Good Shooter
Posté : mar. 25 janv. 2022 20:23
Is it just me or is the cost to have the "Good Shooter" ability too low?
Seems like it should be 2 points for Infantry, not 1 point.
Take a look at these examples. I'm keeping things simple (No supports. No large or small units. Etc).
Ex. #1. French Line Infantry (costs 12 points) in line formation volley fires at British Line Infantry (cost 11 points) in line formation.
The French would get a +2 (Infantry in line).
The British would get a +3 (Infantry in line, Good Shooter).
Advantage British.
Ex. #2. French Line Infantry in Column formation attacks a British Line Infantry in line formation.
The French would get a +3 (Infantry charging in column, Elan)
The British would get a +4 (Infantry in line vs Infantry, Good Shooter).
Advantage British
Ex. #3. British Line Infantry in line formation attacks French Line Infantry in line formation.
The British would get a +1 (Infantry charging in line).
The French would get a +3 (Infantry in line vs Infantry).
Advantage French.
The problem with example #3 is I would rarely attack with the British based on their advantage with Good Shooter as mentioned in examples #1 and #2. It's much better to stay in line formation and shoot it out or just defend in line formation if the French attack.
Now I know we want the armies to look and fight as historically as possible in a miniatures game but if you're going to have a points system for Fictional or Tournament games then it seems the cost of the abilities need to reflect more what the rules allow for them to do.
Elan and Tenacious cost 1 point each but as a French player I would gladly trade Elan for Good Shooter or as a Russian player trade Tenacious for Good Shooter. These abilities are only good for one form of Combat, attacking (Elan) or defending (Tenacious) in Shock Combat.
In short, I think the Good Shooter ability needs to be increased by 1 point for a total of 2 points (like it already is for Artillery).
Just to keep things fair I would lower the cost of Poor Shooter by 1 point as well to -2. All the reasons that make "Good Shooter" good are the same reasons that make having "Poor Shooter" bad.
Any thoughts on this would greatly be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
Seems like it should be 2 points for Infantry, not 1 point.
Take a look at these examples. I'm keeping things simple (No supports. No large or small units. Etc).
Ex. #1. French Line Infantry (costs 12 points) in line formation volley fires at British Line Infantry (cost 11 points) in line formation.
The French would get a +2 (Infantry in line).
The British would get a +3 (Infantry in line, Good Shooter).
Advantage British.
Ex. #2. French Line Infantry in Column formation attacks a British Line Infantry in line formation.
The French would get a +3 (Infantry charging in column, Elan)
The British would get a +4 (Infantry in line vs Infantry, Good Shooter).
Advantage British
Ex. #3. British Line Infantry in line formation attacks French Line Infantry in line formation.
The British would get a +1 (Infantry charging in line).
The French would get a +3 (Infantry in line vs Infantry).
Advantage French.
The problem with example #3 is I would rarely attack with the British based on their advantage with Good Shooter as mentioned in examples #1 and #2. It's much better to stay in line formation and shoot it out or just defend in line formation if the French attack.
Now I know we want the armies to look and fight as historically as possible in a miniatures game but if you're going to have a points system for Fictional or Tournament games then it seems the cost of the abilities need to reflect more what the rules allow for them to do.
Elan and Tenacious cost 1 point each but as a French player I would gladly trade Elan for Good Shooter or as a Russian player trade Tenacious for Good Shooter. These abilities are only good for one form of Combat, attacking (Elan) or defending (Tenacious) in Shock Combat.
In short, I think the Good Shooter ability needs to be increased by 1 point for a total of 2 points (like it already is for Artillery).
Just to keep things fair I would lower the cost of Poor Shooter by 1 point as well to -2. All the reasons that make "Good Shooter" good are the same reasons that make having "Poor Shooter" bad.
Any thoughts on this would greatly be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff