Good Shooter

[knezj]

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

[Adrian Steer]

Yes I agree, good shooter ability is under-priced. I pay the same for Elan for my french foot troops and don't think I've ever used it in all the games I've played so I know which one I would prefer!

[zeitoun]

Hi All,

i agree, and lot of french player are agree too.

Currently we are thinking for 2 solutions :

1/ erased GOOD SHOOTER and BAD SHOOTER from melee bonus and keep the budget.. ( 1 point )
2 / change budget to 2 points and also Bad shooter at -2

Which one has your preference ?

[knezj]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. Now if I can just convince the British players to make a change.

Zeitoun, both options are good but I think Option #1 is the easiest to implement since it doesn't affect army list building.

I think I'll run this by my group to see what they think.

Thanks for your responses guys.

[knightfast]

Depends really how you think poor musketry should impact shock.
I'd be inclined to the +/- 2 option as it would support shock combat being morale and fire more than the actual bayonet, and troops who were markedly better (or worse) would thus have more impact, either shooting more of the attackers on the way in and reducing their impetus or less and thus failing.
Either could work though!

Joys of a first edition - needs a few niggles working out after extended play

[gibbyj]

If looking at good shooter then you also need to look at Amanoeuvre class as that benefit is in my humble opinion also worth more than the +1 for A.
If you do changing of values in isolation, it will just imbalance elsewhere.
cheers
Jim

[Hazelbark]

I also see the good shooter as reflecting the British historical advantage.

If the British only get it for firing, then you make the British have to advance on the French to volley range or risk being charged with French Elan from a distance. Probably in game terms the British do want to advance already.

A 1 point increase will basically charge a 200 point British army 6-10 points. So one less small unit to already smaller army. However I don't like that effect in 300 point games.

The other more complicated thing would be to only give the good shooter (and maybe tenacious) benefit on melee defense to a unit in a hold order division.

PS Tenacious is over priced and should give a morale test when under fire.