Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Recently I've been torn between giving my 40 missile troops ( Empire army) handguns or crossbows. Handguns obviously pack much more punch being Armor piercing but i often find that it is quite difficult to get within 24" inch of High Elves/Wood Elves/Dwarves which I play VERY often.This made me consider crossbows as an alternative to handguns but I'd like to know some opinions of more experienced players before I go about gluing and painting 40 men.

If that is your meta, crossbows will probably serve you well. Having said that, if you deploy handgunners as far forward as possible, roughly at the 2' and 4' markd for edample, you should have some viable targets for them.
Against less girly troops, I think handguns are stronger. Haven't actually calculated the stats though.

Around here, weapons only need to be shown on the majority of the unit. If your gaming culture is the same, just go half and half - make sure the front few rows are the one your using, and then jumble up the others at the back

Go for archers! More flexibility (move and fire) and harder to hit. They do a bit less damage, but are cheaper. Their mobility might put them in situations where they hit better than the gunners/crossbowmen anyways.

Neither one has the BS to be able to do much significant damage anyways. The crossbows have the range advantage, whereas the handgunners can take the repeater handgun, which can be very nice.

I think I would go for the handgunners and deploy them as far up as I can and hope my opponents does the same. Gunpowder is just more.. Empire.

Have you considered splitting up the units 50/50 and position them accordingly?

Take handgunners, the save penalty makes them viable against cavalry.

Don't worrit about being outranged, 24" is adequate range even if facing Elves, only dwarves offer much of a problem and not because of their Quarrelers but because of their artillery.

Dwarfs are the only army that isn't compelled to rush an Empire gun line, its not the handgunners that force this but the cannon and mortars. You dont even need to deploy particularly far forward, just take enough artillery and your gunners range will not be an issue.

Consider taking a champion with sniper rifle, if you take enough try picking off a wizard with mass sniper fire. You might pull off an early win, Alternately shoot champions, high elf champions may have magic items which helps and are generally expensive so one kill will likely pay for the sniper.

The Repeater sounds dandy but three shots at BS4 -1 for 29pts doesnt match having three handgunners for 27pts.
If you want it take it for flavour.

The Brace of Pistols is also popular, this one gives you an extra attack, which is of dubious benefit and two Stand and Shoot shots which is useful. The main benefit is that all the shooting for a Stand and Shoot occurs at the maximum range of the shortest ranged weapon. As the pistols are short ranged the entire unit will wait for the champion and thus shoot at short range. This makes a big difference if you have a large enough unit.

Crossbow company champions don't have any toys.

Just to be clear, I don't think handguns offer "much more punch", nor do I think that an extra -1 to armour suddenly makes them "viable against cavalry".

And on the other side, a difference of 6" doesn't mean much, either.

I doubt it matters all that much, honestly, but if you're facing down a lot of BS-based shooting, I'd suggest crossbows. And knights.

Well, a crossbow turns a 1+ save into... the same thing as a 1+ save. Handguns DO force that armor to fail on 1 OR 2. That's not exactly nothing. Against a 2+ save, bows are still letting 2+, to the x-bows 3+ to the handgun's 50% chance. That's not nothing either.

Sure, they're not great at this, but they're not worthless either. If you get a turn to shoot with them, and then get to stand your ground when the main unit gets charged, and then you get to shoot again, and then you get to stand your ground again...

40 armor-piercing shots for only 90 points seems like it could be cost-effective against a decent amount of heavier stuff.

You're missing my point. Armour Piercing means 16% more failed amour saves.
It helps. A little. Just like a 6" range. Maybe another round of shooting, versus maybe an extra casualty or two.

Moving an armor save from 2+ to 3+ means you get TWICE as many failed armor saves. 1/6 to 1/3rd isn't 16%.

The real benefit I can see to crossbows is that they get short range accuracy at a longer range. Outside of this little 3" strip of range, though, there isn't much that crossbows do better. Other than look for 6's (or worse) at an even longer range, but I don't know if that kind of plinking is worth taking crossbowmen for in the first place.

Sorry, I mispoke: a -1 to armour results in a 16% increase in a failed armour save.
Yes, in this case, that means twice as many failed saves. But to go from .6 after saves to 1.2 is, proportions aside, a pretty small actual increase.

