Best Archer Army for Defending a Castle?

[Chimpy]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).

[thehandofzarquon]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).Aubriens definetly, if nothing else than for the greater range. The number of attacks possible is also greater.

Roman archers would be good for being adaptable though, they could use their normal attacks against weaker figs and their special against heavy hitters.

But I have to ask, what's wrong with the 4th Mass defending a castle? They had forts in those days, of course... Marcus wouldn't fit in as well, I suppose :P

[reapersaurus]

The 4th Mass or the Omnicron Snipers seem like the natural choice, for sheer power.

Maybe even the Microcorp Agents, if they could be standing in buckets of water on the parapets. :rofl:

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).Aubriens definetly, if nothing else than for the greater range. The number of attacks possible is also greater.

Roman archers would be good for being adaptable though, they could use their normal attacks against weaker figs and their special against heavy hitters.

But I have to ask, what's wrong with the 4th Mass defending a castle? They had forts in those days, of course... Marcus wouldn't fit in as well, I suppose :P

4th Mass and Aubriens are going to be murderers elevated up and behind those battlements.

(EDIT: yeah Omnicrons as well!)

I was thinking of drafting Roman Archers for a castle defense, but the issue of their adjacency for the special attack just asks for trouble from Shotguns, Fire Line, and Explosion special attacks.

Elevated on high, without enhancements or glyphs, the Roman archers get a measly 2 defense! yikes!

[markwars]

Stick some Arrow Gruts on a tall tower with a Swog Rider and Taelord and see how you like 5 attack dice x 3 for 40 points. :wink:

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Stick some Arrow Gruts on a tall tower with a Swog Rider and Taelord and see how you like 5 attack dice x 3 for 40 points. :wink:
Well that's 245 points then, isn't it? :wink:

[thehandofzarquon]

I think you guys missed the point of his post... he was asking which of the two armies he listed would be better rather than what units in general would be best for defending a castle... :P

[Chimpy]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).Aubriens definetly, if nothing else than for the greater range. The number of attacks possible is also greater.

Roman archers would be good for being adaptable though, they could use their normal attacks against weaker figs and their special against heavy hitters.

But I have to ask, what's wrong with the 4th Mass defending a castle? They had forts in those days, of course... Marcus wouldn't fit in as well, I suppose :P

Well 18th century forts were short and thick, instead of really tall. Not to mention they didn't have big wooden doors. (those forts were made to stop cannonballs from penetrating the walls.)

Besides the archers look so much cooler up there than the mass.

The orcs would fit the "big scary castle" theme. Would an orc army work better than the two armies prevously mentioned?

Edit: sorry Markwars didn't see your post.

[thehandofzarquon]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).Aubriens definetly, if nothing else than for the greater range. The number of attacks possible is also greater.

Roman archers would be good for being adaptable though, they could use their normal attacks against weaker figs and their special against heavy hitters.

But I have to ask, what's wrong with the 4th Mass defending a castle? They had forts in those days, of course... Marcus wouldn't fit in as well, I suppose :P

Well 18th century forts were short and thick, instead of really tall. Not to mention they didn't have big wooden doors. (those forts were made to stop cannonballs from penetrating the walls.)

Besides the archers look so much cooler up there than the mass.

The orcs would fit the "big scary castle" theme. Would an orc army work better than the two armies prevously mentioned?
They had wooden-log forts also, did they not?

As for an Orc army... you could have massive numbers of reinforcements, I suppose and maybe some Swogs to boost them, but no... I'd have to say I'd rather hinge on the better range of the Elf army.

[Chimpy]

Well compared to the elves the orcs (and the romans) don't cost as much. Those armies might have less range but they would have more archers.

[Snotwalker 8000]

The Elf Army of Aubriens, Syv, and WoA would dominate. Plus they look cool up there! (well, aside from the ugly WoA... they really don't look cool anywhere... but would work well defending the door.)

The Romans WOULD look better, but have weak attacks, and as mentioned before, the adjacency thing begs to be blasted apart with specials....

But as an aside, I'd rather have an Orc army defending than either of the two previous ones... while the Orc Archers are shooting from the battlements, Krug or Mimring could sally forth to wreak havoc on the attacking army's long-range shooters to eliminate that threat... Plus with Nerak and swogs backing up the Orcs, their defense would be good, and their attack would be boosted nicely as well... cheap hordes of orcs would be a bear to beat down in a castle.

[Teamski]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).

The aubrians all the way! With Fenzy, they really put a hurting on the enemy! In 3 games I played with them, they really kept the castle clear!! Always use the Venoc Warlord with them to get that extra "1" to the roll!!

