Large Infantry with bows

[pigasuspig]

I have some very large lizardmen with bows. I want to use them as Kings of War allies. Any ideas how I should stat large infantry with bows?

[Don_Silvarro]

Comparing the stats and cost of the Missile Block and the Shieldwall I came up with this, using the ogre unit as basis:

Unit Size	Sp	Me	Ra	De	At	Ne	Pts
Troop (1)	6	3+	5+	4+	3	10/12	55
Regiment (3)	6	3+	5+	4+	9	12/14	140
Horde (6)	6	3+	5+	4+	18	15/17	230

Special: Crushing Strenght 1, Bows

They are still much more effective in melee than at range, as it should be IMO with monstrous infantry.

[Wakerofgods]

Maybe they should have peircing just because of the pull strength on massive bows?

Would be like a bolt thrower or something right?

I dunno - maybe someone who knows stuff about archery should weigh in here?

[Izibaar]

I would go more in the direction of a mobile bolt thrower, too. So I am for piercing(1) and +5 pts with the stats Don_Silvarro posted.

[Don_Silvarro]

Maybe they should have peircing just because of the pull strength on massive bows?

Would be like a bolt thrower or something right?

I dunno - maybe someone who knows stuff about archery should weigh in here?

I'm no expert in archery (shot a few arrows here and there at the odd medieval fare), but my gut feeling is that you would be more likely to snap the bow than achieve a noticeable increase in the kinetic force of the projectile Then again, it's fantasy, so I guess a wizard can take care of that.

I would go more in the direction of a mobile bolt thrower, too. So I am for piercing(1) and +5 pts with the stats Don_Silvarro posted.

If you want to do that, I'd suggest +15 or even +20 points. Reasoning: the upgrade from bows to crossbows for the Missile Block costs +10pts, giving Pierce (1), but also comes with a drawback of Reload!.

Then again, I personally would suggest keeping them as-is. Giving them Pierce (1) makes them just as good at shooting as in close combat, and I feel they should still strive to get the boot in, hence be a bit better in melee than at range. I mean, it's common sense , ranged weapons have always been the great equalizer- a big strong guy with a wrench hits harder than a weedy little guy with the same wrench, but if you give a gun to each of them, they both have the same damage potential in spite of the physical differences.

[Izibaar]

I re-read the rules and found a mistake I had in my thoughts. I thought units had one ranged attack per model. Then it would be ok to give them Pierce (1). But with 3 attacks... I do not see a way to represent large infantry like they are in my head. They should not be such a fast firing unit. Just a few strong arrows. But that is my opinion.

And to get to the bow strength discussion. The force of a projectile would always be the same from the same bow. Except the user is to weak. As a army leader I would give my large infantry units larger and more powerful bows. Such that no human can stretch with his arms. And those would have a higher kinetic force.

[Hellebore]

You would definitely be equipping them with baliista sized bows.

As for representing the shots, being a very abstract set of rules you needn't worry about what exactly the number of shots really means. It could represent the number of enemies struck one behind the other, like a GW bolt thrower.

Another option would be giving them 2 shots each because they could fire a bit faster and then let them roll to damage and all successful rolls to damage get rolled again until you stop damaging. this would be a less abstract way to show how they skewer through multiple people, but using a rule concept already found in attack animals.

Hellebore