And that's assuming you're shooting at something that has a 1+ armour save. If they have a 2+, it's a 66% proportional increase, and the numbers dwindle on down to zero.

Neither unit is capable of much on it's own. I'm not saying crossbows are better or that handguns are worse. They're both okay units, with their own uses.

Warpsolution wrote: But to go from .6 after saves to 1.2 is, proportions aside, a pretty small actual increase.

It's the difference from maybe killing something but nearly as likely not, and killing something with some extra to spare in case you're unlucky. That doesn't seem like nothing to me.

Mostly as well for how it spirals. If that extra wound or two kills off a demigryph on the charge, that's damage that's not happening to whatever you have that's getting charged, which means it can do more damage to your opponent's stuff in subsequent turns.

I don't quite understand the argument in favor of something that does LESS damage, especially when the only advantage crossbows have (range) doesn't have as much of a more damage advantage as hitting harder when you get to hit.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't quite understand the argument in favor of something that does LESS damage, especially when the only advantage crossbows have (range) doesn't have as much of a more damage advantage as hitting harder when you get to hit.

I think you need to re-read his last sentence.

 Ailaros wrote:

Warpsolution wrote: But to go from .6 after saves to 1.2 is, proportions aside, a pretty small actual increase.

It's the difference from maybe killing something but nearly as likely not, and killing something with some extra to spare in case you're unlucky. That doesn't seem like nothing to me.
Mostly as well for how it spirals. If that extra wound or two kills off a demigryph on the charge, that's damage that's not happening to whatever you have that's getting charged, which means it can do more damage to your opponent's stuff in subsequent turns.
I don't quite understand the argument in favor of something that does LESS damage, especially when the only advantage crossbows have (range) doesn't have as much of a more damage advantage as hitting harder when you get to hit.

That's 40K mathematics, where shooting does play a major role.
With long range and stand and fire, handgunners are going to do very little vs 1+ armor T4 models.
The best solution is taking a unit champ with a brace of pistols. On a stand and fire, all shots are treated as being fired at the shortest range in the unit. That pistol effectively gives the handgunners +1 to hit; letting them stand and fire on 5+ instead of 6+.
Even then, 5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 3+ to save, you'll be doing ~1 wound from a unit of 20 and pretty much any 1+ save unit in the game will take that wound, then slaughter the ~200 points of handgunners.

It's not an extra wound or two; it's a wound. Maybe not even that. Seeing how most monstrous cav are priced around 20 to 25 points per wound; paying 200 points to do 2 or 3 wounds is a pretty poor exchange.

 Ailaros wrote:
It's the difference from maybe killing something but nearly as likely not, and killing something with some extra to spare in case you're unlucky. That doesn't seem like nothing to me.

Mostly as well for how it spirals. If that extra wound or two kills off a demigryph on the charge, that's damage that's not happening to whatever you have that's getting charged, which means it can do more damage to your opponent's stuff in subsequent turns.

You don't seem to get what I'm saying: Armour Piercing helps. A little. About as much as +6" range helps. Maybe those handguns will result in another wound or two. Maybe the crossbows will get another turn or two of shooting. Maybe those crossbows will bounce off enemy armour. Maybe the handguns won't have any high-armour targets to shoot at.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't quite understand the argument in favor of something that does LESS damage, especially when the only advantage crossbows have (range) doesn't have as much of a more damage advantage as hitting harder when you get to hit.

A difference of 6" is another march move for infantry.
It also extends the unit's reach versus units of fast cavalry and other chaff (which is the only kind of unit Handguns or crossbows are going to be able to seriously take on, anyway) and other missile troops.

I keep saying: they're almost the same thing. If all you ever shoot at ever is Demigryphs, take handguns. If all you're shooting at is Glade Guard, take crossbows.
Maybe Armour Piercing is always better in your local meta. But even if it is, the results will be small. A further -1 to armour doesn't mean a lot, regardless of the situation. As said above; any serious threats will weather the bullet-storm, and then murder all your mediocre missile troops.
I'd take some of each, I guess. Either way, I wouldn't be losing sleep over this.