-Ski

[Chimpy]

To awnser your question about the log forts thehandofzarquon
Here is an excerpt from wikipedia's fortifications page:

Medieval-style fortifications were largely made obsolete by the arrival of cannons on the 14th century battlefield. Fortifications in the age of blackpowder evolved into much lower structures with greater use of ditches and earth ramparts that would absorb and disperse the energy of cannon fire. Walls exposed to direct cannon fire were very vulnerable, so were sunk into ditches fronted by earth slopes. This placed a heavy emphasis on the geometry of the fortification to allow defensive cannonry interlocking fields of fire to cover all approaches to the lower and thus more vulnerable walls. Fortifications also extended in depth, with protected batteries for defensive cannonry, to allow them to engage attacking cannon to keep them at a distance and prevent them bearing directly on the vulnerable walls.

Out of the few american forts during the war for indepence most were made of wood because either:

1. They were built by the british on the frontier and there were no other materials available.
2. They were built by the Americans at the onset of the war. At this time the revoultionaries didn't have the funds or time to make a strong earthen/stone fortress.

In comparision almost all forts in Europe were made of stone & earth, with a few exceptions. This trend also took place in America after the war. By the War of 1812 most forts guarding our harbors were built of stone.

[dvalhalla]

I think I might go with Aubrien Archers (with Venoc Warlord for enhanced frenzy), which can frenzy for another attack.

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

Of the two I'd choose Aubrians.

BTW - I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but 6 range figures (including the 4th Mass and Orcs) are going to get dominated by range 7+ figures!!!

While the mass is waiting to fire, on the edge of their battlements, they are getting peppered with fire from... Oh lets say Agents. The Agents will set comfortably at 7 range, while the 4th waits... and waits.. and waits. They can't advance to get the Agents in 6 Range.

Even more so, What's going to happen when DeadEye, Syvarris, AE are shooting from 8+ range. What's going to happen to the 7 Range power figs???

[Chimpy]

Of the two I'd choose Aubrians.

BTW - I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but 6 range figures (including the 4th Mass and Orcs) are going to get dominated by range 7+ figures!!!

While the mass is waiting to fire, on the edge of their battlements, they are getting peppered with fire from... Oh lets say Agents. The Agents will set comfortably at 7 range, while the 4th waits... and waits.. and waits. They can't advance to get the Agents in 6 Range.

Even more so, What's going to happen when DeadEye, Syvarris, AE are shooting from 8+ range. What's going to happen to the 7 Range power figs???

Gives a whole new reason to draft the AE dosn't it. I guess the moral of the story is to draft Syvarris on your team first.

[heroscaper2.0]

An elf army would kick butt. Aurbien archers with their frenzy and syvarris with his double attack.

[Chimpy]

Okay here is a scenario. You are defending a castle against an army led by Krug, Marden hounds and Sgt. Alexander Drake. In two turns they will be at the castle wall. Would you do better with 150 points of aubriens or 150 points of romans (archers)?

[LilNewbie]

Aubriens since they have a chance to go multiple times per activation.

Newb.

[Wilkerson74]

aubriens can attack multiple times, but the romans are better for taking down sgt drake at range since his thorian speed only works for normal attacks.

[markwars]

Of the two I'd choose Aubrians.

BTW - I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but 6 range figures (including the 4th Mass and Orcs) are going to get dominated by range 7+ figures!!!

While the mass is waiting to fire, on the edge of their battlements, they are getting peppered with fire from... Oh lets say Agents. The Agents will set comfortably at 7 range, while the 4th waits... and waits.. and waits. They can't advance to get the Agents in 6 Range.

Even more so, What's going to happen when DeadEye, Syvarris, AE are shooting from 8+ range. What's going to happen to the 7 Range power figs???

In a game last night that problem was solved by the castle defenders placing Q9 and Deadeye on the top.

[Chimpy]

aubriens can attack multiple times, but the romans are better for taking down sgt drake at range since his thorian speed only works for normal attacks.

I don't believe the roman archers power is a special attack...

[LilNewbie]

It is a special attack. So you only have 150 points total or do you have other points to spend on more units?

Newb.

[Wilkerson74]

Arrow Volley


Special Attack- Range 6, Attack 6.

Three unengaged adjacent Roman Archers on the same level may combine their attacks and roll their attack dice as one attack. All Roman Archers in the arrow volley must have a clear line of sight on the one target.

[Chimpy]

Arrow Volley


Special Attack- Range 6, Attack 6.

