PDA

View Full Version : Better Bows?



slingersam
22-04-2009, 05:09
I'm just wondering if the the strength of the bow
equals the users strength, would it make the bow
broken? As I feel it's the person pulling the bow
back so they are able to pull it back farther, I
could be wrong on this though.

Dark14
22-04-2009, 05:42
it also has to do witht the quality of the bow. say if a british longbowman shoots his normal weapon it pierces armour at 100yards. You give him a short bow it goes half the distance for half the armour pen.

sulla
22-04-2009, 05:45
Are there any s4 bowmen who could benefit from this rule?

The Red Scourge
22-04-2009, 06:27
it also has to do witht the quality of the bow. say if a british longbowman shoots his normal weapon it pierces armour at 100yards. You give him a short bow it goes half the distance for half the armour pen.

That really depends on the armor. I wouldn't depend on this with plate mail, neither at a 100yds nor at 10yds :)

Unwise
22-04-2009, 06:56
I really can't see the odd character with 4 strength and a bow unbalancing the game in this regard. Though it would be broken in so far as it is a rule with little to no game effect that complicates matters unnecessarily.

I always wished that archers would have a rule where they get to fire in more ranks depending on how deep the target unit was. That way they have a distinctly different role from crossbows. They are for thinning massed ranks of enemies, not fast cav, or heavy infantry.

mikepm07
22-04-2009, 07:00
Just give bows fire in two ranks. Fixed.

It's almost a given anyways, seeing as most people just give themselves a hill in their deployment zone.

slingersam
22-04-2009, 07:16
Just give bows fire in two ranks. Fixed.

It's almost a given anyways, seeing as most people just give themselves a hill in their deployment zone.

This could lead to archers firing in 4 ranks since they do have hills in there deployment zone. Also I think all the Elvin heroes have strength 4.

The Red Scourge
22-04-2009, 08:18
Really guys. Its all pretty balanced.

Bows: S3, 30".
Crossbows: S4, 30", move or fire.
Handguns: S4, armor piercing, 24", move or fire.
Repeater xbows: S3, multishot, 24".
DE Repeater xbows: S3, armor piercing, multishot, 24".
Glade Guard Bows: S3 (S4 at short range), 30".

So you see, the bow beats the other ranged weapons by range, accuracy and mobility. On the other end of the scale you have the handgun with high lethality at the expense of range and mobility. The only thing off the scale is the DE repeater xbow with its armor piercing rule and the Glade Guard bow (but thats mostly because the glade guard is able to move and fire without penalty).

And with the only archers with S4 being a few hero choices, I don't see your suggestion having much impact on the game – other than making the Bow of Loren a viable choice for a hero :)

BTW: if you have trouble with opponents filling their deployment zone with hills, try and place a forest right in front of it – this really annoys your average gunliner :evilgrin:

slingersam
22-04-2009, 08:42
Really guys. Its all pretty balanced.

Bows: S3, 30".
Crossbows: S4, 30", move or fire.
Handguns: S4, armor piercing, 24", move or fire.
Repeater xbows: S3, multishot, 24".
DE Repeater xbows: S3, armor piercing, multishot, 24".
Glade Guard Bows: S3 (S4 at short range), 30".

So you see, the bow beats the other ranged weapons by range, accuracy and mobility. On the other end of the scale you have the handgun with high lethality at the expense of range and mobility. The only thing off the scale is the DE repeater xbow with its armor piercing rule and the Glade Guard bow (but thats mostly because the glade guard is able to move and fire without penalty).

And with the only archers with S4 being a few hero choices, I don't see your suggestion having much impact on the game other than making the Bow of Loren a viable choice for a hero :)

BTW: if you have trouble with opponents filling their deployment zone with hills, try and place a forest right in front of it this really annoys your average gunliner :evilgrin:

Lol at the forest in front of the hill. Also that 30" is for long bows only. But what is the point of short bows then?

Thurizdan
22-04-2009, 08:52
Lol at the forest in front of the hill. Also that 30" is for long bows only. But what is the point of short bows then?

Cheap. Can be spammed (Night Goblins).

Also, it is more accurate if cavalry archers have short bows as a longbow is impossible to fire from the saddle.

dijit80
22-04-2009, 09:15
In WAB (warhammer ancients) bows are able to fire from multiple ranks, but each rank after the first only half the models rounding down are able to shoot as this factors in the inaccuracy of firing over the heads of your companions, this works prety well to represent massed bow fire.