Ok, first ignore the points balances. When facing a gunline the relative values of the units involved are irrelevant, the hundgunners attack key units, en masse. A handgunner unit will not drop a single rank unit of knights, but two or three might wipe it out.

Heavy cavalry are a good option for this as if they fail their saves on a 1-2 thats a fair number of knights dead in a small expensive unit, whereas infantry might absorb all fire. Sure a handgunner unit might drop one or two knights, but then you have a couple more shooting at the same target and character fire also. A gunline can sort out knights like archers in other armies kill chaff light cavalry. Both units usually being the same size, if larger its cannon magnet. Against larger units handgunners can mop up afterwards again resulting in the possibility of causing a 'mission kill' on a knight unit. There is no guarantee you will stop a character caddy unit or one with ward saves, but those are wildcards anyway.

The main problem is that infantry units will be too big to kill with bowfire in 8th, most infantry blocks are too large and you need to stop those by other means, with either handgunners or crossbows it will not matter, but against knights it does matter to the extent you can do something about it. Again this is to stop a squadron of knights or two, it won't stop a full cavalry list on its own, that again goes back to your infantry blocks and artillery, and possibly knights of your own.

IMHO the handgun is tactically superior option, especially as Empire struggle against heavily armoured troops once in melee. You will need several units though, about three is fair, and can cycle them from individual fire to clear chaff or concentrate fire to kill knights.

Correction: handguns are tactically superior if you're facing off against high armour.
Otherwise, Crossbows are better. That just seems obvious to me.
But once more: the difference between the units is tiny. -1 armour, +6"...not that big of a deal.

I find that a mix of the two tends to be the best option.

Warpsolution wrote:
Correction: handguns are tactically superior if you're facing off against high armour.
Otherwise, Crossbows are better. That just seems obvious to me.
But once more: the difference between the units is tiny. -1 armour, +6"...not that big of a deal.

+6" range is not a big deal, it offers two thin bands at which it is better, this can often be mitigated with target selection, however armour piercing does quite a lot. The only time armour piercing doesn't have some effect is if the target has a 6+ save or no save at all. A 4+ save is common enough for heavy infantry and light cavalry, the difference between number of saves from crossbows and number of saves by handguns is 100%. Against any targets from 4+ to 1+ save the armour piercing offers a significant bonus in expected casualties,

If armour piercing is a minor bonus I suppose the Razor standard is hardly worth taking.

Also at any level of armour handgunners can still be superior even against armourless targets for other reasons. Handgunners get sniper rifle and pistol upgrades that can make a serious tactical difference, crossbowmen don't get those.

The only time where handgunners are defacto inferior is when facing longbow and crossbowmen themselves as they can stand and shoot from further away. Handgunners could forfeit a turns shooing to close the distance, which offers a free turns shooting to the opposing missile troops, however as missile heavy Empire armies rely mostly on their artillery so something will need to close, and that is the handgunners target. Handgunners don't need to exchange shots wirth enemy archers, handgunners are cherap and can absorb the losses while shooting at the units approaching the line, which have to die. In that regard the handgunner is superior to the crossbowman for the reasons given above.

One final point, one can pick up large numbers of dirt cheap Empire handgunners from old 6th edition boxsets, crossbowmen are rather more expensive to source in terms of cash. I didn't mention this earlier as Digriz has already bought his troops.

 Orlanth wrote:
The only time armour piercing doesn't have some effect is if the target has a 6+ save or no save at all.

And at those moments, crossbows are better.

 Orlanth wrote:
...the difference between number of saves from crossbows and number of saves by handguns is 100%.

That's mathematically correct, but a terrible representation of what it does in-game. Crossbows cause (infinite)% more casualties than handguns at 25-30"--it's true, but it doesn't mean anything.

 Orlanth wrote:
Against any targets from 4+ to 1+ save the armour piercing offers a significant bonus in expected casualties,

Define "significant". How many missile troops are you fielding? 50? Against a 1+ armour save, 50 crossbows deal 2.1 wounds. 50 handguns deal 4.2. Neither of those numbers are all that great.
If the crossbows get another round of shooting in, they're even. If not, yeah, handguns are better. But they're both mediocre.

 Orlanth wrote:
If armour piercing is a minor bonus I suppose the Razor standard is hardly worth taking.

