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.