Regarding longbows penetrating plate armour, it is very dependant on how thick the armour is and how much it covers. A reasonable medieval longbow archer could place an arrow in the vulnerable joins in the armour with bodkin points at 50yds - thats pretty decent. A bodkin arrow was also more than capable of penetrating most plate armour that wasn't on the chest and thighs and if it didn't penetrated the shock of the impact was often enough. Some of the bows found on the Mary Rose are up to 120lbs in draw weight, thats the equivalent of 50-60kgs of weight placed into a small bodkin point - that'll go through alot!

Against mounted troops a broadhead was more often used against the horse which was less armoured and caused massive wounds and huge amounts of bleeding. A bleeding horse doesn't like to run anymore.

Another point which warhammer fails to take into consideration is that massed archery could lay down a heavier rain of arrows that the crossbow and handgun. A typical archer could shoot 8-10 times in the time it took a crossbowman to load and fire once. The effect of this volume was two fold, firstly it had a pyschological effect - no one likes walking into a rain of arrows, even if the majority of them miss and the plunging arrows would stick up in the ground creating a pin cushion effect making it especially difficult to advance with horses.

Warhammer is actually pretty poor at representing medieval archery tactics, but as its a fantasy game you have to suspend your logical and use your imaginaton instead.

again in WAB there is a clear destinction between the longbow, composite bow and short or self-bow. the longbow is used almost exclusively by English and Indian troops and is typically the height of a man, the composite bow (or just a bow in WFB terms) are those bows used by middle-eastern troops which is shaped and laminated creating a powerful but smaller bow, and all other bows are short bows. Just because you've got a long stick with a string tied to it doesn't make it a longbow.

As an archer (both longbow and recurve) myself I hope I know a little of what I'm talking about.

theunwantedbeing
22-04-2009, 09:18
How far you pull a bow back doesnt really represent much.
It's more to do with the strength of the bow itself than anything else.
A st4 longbow is better than a crossbow as a result.
A crossbow is stronger as its simply impossible to pull it back and aim.

Add a special rule.

If you want to fire the next turn, you need another rank behind the one that just fired.
Move-and-fire weapons don't suffer this penalty.
Represents the rank behind re-loading while the rank infront fires, they then step forwards to shoot while the other steps back.

There we go.

The main problem is that handguns and such can now fire every turn.
As a result the superior hitting power of them, combined with the way people just put missle troops on hills and leave them there means that bows are outclassed in killing power. Reduced to a 6" range advantage most of the time, at the expensive of almost all their killing power.

Condottiere
22-04-2009, 09:22
WHFB doesn't accurately reflects bows.

Also RXBs are rather overpowered.

Arnizipal
22-04-2009, 12:10
Cheap. Can be spammed (Night Goblins).

Also, it is more accurate if cavalry archers have short bows as a longbow is impossible to fire from the saddle.
Short bow armed infantry can only fire once before they're charged (statistically speaking), so spamming them is hardly cost effective. Night Goblins with short bows are quite expensive for such weak troops.

I admit short bow armed fast cav is great though.

Crube
22-04-2009, 12:13
and dont forget that archers can fire in more than one rank at Large Targets already...

The Red Scourge
22-04-2009, 12:25
WHFB doesn't accurately reflects bows.

Also RXBs are rather overpowered.

WHFB doesn't reflect magic accurately either does it? ;)

Look at it from a games design view.

Problem: You need a shooting phase, because shooting bow and arrows and hurling cutlery is part of the world. You do not want shooting to be the most dominant phase in the game, as it will then bog down a dice rolling competition.

Solution: You make shooting able to soften up opposing forces. To distinguish the armies, you create slight variations between them, not enough to make a huge difference, but just enough to give each armys shooting phase a different feel.

And don't underestimate the power of bows. I personally use them to take out steam tanks.

Arnizipal
22-04-2009, 12:45
and dont forget that archers can fire in more than one rank at Large Targets already...
But all other missile weapons (including handguns) can do that as well.


WHFB doesn't reflect magic accurately either does it? ;)

We don't know yet. Our knowledge of magic isn't as advanced as that of the Warhammer World. :p



And don't underestimate the power of bows. I personally use them to take out steam tanks.:eyebrows:
You must be joking or really desperate for targets with your archers.

