So, now that these guys have been released in WD, what does everyone think? Better or worse than Rangers of Ithilien?
It looks like they're better at shooting. Same stats, but they have the Aim for the Eyes! special rule to help against tougher targets. But they're worse in combat. Rangers can generally hold their own, winning most tied fights even though their low defence doesn't make them particularly durable. They also have access to spears. Was this some kind of mistake on the Archers' profile? I mean, if their lord comes uses a spear, surely they would as well?
And the lower courage. That's kind of annoying.

But yeah, what do you think? I'm trying to decide whether I'm going to have Rangers or Archers as missile support for my Gondor force.

Also, if anyone is planning to use the Archers, are you actually going to use the GW scheme? I'm thinking to just use standard Rangers that can then be swapped between whatever use I need. I mean, it would seem their battle styles are similar anyway.

Haven't seen their stats yet (haven't had chance to grab the latest WD), but from what I've heard they sound interesting. I'm not bothered by lower F and C (actually it makes a nice change from everyone and his dog getting F4 basic these days).

If I was to use them, I'd use eBob's English/Welsh Longbowmen as I think they're more suitable than Ranger minis.
I also think that his Irish Galloglass (when its released) would make for good Clansmen

Well you can probably work out the stats from what I've said (same cost as Rangers, hence the comparison).

I agree that the lower F and C fit the theme of fiefdom troops well, especially the lesser regions like Blackroot Vale (not particularly noted for axemen or knights). Just throws a spanner in my plan for a F4 army
But the spears, or lack thereof which really infuriates me. I suppose most people would be pretty lenient though, and the cost of 8 with spears is the same as Duinhir anyway if you need to change them out (or count them as hand weapons).

Those Longbowmen could work. I suppose it depends what type of imagery you're going for. Reading the books, my imagery was of bow armed peasants, but now that GW's rules have started giving them a bit of fighting ability, I do like the look of Rangers... They seem more Gondorian. See the other troop types I could picture as representations for the specific models, but they don't seem they would mesh that well witht he existing range...

the main thing is that most of the time archers can't really do much to monsters and if your agianst another good force then they are pointless....yet i kind of like them but probbly never use them.

Cal585 wrote:

Those Longbowmen could work. I suppose it depends what type of imagery you're going for.

That's true, but that said, I don't agree with the film's imagry of Gondor, so for me it's not so much an issue. In my vision of Gondor, those longbowmen would work really well as I see the followers of Duinhir to be more like feudal serfs than professional warriors.

@ Dinadan - Fair enough. I quite like the WoMT though.

jaws900 wrote:

the main thing is that most of the time archers can't really do much to monsters and if your agianst another good force then they are pointless....yet i kind of like them but probbly never use them.

Ok, I see your point roughly, but I don't think supporting Good v Evil is a bad thing. And actually, archers are the most likely things to use against monsters for me. If there's a troll or fell beast, the best bet is to shoot it down before it gets to your lines. Because those things are made for melee and the last place I want them is chewing through my warriors. Sure, strength 2 bows aren't brilliant, but what else do you have? A strong hero?

Magic? And even then you jsut feed the troll or take it down with numbers and spears. thats how i take them on anyway.

Magic? What spellcasters does Gondor have? Gandalf the White? That's a massive chunk of points, ignoring the whole theming question. And throwing all your troops at it, does kind of play to a trolls strengths (with all those attacks and fight value), as when I'm commanding evil, I want to get my trolls in combat with as many warriors as possible (admittedly that's Cave Trolls which are more susceptible to arrows).
Archery is the safest way to take out many of these monsters, and a reroll to help that is quite beneficial I feel. Sure there are other ways to take them down, but I feel that archery is definitely one of the options.

arrows are almost always an option(unless shooting Sauron) but i feel that the re-roll tho useful means they are shooting at stuff that most archers shouldn't shoot at.
Feeding isn't quite what i ment. Send 2 warriors, 1 with spear and just hold it up and most of the time it will never make it's points back.

Ok, I admit I might have been a bit prejudiced. If I ever use monsters, they're Cave Trolls who are vulnerable to arrows (BV archers wound once in every 5?) and particularly against Elven archery who are stronger and more capable of that stuff. So most things the monster bonus isn't worth using particularly much (though I can see it being great when you need to take down that Mumakil like in the books).
Still the best counter to Gulhavar though given his melee restoration but low defence.

Cal585 wrote:

Ok, I admit I might have been a bit prejudiced. If I ever use monsters, they're Cave Trolls who are vulnerable to arrows (BV archers wound once in every 5?) and particularly against Elven archery who are stronger and more capable of that stuff. So most things the monster bonus isn't worth using particularly much (though I can see it being great when you need to take down that Mumakil like in the books).
Still the best counter to Gulhavar though given his melee restoration but low defence.

Any archers are great counter to him. He's a panzy at range.

Yes, but BVA will make sure he goes down.

But really, I think their greatest benefit is the cinematic plays, taking down a Mumak, or finding the weak spot in a Dragon's belly.