Dwarf ranger

Azrael · **Posted:** Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:29 pm

In my opinion dwarf longbows arent really worth their points. A elven bow is 1-2 points and S3 while the dwarf ranger bow is S2 what is quite poor given the price of 3 points. What do you think?

Mouth-of-Sauron · **Joined:** Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:14 pm **Posts:** 544

and it starts all over again :shock:

it has been discussed over and over and over...

To answer your question, they are 3 pts, because they get a better shoot value, and longer range...

But since I am not a Dwarf player I don´t really know how they flare compared to Regular Dwarf Bows...

gambit025 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:07 pm

Mouth-of-Sauron pretty much sumed it up. As to how they compare with regular Dwarf Bows...

They both have their pros and cons. Dwarf Rangers have a better shoot value, greater range and have the Mountain Dwellers rule, while Dwarf Warriors have higher defence, stronger bows and are 1pt cheaper.

Rangers are properly better at shooting and staying out of harm's way, but Dwarf Warriors are better at holding objectives or fighting in combat due to thier higher defence.

I personally use Dwarf Warriors with bows in my 500pt Erebor army, only because I didn't want to buy another box set just for the Rangers with bows.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:19 pm

I've played several games against Dwarf Rangers and, at least in the hands of our local Dwarf specialist, those bows do a fine job.

Dwarf Lord of Ered Luin · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:30 am

In my opinion it is worth it, I would like it to be cheaper so that I could arm them throwing axes as well or get more of them but still they are worth it. Since most bows are S2, and the only other bow available to evil is S4, the lower defence doesn't really make a difference unless you get into combat. For most enemies the weaker bow doesn't make much of a difference, at least not as much as you gain. The increased range is really helpful for getting your opponent to move towards you rather than the other way around so it is easier to hold a position and you also get a few extra turns of shooting. I don't use them often, I don't want to mix them with dwarf warriors as then only part of your army can shoot if you stay back and you loose their best advantage if you move forwards so all your archers can shoot, but once I get another box of ranger I'm certain that they will get a lot more use.
Well that's my opinion, if you want more opinions you should try searching the forums as I'm certain it's out there.

Azrael · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:47 am

Thanks but there is also the

Quote:

elven bow is 1-2 points and S3

.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:00 pm

I don't think you should compare points between armies too much. At least in SBG, GW did a good job trying to keep to the theme and flavor of Tolkien and PJ's view of his world. The result of this is that most of the armies "feel right" for their costs and they balance out pretty well at equal point values. But it doesn't mean that a particular item in Army A will cost the same points in Army B, or that an option available to one army should be duplicate to other armies. Elves in Middle Earth are more "shooty" than Dwarves in the stories and therefore it's completely appropriate that Dwarf Rangers have to pay more for similar shooting effectiveness.

This is one area I think WotR beings to break down in flavor (and which was just starting to plague some of the later SBG army releases) is that GW seems to "equal" things a bit more, but that's a different topic.

Azrael · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:59 pm

Quote:

I don't think you should compare points between armies too much. At least in SBG, GW did a good job trying to keep to the theme and flavor of Tolkien and PJ's view of his world. The result of this is that most of the armies "feel right" for their costs and they balance out pretty well at equal point values. But it doesn't mean that a particular item in Army A will cost the same points in Army B, or that an option available to one army should be duplicate to other armies. Elves in Middle Earth are more "shooty" than Dwarves in the stories and therefore it's completely appropriate that Dwarf Rangers have to pay more for similar shooting effectiveness.

Thanks, i totally get the point. I guess youre right in any way...

Hashut's Blessing · **Joined:** Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 1279

Sorry to chime in, but I think that the excuse of the better shoot value is not a valid one. The base model should cost more because of the better shoot value, not the weapons used. Also, saying that the models/upgrades are worth different points in different armies, I don't recall ever seeing an Elf bow not cost two points (longbows cost two points to my knowledge), normal bows/Dwarf bows/short bows all cost one point and both of those facts seem to be regardless of the shoot value. The ability/bonus/penalty of the equipment isn't varied, so the cost shouldn't be. Whereas the ability/bonus/penalty of the model is varied and so that's where the cost should be.

Hope that makes sense. Essentially, the Dwarf ranger should cost a little extra because of the shoot value, the bow shouldn't because it's not better or worse than it's equivalents.

simmuskhan · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:44 pm

As has already been said, the points aren't for the weapon, the points are for the extra effectiveness the model gets when using that weapon.

So don't compare an elf bow with a dwarf bow, compare an elven warrior with bow against a dwarf ranger with bow. The poor elf has to pay points to get the same defence as the dwarf, you should feel sorry for the poor elves =)

I like using my dwarf rangers AND my dwarf warriors with bows and don't think my rangers are overpriced. I used to, before I started actually playing with them, so I know where you're coming from!

Trust me, once you've been using them in battle you'll see that they all have their place!

hithero · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:31 am

Hashut's Blessing wrote:

Sorry to chime in, but I think that the excuse of the better shoot value is not a valid one. The base model should cost more because of the better shoot value, not the weapons used. Also, saying that the models/upgrades are worth different points in different armies, I don't recall ever seeing an Elf bow not cost two points (longbows cost two points to my knowledge), normal bows/Dwarf bows/short bows all cost one point and both of those facts seem to be regardless of the shoot value. The ability/bonus/penalty of the equipment isn't varied, so the cost shouldn't be. Whereas the ability/bonus/penalty of the model is varied and so that's where the cost should be.

Hope that makes sense. Essentially, the Dwarf ranger should cost a little extra because of the shoot value, the bow shouldn't because it's not better or worse than it's equivalents.