Condottiere
22-04-2009, 12:46
You must be using a lot of bows for that. Bows as presented in WHFB are only really dangerous to T3 troops, though having mass archery would result in a rather interesting dimension in this game.

And magic is insufficiently dependable in this game, though how accurately this reflects actual usage I can't really comment.

The Red Scourge
22-04-2009, 12:54
:eyebrows:
You must be joking or really desperate for targets with your archers.

Nope. The secret to taking out a steam tank is just to give it a couple of wounds, then it quickly becomes nothing but a glorified short range cannon, as generating steam starts to become dangerous, and it loses its damage potential.

It deserves to mention that I play wood elves, and have no better options to deal with it.

Arnizipal
22-04-2009, 13:10
It deserves to mention that I play wood elves, and have no better options to deal with it.
Devil's in the details eh? ;)

Ixquic
22-04-2009, 13:17
Bows really haven't changed much since 4th edition. I seem to recall that crossbows (and maybe handguns too) were fire every other turn at the time. Now that they are move or fire, bows got comparably worse since if they move and fire they aren't going to kill anything anyway with a -1 BS on majority BS3 troops along with strength 3. When you add in the power creep of regular troopers, S3 is now fairly weak.

Maybe regular and short bows should be able to move without a penalty to their BS. Of course that would make long bows really crappy in comparison to crossbows and regular bows...

The Red Scourge
22-04-2009, 13:26
Devil's in the details eh? ;)

You gotta work with what you have, and as long as it works, I'll keep doing it.

And to elaborate on it, then the archers have never delivered the killing blow. They have immobilised the thing and allowed for my treeman to approach and tear it apart :)

Pokpoko
22-04-2009, 13:30
creating a pin cushion effect making it especially difficult to advance with horses....don't get me wrong, but those arrows would have their heads buried in the dirt,right? so all that would stick up would be thin, wooden part with feathers on the end...i fail to see how a upright twig would slow down a horse.

O&G'sRule
22-04-2009, 14:07
Are there any s4 bowmen who could benefit from this rule?

Orc big uns

Papa JJ
22-04-2009, 14:22
I would like to see some allowance for massed bow-fire in Warhammer as it is still a staple of the big battles in fantasy literature. I wouldn't want the game to be dominated by this but I think it would add an interesting element to the game. Unfortunately this would still require tweaking point values for many armies' troops as it would unavoidably impact game balance. Therefore I don't anticipate anything like this to happen for a long time (if ever), which is one of the reasons why we have WAB....

As for the original question of this thread, I agree with those who said before that it would have too little of an effect on the game to be worth the trouble.

sroblin
22-04-2009, 15:40
Really guys. Its all pretty balanced.

Bows: S3, 30".
Crossbows: S4, 30", move or fire.
Handguns: S4, armor piercing, 24", move or fire.
Repeater xbows: S3, multishot, 24".
DE Repeater xbows: S3, armor piercing, multishot, 24".
Glade Guard Bows: S3 (S4 at short range), 30".

So you see, the bow beats the other ranged weapons by range, accuracy and mobility.

I was very surprised to hear this argument made, as can there possibly be a ranged weapon in Warhammer less feared and more scorned than the average bow? (And normal bows are more common than the long ones, for that matter...)

No, Glade Guard bows are clearly in a class of their own and can't be used anecodtally as evidence that normal bows in Warhammer are deadly. No moving penalties to shooting and S4 at short range have a way of making them more effective.

They can still perform useful functions, everynow and then my high elf archers cripple a light cavalry unit or take a rank of a unit, but they are clearly at the bottom of the ranged weapons heap, and no one taking a unit of bowmen thinks 'now here I have a deadly ranged unit.'

When I first learned about Warhammer (before I started playing), when my friend told me longbows had no additional strength or armor piercing, I was completely incredulous. Yes, I know there are endless debates about exactly whether they could actually pierce full plate armor, and what thickness and so forth. But when you have a weapon that is iconic for being effective against armoured cavalry (whatever the actual accuracy- warhammer is hardly in the buiness of simulating real world effectiveness of weapons anyway), that actually is the least effective possible weapon against heavy cavalry, that is unsatisfying to say the least.