On a WS5 S5 A2 unit with Hatred? Absolutely. On a WS3 S3 A1 unit? There are better options.
Both of these troops have a low damage output for their points (like all ranged units). Doesn't mean they're not good. I just wouldn't invest a whole army's worth of points in them; that's why you usually see a few small units. Enough to offer support and maybe shoot down some chaff and the like.

 Orlanth wrote:
Handgunners get sniper rifle and pistol upgrades that can make a serious tactical difference, crossbowmen don't get those.

And those upgrades cost more. I know most people say the longrifles aren't very good. The pistol-shenanigans mentioned above is a cool idea. Are they more efficient than their point's worth of more bodies? Sometimes, sometimes not.
Saying "this unit is better because you can pay X more points" isn't a sound argument. Because now, ya' know, it costs more.

 Orlanth wrote:
The only time where handgunners are defacto inferior is when facing longbow and crossbowmen themselves as they can stand and shoot from further away....however as missile heavy Empire armies rely mostly on their artillery so...Handgunners don't need to exchange shots wirth enemy archers, handgunners are cherap and can absorb the losses while shooting at the units approaching the line, which have to die. In that regard the handgunner is superior to the crossbowman for the reasons given above.

You can't just cherry-pick a scenario like that. What if you're facing a whole army with 6+ or less armour? What if you're facing tons of bows, and your artillery is busy with their Eagles or some such unit that bypasses your missile troops?

They both have their uses. You might have preference of one over the other, due to your list and those of your local meta, but don't tell me that -1 armour is awesome and 6" is nothing. That is wrong. They are pretty damn close to, if not exactly, equal. And both are--wait for it--not that great in the first place.

I feel like I'm making an incredibly moderate statement, here, and you're just determined to drag this argument on. Once more: handguns have their place. But crossbows are, at times, a better choice. That's all I'm saying. That's it. Nothing more.

My statemtn is 'moderate' also. By and large you get more value out of handgunners.

Sure you might face an army with no armour, few armies entirely lack units with decent saves, but it can happen. However with most games you will meet some things that have a reasonable save and need to be taken down. There handgunners help.

However assuming there will be a plethora of 6+ save troops or massed 30" ranged archers is the cherry picked circumstances, and they are relatively narrow.

Sure the upgrades have a point cost attached, but you can again get value from them. The sniper rifle is very useful for killing wizards, if you pull that off you are well on the way to winning. It might take two or three snipers to work, or an opportunist shot to kill off wizard who has already lost one wound to a miscast, but people spend more points for less sure ways to kill wizards.

About 50 handgunners sounds about right, and 4.2 casualties is a wipe on a small 5 knight unit, as many of them are.Its also likely to rob a couple of ranks from heavy infantry. Sure we wont know exactly what but then we seldom do, we can only guess as to what works best with army synergy.

The bottom line is that Empire has the infantry blocks to deal with cheap horde infantry, stuff with 6+ saves are numerous enough that crossbows aren't going to dent the number much, missile fire really works for chaff panicking and killing nastier units that are a threat across the board. For those the -2 save is too big a bonus to let go in favour of +6" range.
Whether you want to buy missile troops at all though is another quite separate question. .

 Orlanth wrote:
However assuming there will be a plethora of 6+ save troops or massed 30" ranged archers is the cherry picked circumstances

That was exactly my point. Painting a picture where either one is vastly more useful than the other is incorrect.

 Orlanth wrote:
Sure the upgrades have a point cost attached, but you can again get value from them.

...yup. That's what I said. They cost more, and they do more. It's not an argument for why a unit's better.

 Orlanth wrote:
The sniper rifle is very useful for killing wizards, if you pull that off you are well on the way to winning. It might take two or three snipers to work, or an opportunist shot to kill off wizard who has already lost one wound to a miscast, but people spend more points for less sure ways to kill wizards.

Turn 1, you need a 5+ to hit with BS4. We'll say that goes down to a 4+ on Turn 2 and 3. That's 1.67 hits = .84 wounds = .42 wounds after the typical 4+ Ward.
I can see how it has potential, but I also see why it's not a popular choice in tournament lists.

