, then it should be in the army list 8)
This would be an enormous extra complication to the lists. It is very much easier to allow the general list downgrade.
Richard
I think universal list downgrade is a good way to add some flexibility and interest in list building without the designer needing to add in a whole bunch of extra "unit types".
Limiting it to one or the other is a good in a universal approach to reign in too much list optimizing. I even say that as one that regularly uses poor unskilled skirmishers as meat shields.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 04, 2024, 10:13:14 AM
Quote from: badhabum on November 03, 2024, 10:42:00 AM
My feeling is even to forbid any changes unless allowed by the list .
If you want to represent levies, newly conscripted units, then it should be in the army list 8)
This would be an enormous extra complication to the lists. It is very much easier to allow the general list downgrade.
Richard
I get your point and suspected as much still I will wonder if on the long run it would not be a huge improvement for MEG ;D is there a saying in English about wishes ?
Quote from: badhabum on November 05, 2024, 08:00:47 AM
I get your point and suspected as much still I will wonder if on the long run it would not be a huge improvement for MEG ;D is there a saying in English about wishes ?
I say this very much biased in favour op the options, but the fact that MeG has the nuance of list building is an attractor for me. Some gamers love the hobby of list design.
I can appreciate when you say improvement you mean that list building is less complicated for players? But I would argue that complexity isn't bad as long as it isn't opaque complexity.
Quote from: Hayung_is on November 28, 2024, 11:33:25 PM
Quote from: badhabum on November 05, 2024, 08:00:47 AM
I get your point and suspected as much still I will wonder if on the long run it would not be a huge improvement for MEG ;D is there a saying in English about wishes ?
I say this very much biased in favour op the options, but the fact that MeG has the nuance of list building is an attractor for me. Some gamers love the hobby of list design.
I can appreciate when you say improvement you mean that list building is less complicated for players? But I would argue that complexity isn't bad as long as it isn't opaque complexity.
On the contrary it might make list building more complicated as many use a poor, unskilled, unprotected cheap TUG to go to 9 or 11 tugs and have a super exceptionnal TUG ...Limiting the possibilities forces players to make some nice choices but that's my point of view . At least limiting the possibilities would be a good step forward.
Back to the original question : combat shy ranger TUGs are nice targets . perhaps they cost less but they are fragule in combat if of course someone gets at them
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 02, 2024, 10:23:40 AM
My concern is the ability to both downgrade quality and downgrade shooting skill at the same time.
A possible future general list change would be to allow downgrading of one or the other but not both.
So average, experienced could either be downgraded to poor, experienced or average, unskilled. They could not be downgraded to poor, unskilled.
Richard
I really dislike this potential/proposed change. Units of newly impressed levy are likely to be unskilled with their weapon and be of general poor ability. So a liability just there to make up numbers.
Quote from: steads on November 30, 2024, 08:07:11 AM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 02, 2024, 10:23:40 AM
My concern is the ability to both downgrade quality and downgrade shooting skill at the same time.
A possible future general list change would be to allow downgrading of one or the other but not both.
So average, experienced could either be downgraded to poor, experienced or average, unskilled. They could not be downgraded to poor, unskilled.
Richard
I really dislike this potential/proposed change. Units of newly impressed levy are likely to be unskilled with their weapon and be of general poor ability. So a liability just there to make up numbers.
But if they are levy they will probably be Poor anyway. I am not convinced armies would have many levy archers anyway. Archery requires skill and training. Most levies were given a spear or javelin or were using farm implements which could involve many ingenious ways to injure someone!
Richard
Quote from: badhabum on November 29, 2024, 03:25:15 PM
On the contrary it might make list building more complicated as many use a poor, unskilled, unprotected cheap TUG to go to 9 or 11 tugs and have a super exceptionnal TUG ...Limiting the possibilities forces players to make some nice choices but that's my point of view . At least limiting the possibilities would be a good step forward.