Three unengaged adjacent Roman Archers on the same level may combine their attacks and roll their attack dice as one attack. All Roman Archers in the arrow volley must have a clear line of sight on the one target.


:oops: :oops:

[Chimpy]

It is a special attack. So you only have 150 points total or do you have other points to spend on more units?

Newb.

One 50-75pt unit/squad can be behind the door. But the point is whether the abriuens or roman archers will cause the most damage to the beseigers. Let us also assume that Krug and the hounds will attack the door while drake will scale the wall to attack the archers.

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

No worries Chimpy, man!!!

Welcome to the forums. 16 post, you not gonna know everything.

Just keep on contributing!

Even Wilk was a newb.

and LilNewbie.... he'll always be a noob. :wink:

[LilNewbie]

...

and LilNewbie.... he'll always be a noob. :wink:

LOL! Amen to that, bruther-from-another-mother! :D

Newb.

[dvalhalla]

Another thing to consider is that AAs are a common squad, AEs are unique.

[Wilkerson74]

No worries Chimpy, man!!!

Welcome to the forums. 16 post, you not gonna know everything.

Just keep on contributing!

Even Wilk was a newb.

and LilNewbie.... he'll always be a noob. :wink:

Im still a newb......just more bitter...haha...and a belated welcome to chimpy!

[Double Oak]

I do think the Deadeye/Major combo woulda worked well too if we woulda put defenders right behind em so that Ry's Sentinels couldn't get up there and engage us (D'OH!!!). :shock:

Not very historically appropriate but very effective.

[ptucker78]

Of the two I'd choose Aubrians.

BTW - I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but 6 range figures (including the 4th Mass and Orcs) are going to get dominated by range 7+ figures!!!

While the mass is waiting to fire, on the edge of their battlements, they are getting peppered with fire from... Oh lets say Agents. The Agents will set comfortably at 7 range, while the 4th waits... and waits.. and waits. They can't advance to get the Agents in 6 Range.

Even more so, What's going to happen when DeadEye, Syvarris, AE are shooting from 8+ range. What's going to happen to the 7 Range power figs???

Ok, so it's well after you said that, but I agree completely. The two options of Romans or Elves is gonna hurt your drafting. First game I played with a castle I used The 4th mass boosted by Realin and Tealord, and Dead Eye Dan adding a little cover fire for those that linger out of range.

[Kahrma]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).

Definitely elves. Syv gets 10 range and double attack - He'll be one mean SOB on top of the castle walls. The Aubriens get 7 range and at least 3 attack from the castle walls - and could frenzy. The WoA are perfect for melee inside the castle walls - defending against adjacent attacks with only 1 shield.

The Romans, well, look cooler and you can afford a few more.

I'd much rather rush a castle full of Romans.

[DemoDougie]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).

The Omnicron Snipers are the obvious choice! Attackers and defenders after reaching 10 levels receive +2 to attack and defense for height advantage. With the Snipers receiving an extra skull for every one rolled....it makes for potentially instant death - 6 skulls! :johnwoo2:

[Tiberius]

Deadeye worked great for me as did teh aubrien elves when I used them. After that frenzy starts kicking in, I run out of targets fairly quickly.

[Teamski]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).

The Omnicron Snipers are the obvious choice! Attackers and defenders after reaching 10 levels receive +2 to attack and defense for height advantage. With the Snipers receiving an extra skull for every one rolled....it makes for potentially instant death - 6 skulls! :johnwoo2:

Snipers are more, though, at 100 pts compared to 70 for the archers. You get 3 for just about the price of 2 with the chance of frenzy. Remember, you don't get 2 additional dice unless you are 10 levels above the height of the figure, so the snipers would need to be on a double height castle wall to get that.....

-Ski

[kenjib]

With a +1 height bonus, the archers will be better at attacking low def. targets while the snipers will be better at attacking high def. targets. This is because the sniper probability curve is more flat than the archer one. That's really what the sniper ability is all about - flattening the probability curve (which fits the sniper theme very well). Here are the probabilities:

archer with height:
0 skulls: 12.5%
1 skull: 37.5%
2 skulls: 37.5%
3 skulls: 12.5%

sniper with height:
0 skulls: 25%
2 skulls: 50%
4 skulls: 25%

What does a flatter probability curve mean in practice? The sniper has a 75% chance of getting 2 or more skulls while the archer has only a 50% chance of 2 or more skulls. However, the sniper also has twice as much chance of a complete miss with 0 skulls. If you want a consistent attack that is decent against 1-3 shields (my hunch is that for 3 shields frenzy tips things in the archer's favor) the archer is good - an approaching arrow grut army for example. When facing more defense than that you will probably do better with the sniper's ability to punch through defense making them a more well rounded unit than the archers against mixed opponents approaching from below.