 Orlanth wrote:
About 50 handgunners sounds about right, and 4.2 casualties is a wipe on a small 5 knight unit

Aren't Handgunners 8pts? And Knights are something like 40pts and under? Not only are you spending at least twice as many points as your opponent, but you're spending those points on a counter that has such a big footprint that there's no way to focus all of your ability like that. Granted, you'll have two to four chances to shoot, so I guess that about evens out with the second point. Still not a great exchange.

 Orlanth wrote:
...missile fire really works for chaff panicking and killing nastier units that are a threat across the board. For those the -2 save is too big a bonus to let go in favour of +6" range.

For killing those more heavily armoured things? Yes. For killing chaff? Absolutely not. I'll take +6" over AP against fast cav, Eagles, and the like any day. Even if they have a save, I only need to cause a few wounds, and that extra range is going to make it that much harder for them to escape.

I just don't get it. I say I see where you're coming from. I get your point, and I agree, to an extent. All I'm saying is that it is not always, 100% of the time, better to take Handgunners. That, at least once in a while, Armour Piercing is not necessary, or is perhaps less advantageous than the occasional extra turn of shooting.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
However assuming there will be a plethora of 6+ save troops or massed 30" ranged archers is the cherry picked circumstances

That was exactly my point. Painting a picture where either one is vastly more useful than the other is incorrect.

No, that's incoorect. Pointing out the narriow range of circumstances that crossbowmen are superior as usual is incorrect. Crossbowmen are superior in too narrow a range of circumstances to be a reliable preference.
I am not saying crossbowmen 'suck' but there is a definite edge for a take all comers list.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Sure the upgrades have a point cost attached, but you can again get value from them.

...yup. That's what I said. They cost more, and they do more. It's not an argument for why a unit's better.

Crossbowmen don't get pistols or sniper rifles. Handgunners can, if you build missile troops as handgunners you have a lot of built in options that offer real value, if you build troops as crossbowmen the only way you can do so is if you 'counts as' handgunners.
Engineer characters excepted the only way to get a sniper is via a handgunner unit.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The sniper rifle is very useful for killing wizards, if you pull that off you are well on the way to winning. It might take two or three snipers to work, or an opportunist shot to kill off wizard who has already lost one wound to a miscast, but people spend more points for less sure ways to kill wizards.

Turn 1, you need a 5+ to hit with BS4. We'll say that goes down to a 4+ on Turn 2 and 3. That's 1.67 hits = .84 wounds = .42 wounds after the typical 4+ Ward.
I can see how it has potential, but I also see why it's not a popular choice in tournament lists.

4+ wards are not standard for wizards, the Lord takes the 4+, the hero wizard might have a 5+/
Odds of killing a wizard are still quite good, otherwise a wizard is largely un-targetable and can easily hide from slow moving Empire in plain sight in a rear unit.
Besides you are assuming tournament play, why? For a tourney army its best to place points elsewhere in the cookie cutter choices.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
About 50 handgunners sounds about right, and 4.2 casualties is a wipe on a small 5 knight unit

Aren't Handgunners 8pts? And Knights are something like 40pts and under? Not only are you spending at least twice as many points as your opponent, but you're spending those points on a counter that has such a big footprint that there's no way to focus all of your ability like that. Granted, you'll have two to four chances to shoot, so I guess that about evens out with the second point. Still not a great exchange.

Not relevant. With melee troops you match price of unit vs unit because you have to commit the unit to the target and most get in only one real fight. For missile troops you can match all the missile units against one target one turn, then another the next etc.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
...missile fire really works for chaff panicking and killing nastier units that are a threat across the board. For those the -2 save is too big a bonus to let go in favour of +6" range.

For killing those more heavily armoured things? Yes. For killing chaff? Absolutely not. I'll take +6" over AP against fast cav, Eagles, and the like any day. Even if they have a save, I only need to cause a few wounds, and that extra range is going to make it that much harder for them to escape.

If they are trying to escape, job is done. Chaff killing is more or less equal as chaff has little armour and moves quickly. Though saying that most light cavalry have a 4+ save.

Warpsolution wrote:

I just don't get it. I say I see where you're coming from. I get your point, and I agree, to an extent. All I'm saying is that it is not always, 100% of the time, better to take Handgunners. That, at least once in a while, Armour Piercing is not necessary, or is perhaps less advantageous than the occasional extra turn of shooting.