Back to the original question : combat shy ranger TUGs are nice targets . perhaps they cost less but they are fragule in combat if of course someone gets at them
Yes, I think the original point has been muddied a bit. There were 2 points really;
For a Crossbowmen unit experienced crossbow
1) Combat shy is a 22 point discount, while Poor is 24 points.
2) If the TUG traded crossbow for a Long spear - Combat shy remains a 22 point discount while Poor is now a hefty 32 point discount.
Point 1: Combat shy seems like a relatively large discount in relation to Poor on *ranged* TUGS. The latter of which as a lot more downsides and as a player given the choice between the two its an absolute no brainer.
Point 2: The difference between combat shy and poor here seems reasonable. But in comparison to a ranged TUG combat shy costing the same seems odd. Since points in MeG are (or atleast how I understand) tied to the effectiveness on the battlefield. A TUG which must enter melee to contribute to a battle is more affected by combat shy versus a ranged TUG which might avoid melee.
Not saying that combat shy needs a big decrease, but these two discrepancies lead me to question if combat shy on ranged TUGs is costed appropriately?
Which is a totally separate question to if Ranged TUGs need to be more expensive. But maybe they cost too much base as it is if increasing combat shy would be too punitive.
I don't see the issue. Ranged combat doesn't do enough damage or have enough range for it to make much of a difference when comparing a combat shy ranged unit to a combat shy 'melee' unit (why would a combat shy unit be anywhere near melee to begin with?). If the rules were such that an archer could sit comfortably back behind the lines and contribute some shooting then maybe there would be an issue; but as it is they have to be practically in charge range to do anything. So making them more vulnerable to melee is every bit the disadvantage it would be for anyone else.
Besides, in a head to head fight a combat shy archer (53 points per base) will lose to a 'vanilla' (60 points per base unaltered starting stat block) infantry anyway (comparing to units of 6 UGs 3 wide and assuming average die rolls). Even giving the archer the benefit of the doubt they get 1 shot at 4 base widths (lets be extremely generous and say the target doesn't pick up the wound), 1 more wound from shooting in the charge phase, and then it's greens to whites in the charge and the following melee phases and even assuming the vanilla infantry doesn't expand to add supporting files they catch up on wounds by the end of the second melee phase.
Quote from: Manzikert on January 13, 2025, 07:45:15 PM
I don't see the issue. Ranged combat doesn't do enough damage or have enough range for it to make much of a difference when comparing a combat shy ranged unit to a combat shy 'melee' unit (why would a combat shy unit be anywhere near melee to begin with?). If the rules were such that an archer could sit comfortably back behind the lines and contribute some shooting then maybe there would be an issue; but as it is they have to be practically in charge range to do anything. So making them more vulnerable to melee is every bit the disadvantage it would be for anyone else.
Besides, in a head to head fight a combat shy archer (53 points per base) will lose to a 'vanilla' (60 points per base unaltered starting stat block) infantry anyway (comparing to units of 6 UGs 3 wide and assuming average die rolls). Even giving the archer the benefit of the doubt they get 1 shot at 4 base widths (lets be extremely generous and say the target doesn't pick up the wound), 1 more wound from shooting in the charge phase, and then it's greens to whites in the charge and the following melee phases and even assuming the vanilla infantry doesn't expand to add supporting files they catch up on wounds by the end of the second melee phase.
The issue is it seems many lists make shooting TuGs viable by having combat shy as an option. So when you don't have combat shy as an option, downgrading to Poor seems (it is) like a significantly worse deal. There are already topics discussing how dedicated ranged TuGs are in a bit of an awkward spot in MeG, so I'm trying not to diverge too far into that. Maybe ranged TuGs are overpriced.
But its pretty clear throughout MeG that the point system is based on the relative benefit of a skill - Melee expert on Superior fully armed troops is suitably more expensive than on Poor Barbarians. This doesn't seem to be the case on Combat shy vs Poor on ranged TuGs.
