Sunday, June 21, 2009

Marauder versus Repeater Crossbowmen

My brother and I have a long-standing debate. He (a Dark Elf player) thinks equal points of Marauders are more valuable than I ( a Chaos Warrior player) think equal points of Repeater Crossbow unit are worth.

By definition, this is a pointless argument. The points costs don't exist in a vacuum. Here is what Games Workshop says is the best use for R.C.


Conversely, the use for Chaos Marauders is this:


In the official tactica, they also say Marauders provide "much needed bulk" or something along that line. 

My contention is Marauders as bulk are pointless since they rely exclusively on static combat resolution bonuses to win fights since they are among the worst fighters available. We have not run a statistical model.

There is a serious problem with any statistical model which is one reason I have not bothered to do one until now. They are based on thousands of events whereas a statistical model assumes every individual roll happens exactly the way they should happen over thousands upon thousands of events. Individual events that go strictly according to percentage are actually the anomaly. 

Also, they happen in a vacuum. For example, in the first one I am about to do, I will assume the Dark Elf player is a complete moron who never threatens flank charges or charges with good units that should be protecting their shooters, never moves their Crossbowmen to give them an extra turn or three of shooting with their mobility advantage, and never march blocks. 

I will also assume the Chaos player is a moron who intends the Marauders to win a combat and can come up with no better plan than walking straight forward into a line of Repeater crossbows without any precautions such as a mark of Nurgle or Tzeentch.

For this model I will use the smallest possible sample size and will make the following assumptions. If something happens 50% of the time, I will assume the first time it does not happen (IE, if a shot hits 50% of the time, we will assume it misses the first and hits the second). If it happens once in three times, I will assume it hits the second time.

Marauders cost 4 points, Repeater Crossbows 10. So 2 Crossbows versus 5 Marauders is the statistical model.

So we start 24 inches apart and give the first turn to the Marauders. That should give them every possible advantage and they should win this.
Walk forward 8". 
Shooting 1: 4 shots:Start needing a 3, over half range, multiple shots, they are needing 5s. One of three hits so we will have 1 try to wound, 50%, no wounds first turn.
Walk to 8". 4 shots needing 4s, 2 hits, this time one wound. 4 Marauders left.
Charge. Stand and shoot kills one more, leaving 3 marauders to face 2 Dark Elfs. I have two shots at passing my panic test so I will auto-pass it. Only about 11% of the time will I fail it so 9 of 10 times I make it into close combat.

Close Combat:
3 attacks, needing 50% to hit, 1 hits, have 50% chance to wound, no wounds.Dark Elfs attack back, 50% to hit, 1 hits. Eternal Hatred means re-roll, 50% to hit, to give every possible advantage to the Marauders, we will say it misses.

Round 2
Dark Elfs have Initiative 5 to 4 for the Marauders. 50% hit, no re-roll this time. This is the second of 2 50%, so one Marauder dies. 2 Marauders left. 50% hit, so one hit, this time I kill a Dark Elf who only saves one in 6 times. 

Round 3: Dark Elf attacks first, 50% hit. This is his third attack so he misses. I have 50% to hit, 1 try to wound, wounded last turn so no wounds.

Round 4: Dark Elf hits this time, no wound. I hit once, kill once and win with 2 guys left.

So lets switch the model and make hits/wounds/saves happen on the first event occurrence.
Marauders move to 16".
4 shots, 2 hit. 1 wound. 4 Marauders left.
Marauders move to 8". 4 shots, 2 hit, 1 wound. 3 Marauders left.
Marauders charge, one more dies on the charge, 2 left.
Marauders attack twice, wound once, saved.
Elves attack twice, hit once, re-roll means they hit twice, kill one Marauder. One left, needs to pass break test on a 6 which is 50%. 
Dark Elf attack 2 times, hit once, no wound.
Marauder attacks once, hits, no wound. Takes break test on 7.
Dark Elfs attack twice, wound once.

When the advantages are all Marauder, they have 40% of their force left. When they are all Dark Elf, the Elf ends with 100% of his force left. Of course, an easy split of the 16.6667% chance of save means they only get 50% of their force.

As you can see, with dumb players who don't do any maneuvering, march blocking, flanking, or anything of that nature, it comes down to where the model falls. If the breaks go the Marauder way, they are left with a decimated force that gave up 1/2 points. If the breaks go the Dark Elf way they are left with a fully functional force.

So if you run the model each way the Dark Elf player ends with 15 points for the two games to 10 for the Chaos player and if you run the model a third time, now it is 10 crossbows to 2 marauders.

Of course, this is one reason I think these models are often an exercise in futility. More often you will see one game where the Dark Elf player consistently rolls 1 under the score he needs to hit and when he does hit the wounds do not go through and then the next game he will hit 9 of 10 and wound 8 of 9 or something ridiculous like that. I have been on both ends of those things.