Once you start adding other bonuses in the form of a second castle level for +2 height bonus, the taelord, and/or a glyph bonus, those snipers are going to very quickly outstrip any edge that the archers have and become simply better in all cases. They also have 1 more defense than the archers do.

[DemoDougie]

Hi, I am trying to come up with an army that astheticaly looks cool on top of a castle and kicks butt. I am leaning towards the romans asthetically, but the aubrien powers seem to fit castle war fare better. what are your thoughts on this? Who would be better for defending a castle: An elf army (Aubriens, Syvariss, WOA) or a roman army (Roaman archers, legionaries, Marcus).

The Omnicron Snipers are the obvious choice! Attackers and defenders after reaching 10 levels receive +2 to attack and defense for height advantage. With the Snipers receiving an extra skull for every one rolled....it makes for potentially instant death - 6 skulls! :johnwoo2:

Snipers are more, though, at 100 pts compared to 70 for the archers. You get 3 for just about the price of 2 with the chance of frenzy. Remember, you don't get 2 additional dice unless you are 10 levels above the height of the figure, so the snipers would need to be on a double height castle wall to get that.....

-Ski

Actually, single wall castle is ten levels high! :headbang:

[DemoDougie]

With a +1 height bonus, the archers will be better at attacking low def. targets while the snipers will be better at attacking high def. targets. This is because the sniper probability curve is more flat than the archer one. That's really what the sniper ability is all about - flattening the probability curve (which fits the sniper theme very well). Here are the probabilities:

archer with height:
0 skulls: 12.5%
1 skull: 37.5%
2 skulls: 37.5%
3 skulls: 12.5%

sniper with height:
0 skulls: 25%
2 skulls: 50%
4 skulls: 25%

What does a flatter probability curve mean in practice? The sniper has a 75% chance of getting 2 or more skulls while the archer has only a 50% chance of 2 or more skulls. However, the sniper also has twice as much chance of a complete miss with 0 skulls. If you want a consistent attack that is decent against 1-3 shields (my hunch is that for 3 shields frenzy tips things in the archer's favor) the archer is good - an approaching arrow grut army for example. When facing more defense than that you will probably do better with the sniper's ability to punch through defense making them a more well rounded unit than the archers against mixed opponents approaching from below.

Once you start adding other bonuses in the form of a second castle level for +2 height bonus, the taelord, and/or a glyph bonus, those snipers are going to very quickly outstrip any edge that the archers have and become simply better in all cases. They also have 1 more defense than the archers do.

WOW!! Thanks for supporting my point with AWESOME data! :passout:

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

Remember, you don't get 2 additional dice unless you are 10 levels above the height of the figure, so the snipers would need to be on a double height castle wall to get that.....

-Ski

Actually, single wall castle is ten levels high! :headbang:

Just wanted to restate (and Bold) what Teamski said. You need to be 10 levels above the height of the figure. So if a figure is 5 high on level one, you need to be on level 16 to be 10 higher than the figures height.

[willwall54022]

Aubrien.4th,omni,microcorp ive had my succes with all of them

[rdhight]

As others have said, I think high range is more important than high attack in a castle game. So of the two you're choosing from, I'd go with Aubriens no questions asked, whether I was attacking the castle or defending it.

[Free]

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the Tagawa Archers?

They're my choice for if/when my opponent gets on my wall & begins to hacking me down. Gotta love that Counterstrike ability. And they just look cool, too :)

Then ya throw Kaemon Awasome into the mix.....

2X Archers + KA = 250 points, leaving ya with a nice round chunk of change to spend on yr melee troops

[Tai-Pan]

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the Tagawa Archers?

They're my choice for if/when my opponent gets on my wall & begins to hacking me down. Gotta love that Counterstrike ability. And they just look cool, too :)

Then ya throw Kaemon Awasome into the mix.....

2X Archers + KA = 250 points, leaving ya with a nice round chunk of change to spend on yr melee troops

I second this. The entire Samurai army in a castle is an impressive sight.

[johnyboy199]

The Archers(Syvaries, Sonlen, Arubian) are much better because of there range of 9,7,7 and double attake and dragen swoop and the best frenzy. I rest my case. 8)

[The Super Atheist]

Don't forget about kylntela. (Did I spell it right?)