It really doesn't matter if you feel like its an issue if you agree, when presented with the option to apply combat shy or poor to your (experienced) shooting TuGs, and the difference is 2 points, you would take combat shy 99% of the time.
Many bowmen, slingers are ineffective or more exactly are a juicy target as they are easily contacted, often unprotected in early times. Not everyone is skilled, crossbow or skirmisher.
Recently " shower shooting" has been introduced for mounted and IMO is rather inefficient for mounted But the idea could be used for foot missile units who could that way slow down the opponents and gain valuable time and engance their usefulness
QuoteThe issue is it seems many lists make shooting TuGs viable by having combat shy as an option.
when presented with the option to apply combat shy or poor ... you would take combat shy 99% of the time.
I guess I was addressing a slightly different question; whether combat shy is too cheap.
I agree combat shy is relatively cheaper than poor; but I think that's fine because it's an option not available to every unit or every list. If a list has the advantage of being able to make a unit combat shy then that should be a better option than the universal ability to make them poor, else it isn't really an advantage.
It may be the case that making a unit poor isn't cheap enough, on paper it certainly isn't worth it. But I'd be wary of making it too cheap because that might give every list the ability to take absolute dirt cheap trash units just to get more tugs on the field. At the moment that's an 'advantage' in some lists and I wouldn't want to take it away.
Is the discount for combat shy missile troops to high.
Well at the recent uk event ice and fire78% of skirmish units were combat shy.
I would suggest that ones that were not combat shy were more likely the result of pts balancing.
The players have voted
Maybe all skirmish should be combat shy and you pay to remove it
Quote from: sstoker22 on January 15, 2025, 11:13:16 PM
Is the discount for combat shy missile troops to high.
Well at the recent uk event ice and fire78% of skirmish units were combat shy.
I would suggest that ones that were not combat shy were more likely the result of pts balancing.
The players have voted
Maybe all skirmish should be combat shy and you pay to remove it
Since skirmishers are nearly always destroyed without fighting if they are contacted, being not combat shy doesn't really make them any better, so it's a no-brainer to have them combat shy if you can (whether that is declining to pay extra, or getting a discount).
The exception is skirmishers intended to charge other skirmishers, even protected with some sort of weapon, they need every advantage they can get to come out on top after receiving a shot at point blank from the skirmishers they are attacking.
However, the OP was about TUGs, not SUGs.
Allegedly, people are taking more non-combat shy missile TUGs, but this is anecdotal.
To clarify, I mean that combat shy is a flat rate - for both melee focussed units and ranged units. While the disbenefit to ranged units is generally lesser than a melee unit as they can still contribute to a battle via shooting which is unaffected by combat shy.
I was sought of replying to the original posters clarification above. not the heading.
QuoteSince skirmishers are nearly always destroyed without fighting if they are contacted, being not combat shy doesn't really make them any better, so it's a no-brainer to have them combat shy if you can (whether that is declining to pay extra, or getting a discount).
Perhaps you should use skirmishers a bit more often and go for some Spanish skirmishers, short spear, protected or agrinians skirmishers ..in terrain they can hold for some time and even defeat close order infantry or in difficult terrain some loose order infantry . They are far from hopeless
It's the use you have of the slirmishers that is important
Quote from: badhabum on January 20, 2025, 12:12:06 PM
Perhaps you should use skirmishers a bit more often and go for some Spanish skirmishers, short spear, protected or agrinians skirmishers ..in terrain they can hold for some time and even defeat close order infantry or in difficult terrain some loose order infantry . They are far from hopeless
It's the use you have of the slirmishers that is important
Well, obviously "fighty" skirmishers benefit from not being combat shy, but few armies get them. That's why I said "nearly always". In the vast majority of cases that I've seen where skirmishers (mine or opponent's) get contacted by anything, it's a TUG in the open.