Ultimately, it comes down to play style. 

Marauders in my armies are only useful as screening units. They need to attack with 4 guys against units with no save to expect to do even a single wound. That means I have no confidence in their ability to do damage so their only real uses are as support for Wulfrik or screening purposes.

For screening, Warhounds are better. Costing 2 points more, they are much faster which allows my Knights/Shaggoths/etc to get into combat faster, though they die just as quick and run much easier. 

If Marauders could skirmish they would be worth 6 or 8 points apiece as they are harder to hit, and if they could move and shoot, they would be worth 8 or 10 points apiece. With no range weapon, they are just pointless casualties in my playing style. 

Conversely, in my playing style, line troops who can shoot enemies to ribbons as they come across the field and then be just as good as my screening units in close combat, those I could always find a use for.


Long story short; I have a sneaking suspicion both sides of the debate see this model as proving their point. To me, it clearly shows Marauders are over costed in the Chaos army (though possibly under costed in many other armies) and an equal number of Repeater Crossbowmen is a better value while my disputing party will think it shows his point.

As usual with things that entirely hinge on playing style and knowing your own armies weaknesses...their value is completely subjective. One mans waste of points is another mans gold mines.

11 comments:

kennyB said...

"If Marauders could skirmish they would be worth 6 or 8 points apiece as they are harder to hit, and if they could move and shoot, they would be worth 8 or 10 points apiece"

The good news is that with a minimum size unit of 10 marauders at 4 points each (40 pts), you can add the "Mark of Nurgle" for 30 points, bringing the grand total to 70 pts, or 7 points apiece, and get all the benefits of skirmishers, plus an additional bonus in that there is also a bonus close combat modifier, and take none of the negatives such as inability to negate or possess rank bonus' that skirmishers get stuck with (which is why you said the wood elf army's potential is reduced), and with an increase in unit size it decreases the per model cost. Most of my core units are 100 point minimums (10 points x 10 models), so assuming you go with that forced minimum point value you can get 17 marauders with a better than skirmishing bonus for less than 6 points ea(98/17=5.76). Or, if you think that a 6+ light armour save is impressive, you could always take the "Mark of Tzeentch" for 20 points, bringing the minimum unit cost to 60 (6 points per/model) with a 6+ Ward Save. Using minimum unit cost of 100 (because I HAVE to), you could take 20 Marauders with a 6+ Ward Save for 5 points ea (100/20=5). I know you hate to "tool up" your "junk" units, but I don't even have the option to leave my Light Armour off or I would. Because in all the games I have played, I don't think I've had a save left to take with only Light Armour, as I haven't been in a close combat with my Troops that hasn't had at least a -1 Armour Save modifier. If I could switch Light Armour out for being harder to hit, or a ward save, or just not take it I would!

kennyB said...

"Warriors with repeater crossbows provide a versatile and reliable bastion of fire for a Dark Elf army. They work well in large units were they form a solid line of fire. Neither unit type can move and fire, so be sure to set them up with good lines of sight in mind."

Interesting. In the Dark Elf Armies Book there is no such rule. The Repeater Crossbow is described on page 44, under Dark Elf Warriors, as:

"Repeater Crossbow
Used almost exclusively by the warriors of Naggaroth, the repeater crossbow unleashes a hail of deadly darts. Using a sophisticated magazine and loading mechanism it is able to fire a volley of bolts in the same time it takes an ordinary crossbowman to fire a single shot.

Maximum Range: 24"; Strength: 3

Rules: 2 x multiple shots, armour piercing"

At no point does it mention, refer to, nor say "move or fire".

In the flavor text on the same page it says

"A proportion of a city's warriors train in the use of the lethal repeater crossbow known as the Uraithen - literally translated as the Deathrain. Regiments armed with this weapon can stand back and unleash a storm of iron tipped bolts against approaching foes, or move forward and cut down enemy ranks to weaken the foe's line before the Dark Elf attack charges in."

On the Games Workshop website it says this of the Dark Riders with Repeater Crossbows:

"Dark Riders provide fast cavalry for the Dark Elf army. With a high movement, spears and the option of repeater crossbows, they are a versatile core choice. Dark Riders work best on the offensive, harrying flanks or riding forward to engage enemy war machine crew. Their crossbows give them two shots a piece and with the ability to march and shoot you have a very mobile firing platform."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat50014&prodId=prod790913

Is there something I am missing that makes them a "move-or-fire" for the ground troops? Or is it that neither Shield troops nor Spear troops can move and fire? >.<

kennyB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kennyB said...

"So we start 24 inches apart and give the first turn to the Marauders. That should give them every possible advantage and they should win this.
Walk forward 8".
Shooting 1: 4 shots:Start needing a 3, over half range, multiple shots, they are needing 5s. One of three hits so we will have 1 try to wound, 50%, no wounds first turn.
Walk to 8". 4 shots needing 4s, 2 hits, this time one wound. 4 Marauders left.
Charge."