No its never a 100%, but if you buy a boxset and can model the miniatures as one or the other then unless you have the cash to buy a lot of boxes and take both then you will be far better off building as handgunners. Perhaps you have strayed from the OP, the hard choice of which to build is the issue and I think a definitive slant towards one or other is possible:

OP wrote:Recently I've been torn between giving my 40 missile troops ( Empire army) handguns or crossbows. Handguns obviously pack much more punch being Armor piercing but i often find that it is quite difficult to get within 24" inch of High Elves/Wood Elves/Dwarves which I play VERY often.This made me consider crossbows as an alternative to handguns but I'd like to know some opinions of more experienced players before I go about gluing and painting 40 men.

I am solidly of the opinion that an empire missile troop boxset is better built as handgunners, you get more versatility and an edge in general usage. I don't think a player will regret making handgunners, they might regret making crossbowmen and find they need to buy extra boxsets.

Enjoy your crossbowmen and I hope you have fun with them, it would be wrong for anyone to think you a 'noob' for liking them, or claim they 'suck'. All I say is that there is a clear overall edge for handgunners

 Orlanth wrote:

Handgunners can, if you build missile troops as handgunners you have a lot of built in options that offer real value, if you build troops as crossbowmen the only way you can do so is if you 'counts as' handgunners.
Engineer characters excepted the only way to get a sniper is via a handgunner unit.

 Orlanth wrote:
Turn 1, you need a 5+ to hit with BS4. We'll say that goes down to a 4+ on Turn 2 and 3. That's 1.67 hits = .84 wounds = .42 wounds after the typical 4+ Ward.
I can see how it has potential, but I also see why it's not a popular choice in tournament lists.

Odds of killing a wizard are still quite good, otherwise a wizard is largely un-targetable and can easily hide from slow moving Empire in plain sight in a rear unit.

 Orlanth wrote:
With melee troops you match price of unit vs unit because you have to commit the unit to the target and most get in only one real fight. For missile troops you can match all the missile units against one target one turn, then another the next etc.

 Orlanth wrote:

If they are trying to escape, job is done. Chaff killing is more or less equal as chaff has little armour and moves quickly. Though saying that most light cavalry have a 4+ save.

1) Steam Tanks can take sniper rifles, and can move and fire without the -1 to hit. With the sniper rule, the sniper can fire at a different target. Outriders can take the sniper, and vanguard him into a good position.
2) Turn 1, you are very unlikely to hit on a 5+. Range is -1, sniper is -1. But, if you've got sniper rifles, I'll most likely deploy my wizard behind another unit; for another -2 to hit for hard cover; 7+ to hit, good luck. That's the real problem with the snipers, it's very easy to neutralize with deployment, and doesn't have the mobility to make a difference. This makes odds of killing a wizard pretty poor actually.
3) Point for point, you get diminishing returns on shooters. As the need for more shooters becomes necessary to stop even a small unit of knights, you start to run into problems with line of sight, range, and getting everyone in arc. The 50 shooters (firing 2 deep) is going to take up close to 2 feet of table space. Odds of both ends being in range, and then being in short range is pretty slim. Games don't take place on a salt flat. Terrain, and another 300 points of the enemy is going to be messing up the shooting solutions.
4) The range advantage of crossbows can make the difference in picking off fast cav trying to sneak around the flanks.
5) Wolf Riders and Dark riders have a 4+ save; every other fast cav in the game is worse.

My take on it is that I would take Handguns for parent units, and crossbows for detachments. Firing on heavy cav, you're going to need a large number of shooters. Having the pistol on the unit champ makes the large number of stand and fire shots always count as firing at short range.
Crossbows, who are better suited at chaff clearing can be useful in smaller numbers, and can be deployed on the outskirts and fire inward.

1. Steam Tanks were overlooked, but they are a special case anyway, and you don't buy them for the sniper rifle.

2. Not a problem hide your wizard behind another unit. No magic missiles from you, no walking templates either.

3. Agreed, which is why the metas moves away from missile troops in most circumstances. But if you are going for a choice of two.

4. If the fast cav are not trying to get within 24" they aren't going to be a problem or you have no flank cover with your shooters.

