Is combat shy too cheap on ranged TUGs

[Hayung_is]

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?

[tarnowski1]

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

[martymagnificent]

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

[lionheartrjc]

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

[nikgaukroger]

Gets my vote.

[Hayung_is]

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.

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.

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.

[badhabum]

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 

Also combat shy downgraded to poor ... it is too much but allowed so you get the uneven UG for nearly nothing

[lionheartrjc]

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 

This would be an enormous extra complication to the lists.  It is very much easier to allow the general list downgrade.
Richard

[Hayung_is]

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.

[badhabum]

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 

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  is there a saying in English about wishes ?

[Hayung_is]

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  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.

[badhabum]

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  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

[steads]

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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

[Hayung_is]

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.