>Base of 3 to hit, +1 for multi-shot, +1 for shooting at charging enemy, =5+ to hit. So 2 hit (2 of 4 = 50%?) and 1 wounds at this point? Or 1 hits (25% on 33% chance?) and no wound (wounded turn prior to charge)?<

"Stand and shoot kills one more, leaving 3 marauders to face 2 Dark Elfs."

Or

Stand and shoot kills none, leaveing 4 marauders to face 2 Dark Elfs.?

Close Combat

Round 1
Marauders 4 attacks at 50% to hit so 2 hits. 50% to wound so 1 wounds. 1 Dark Elf left to counter-attack. 50% to hit so misses.

Round 2
Dark Elf has Initiative 5 to Marauder Initiative 4 so Dark Elf attacks 1st. 50% to hit 2nd try so hits. 50% to wound so fails to wound. 4 Marauders counter-attack 50% to hit so 2 hits. 50% to hit so 1 wound. Dark Elf dies.

Poor Elves :(

kennyB said...

Also, a 40 point gamble per table quarter is a good way to use "much needed bulk". Gamble 2 units of base Marauders per game to take table quarters, chances are you will own or remove from your opponent at least 1 table quarter per game, and gain 20-120 bonus points on your gamble.

M said...

I think first up you are comparing apples with oranges. Marauders and Crossbows fill different roles within their respective forces.

Marauders are pretty average in their base form but start equiping them with a few options and their combat value increases. Putting a Mark on the regiment will also improve their effectiveness and still not cost more than most other armies basic core choices.

Crossbowmen are well costed for and effective for their army. Both are great in their roles but to put them in a direct comparison I think is futile. If all games came down to was the confrotation proposed then I don't think any of us would play.

I think if you had increased the sample size of the forces (say 10 crossbows and the equivalent points from suitably upgraded Marauders) ans the test would probably show more of a balance.

Otherwise it was a good piece of theorycrafting - I love these hypotheticals. Keep it up.

Darth Weasel said...

Ken, in response to your first comment: the bad news is they do NOT give you the benefits of skirmishers: they cannot separate 1" so a unt of say...10 Marauders gives you a 10" front, not 20 or 21. Second, they must maintain formation and as a result are slowed by terrain, the need to wheel, turn, etc. whereas Skirmishers do not have those drawbacks.

The Wood Elf comparison doesn't work because the Wood Elf army does not WANT to get into close combat..they want to maneuver and shoot. The Chaos army MUST get into close combat.

So a unit of Marauders tooled up as you suggest still has all the drawbacks of poor maneuverability and frontage coverage without the benefits of being able to move quickly. Ironically, the Warhounds serve the purpose much better since they are "fast cavalry".

As for the Light Armor...you have saved against me with it a couple times. With my Marauders :-)

Darth Weasel said...

On your second, the Move or Fire is not in place for them as near as I can tell. Perhaps Barron wrote some of the rules for that....

Darth Weasel said...

>Base of 3 to hit, +1 for multi-shot, +1 for shooting at charging enemy, =5+ to hit. So 2 hit (2 of 4 = 50%?) and 1 wounds at this point? Or 1 hits (25% on 33% chance?) and no wound (wounded turn prior to charge)?<

"Stand and shoot kills one more, leaving 3 marauders to face 2 Dark Elfs."

Or

Stand and shoot kills none, leaveing 4 marauders to face 2 Dark Elfs.?


No, because it is the second event at 50%. SO one Marauder dying is correct statistically.

And for all the Elves to die took every statistical event happening at the worst time for them so not so poor...

Darth Weasel said...

The table quarter thing is a good use for them. In fact, if I recall, you were the one I told about my idea for an army including 10 units of 10 Marauders each, no adds, so a total of 400 points just to take table quarters. That is indeed a great use for them.

Darth Weasel said...

M, you are correct about the Apples and Oranges, it only came up because of a debate over whether 100 points of Marauders could take out 100 points of Repeater Crossbows. I would love a unit that could move 5", fire 2 shots, was relatively cheap so were a screening unit that could do damage.

My argument is the Marauders, in a group that always sees hills in play (I have yet to play a game where my opponent could not put firing units on a hill in their own deployment zone
, are essentially useless. They cannot provide a screen as units on hills simply fire over them, they are inferior troops once they get into close combat and if tooled up then their points cost is better spent on other units that can do the same thing as a screen but also actually do damage once they get into combat. As a result, I take Marauders specifically because they are a sub-standard unit. Weird as it sounds, I am trying to lose more. I want a 50% win rate and as it now stands...my win rate is significantly higher than that. But I am working to change it and one way is by taking more units like the Marauders, Chaos Spawn, etc.