But don't you feel it would be better and more logical if models didn't pay a premium base points cost for a stat they don't use?

hithero · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:40 am

Thought I'd let you know how 3 dwarf rangers could have cost me a game at the Doubles GT last weeked.
One of the new scenarios is for Good to escort Frodo and Sam of table. As they could be hard to get to and wearing elven cloaks, our tactic was to volley fire to take him down. We volleyed and took a wound of him.

Next turn the opponants 3 rangers advanced in rocky terrain unhindered and shot and killed one of my trackers leaving me with 9 unable to volley - dwarf bowmen could not have done that.

Luckily my allies Harad had 13 archers and managed to kill him.

O'h yes, despite their percieved cost, they are a good troop choice. Besides compare them to their Gondor ranger counterpart and they are exactly the right points cost - +1D & C for +2 pts.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:38 pm

You still have officially sanctioned and supported SBG events?!?!?!

Hashut's Blessing · **Joined:** Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 1279

I agree that it is more logical for their usefulness to be taken into account when paying for them and, whilst I don't disagree with the overall cost (although a point reduction would seem theoretically applicable, even if they seem appropriately costed in practice), I find it illogical to say that paying mor epoints for an equivalent item is the way to balance their better ability to USE that item.

If you are hiring someone (essentially what the points are for) and buying the equipment for them to use, you would hire the better person who would thusly cost more. Then, you have to give them the correct equipment to use, which costs the same regardless of how good the person using it is. I could buy a pneumatic drill (well, I can't, I don't have the money and there's likely a licence necessary, lol) and it would cost the same as a road-ripping-up professional.

My point is, the stats should be accosted appropriately and the equipment should be too, with the combination of the two being fair. The rangers are intended to be used for hit & run, which works best with range. They have options for bow or throwing axes and the throwing axes cost extra because of the stat and the bows cost extra because of the stat. Rather than paying too much for the bow and not enough for the statline, why not pay the correct amount for a statline and the correct amount for the bow? Basically, the stat is +1 point, the bow SHOULD be 2 points less, IMO, but they also suffer -1D compared to a normal Dwarf.

I don't know. I guess my point is: the model's stat should be bought with the model and if you choose to ignore the state, that's your decision, but the price should be on the model, not the bow. If it was a case of the ranger had 4+ shoot and the bow gave him +1 to shoot, then I would agree, but it's not that way.

So, in summary, I agree that their overall cost with bows may be correct, but they need to be more expensive and the bows/throwing axes less so.

simmuskhan · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:57 pm

Well I guess then you'd have to have another, different profile for a ranger with two handed weapon. Because why should they cost more?

Then you're looking at, essentially, a different profile for every single combination of equipment carrying model in the game. And they may have -1D of a normal dwarf, but they already cost 1 less point than a normal dwarf.

Again, in my opinion, the bow does not cost 3 points, a dwarf ranger with a bow costs 3 points more than a dwarf ranger with a two handed weapon.

I don't know what job you have, but in mine we get paid more if we have higher qualifications. There is a base level wage, then you get more money if you have studied more.

I think that's a fairer comparison here. There are dwarf rangers, then there are some that have learnt archery. The points you pay are not for the bow, they're for the training and equipment together.

So rangers with bows cost more than rangers without bows. You could have two separate profiles for them, but it's just easier to collapse all that detail into a simple system with a base cost and a + for the item.

I agree, though, that I think it would make more sense if the shooting value was attached to the weapon rather than the model. If I'm reading you right, you think that a "dwarf longbow" should include the normal longbow damage and range and be a 3+ to hit. Make that 3 points and leave the base rangers with no shoot value?

And when it all comes down to it, the points aren't really a hiring cost per individual, they're a way of keeping armies fair and square. A 500 point dwarf army should be able to fight as well as a 500 point elf army.

I think sometimes the points values seem a little off when you look at individual models, but when you use them as a group they seem to work out better.

whafrog · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:02 am

Nicely said, simmuskhan

imrail · **Joined:** Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:24 pm **Posts:** 666

I totally agree with Simmuskhan.
I never thought about it that way (pay, study etc.)
But you are right, you don't pay for the bow alone, but also equipment, training etc.

hithero · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:52 am

I think simmuskhan and Hashut are agreeing the same point but differing methods of handling it - I'm confused anyway

In any case, real-life trainging and costs have nothing to do with a games points system, the only criteria is that the points cost should enable players to play a balanced game (or as close as possible) should they wish - nothing more.

whafrog · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:17 pm

hithero wrote:

In any case, real-life trainging and costs have nothing to do with a games points system, the only criteria is that the points cost should enable players to play a balanced game (or as close as possible) should they wish - nothing more.

Depends how you view gaming. If it's a cerebral contest between two players about how they can best use the rules to achieve their goals, then you're right.

Personally I prefer games that have some basis in reality, or at least attempt a reasonable facsimile within the limited context of a 4x4 board...

if you can place yourself in the "story" of the game it becomes more like reading a book. So it helps me to have a "real life" rationale for how the point costs are allocated.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:10 pm

I think hithero would agree within scope of your comment whafrog (don't mean to read minds or presume).

But his point and yours are not exclusive of each other. For SBG, the rules, lists, force options, etc. strive to capture the flavor of a well developed and well loved world and allow the creation of stories within that world (especially scenario based games). But at the same time, in order to play point-vs-point games some point values need to be attached to those same forces and options and the only real criteria for those points is that they provide a relative measure of units in such a way that balanced games can be played regardless of the force. There may be times when you can't really explain a specific point

Dwarf ranger

Who is online