 Orlanth wrote:
1. Steam Tanks were overlooked, but they are a special case anyway, and you don't buy them for the sniper rifle.

2. Not a problem hide your wizard behind another unit. No magic missiles from you, no walking templates either.


4. If the fast cav are not trying to get within 24" they aren't going to be a problem or you have no flank cover with your shooters.

You can still magic missile if you can see any part of the enemy. -2 to hit for being obscured doesn't prevent the wizard for casting a magic missile.
As for the templates, most of them still work, and I'm not above firing a vortex through my own screen.

When my vampires fight a gunline, I take 1 unit of zombies, and deploy it 30 wide (terrain permitting). It's an army wide -2 to be shot for 100 points (with command).
I do the same with my skinks for my lizardmen lists.
One rank of zombies/skinks isn't even a slight deterrent for me through a purple sun/wind of undeath through. Pit of Shades doesn't even care.

-Matt

This was old four posts ago. I'll respond to some of the points you've brought up, but after that, I think I've made my point.

 Orlanth wrote:
No, that's incoorect. Pointing out the narriow range of circumstances that crossbowmen are superior as usual is incorrect. Crossbowmen are superior in too narrow a range of circumstances to be a reliable preference.

...pretty sure you can't prove that in any meaningful way. Hence why I am still unconvinced.

 Orlanth wrote:
Crossbowmen don't get pistols or sniper rifles. Handgunners can, if you build missile troops as handgunners you have a lot of built in options...

This is true.

 Orlanth wrote:
Besides you are assuming tournament play, why?

Never said I was. I said I can see why it's not a popular choice in tournament lists.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not relevant. With melee troops you match price of unit vs unit because you have to commit the unit to the target and most get in only one real fight. For missile troops you can match all the missile units against one target one turn, then another the next etc.

And how, exactly, are you getting 400+pts of missile troops all within range of one small unit? That's absurdity.
Even more ridiculous is the argument that the concern of fielding 400pts to deal with 200pts is "not relevant". Go ahead. Take your 400pts to answer to my 200pts. While my other 200pts slips by, unmolested. Might as well agree to play a 2,000pt list against a 2,200pt one.

 Orlanth wrote:
If they are trying to escape, job is done. Chaff killing is more or less equal as chaff has little armour and moves quickly. Though saying that most light cavalry have a 4+ save.

By "escape" I mean "your missile troops", which they'll do by moving beyond your unit's range and into your backfield, etc.
Oh, so handguns and crossbows are "more or less equal"? Because, hm, maybe -1 armour versus +6" of range doesn't actually make that big of a difference? Exactly my point.

 Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps you have strayed from the OP, the hard choice of which to build is the issue and I think a definitive slant towards one or other is possible...

I remember. But this is also a tactics discussion with a nod towards modelling, not the other way around.
For that matter, the OP goes on to say that they play Elves and Dwarves a lot. Which mean that crossbows become a better and better option (though I would strongly consider not trying too hard to out-shoot Glade Guard).

 Orlanth wrote:
Enjoy your crossbowmen and I hope you have fun with them, it would be wrong for anyone to think you a 'noob' for liking them, or claim they 'suck'. All I say is that there is a clear overall edge for handgunners

I don't play Empire. And yes, your preference has been well-established.

Played Empire since late 4th. I just can't stomach bringing much empire ranged fire.
Hand-gunners have the fluffy awesome sauce, and the new models look great. But at best for every 10 you have, you'll knock off a knight or two before they die horribly
Cross bows don't look so hot, will do the same against knights, but may get an extra round of shooting if you go first.

Best options? 2 units of 10 (of either, cross bows I feel are better here) on the flanks. Add up grades as you like, but i tend to leave them basic. And just discourage chaff/out flankers from skirting around the battle line.

My biggest problem is that for the same cost a flanking chariot or minimum sized cavalry flanker will likely survive, charge and bust up the unit, before having the freedom to do it again. Trouble is every round they don't fire is a round they're a waste of points, MOVE OR FIRE, means a good fast cavalry unit can dance around their arc of fire, forcing them to turn and forgo another round of shooting.

If you want guns, bring outriders, the same # of shots, but with a 12" vanguard to put yourself someplace where you wont have to keep wheeling.