I don't expect them to outshoot handguns or repeater crossbows, but I think making a bows a compelling choice (rather than the worst available one) would be a major improvement in future editions of Warhammer. There are a number of ways this could be done that come to mind:

Armor piercing for longbows
Shooting in multiple ranks
Strength or multiple attack bonus at short range (the latter reflecting higher rate of accurate fire at short range)

The suggestion about them doing more damage to units with more ranks also is highly interesting and creative.

dijit80
22-04-2009, 15:44
...don't get me wrong, but those arrows would have their heads buried in the dirt,right? so all that would stick up would be thin, wooden part with feathers on the end...i fail to see how a upright twig would slow down a horse.

It's because the horses hooves have a soft part at the centre, and they become very shy at walking over them (this is only what i've read - I personally don't like horses too much so have no experience about getting them to walk through stuff). At agincourt there were circa 5000 archers each shooting approximately 7-8 arrows a minute, thats 40,000 arrows landing each minute; if each arrow weights approx 250g thats 10 tons of arrows in the air each minute. They create quite a pin cushion.

Charistoph
22-04-2009, 16:38
I always thought it was odd that only the first rank of archers could fire. I can understand at short range when arcing your fire would be a detriment and useless. To maximize the range of the bow (standard or long), you have to arc your fire. This was to great disadvantage for the French in the War of the Roses because they didn't have hard helmets to deflect these arced arrows.

My own thoughts would be is at Long Range, +1 rank for bows, +2 ranks for longbows, can fire would be an adequate change. Obviously, this would change the direct fire weapons (xbows, short bows, handguns, etc) to only firing in the front rank, even on a hill, unless shooting at a large target.

It's either that, or longbows and/or bows gain a Volley ability allowing all of the unit to fire between 75%-100% of the weapons range.

sroblin
22-04-2009, 16:44
Obviously, this would change the direct fire weapons (xbows, short bows, handguns, etc) to only firing in the front rank, even on a hill, unless shooting at a large target.


Why? Just because bows can shoot in arcs wouldn't change the fact that on the gradient of a hill, the rear rank of crossbowmen/handgunners/etc. can stand higher than the front rank and shoot over them. The bowmen would still have the benefit of being able to do that without a hill. Making a dense frontline of bowmen much more interesting, incidentally.

Charistoph
22-04-2009, 16:50
Why? Just because bows can shoot in arcs wouldn't change the fact that on the gradient of a hill, the rear rank of crossbowmen/handgunners/etc. can stand higher than the front rank and shoot over them. The bowmen would still have the benefit of being able to do that without a hill. Making a dense frontline of bowmen much more interesting, incidentally.

From a more realistic view (I know, this game isn't 100% realistic) I'm not talking about on the side of the hill, but on top of the hill, most of which in the game are flat on top and might as well be on the ground for all the advantage of view. Obviously I'm talking more of TLOS, but we don't need to get this game into that.

Cats Laughing
22-04-2009, 21:26
This could lead to archers firing in 4 ranks since they do have hills in there deployment zone. Also I think all the Elvin heroes have strength 4.

One rank
plus
One extra rank for being on a hill
plus
One extra rank for allowing archers to fire in two ranks

equals

Three Ranks...

WhereTF do people come up with 4 or 5 ranks of archers firing at non-Large Targets? <boggle>

Arduhn
22-04-2009, 21:49
What about if bows (short, reg, long) were allowed to fire in as many ranks as they want with -1 to hit, on all shots, for each rank past the first that fires? So a unit firing with two ranks is at -1 to hit. A unit firing with 3 ranks is at -2 to hit, and so on. Being on a hill would give them +1 to hit essentially.

Edit: This may be too complex, but you could also add that units firing in this way (volley fire) would suffer no range penalty, but would not be able to move and fire. Perhaps also no + or - for large targets or skirmishers.

Charistoph
22-04-2009, 21:55
Any modifications of the archery weapons that involve modifiers won't affect Tomb Kings, keep that in mind...

Arduhn
22-04-2009, 21:57
That's a good point. I suppose they could redo the Tomb Kings though and go in a different direction for them. Or they could put a line in that when using volley fire, Tomb King archery loses it's normal "always 5+ to hit" rule.

slingersam
22-04-2009, 22:02
One rank
plus
One extra rank for being on a hill
plus
One extra rank for allowing archers to fire in two ranks

equals

Three Ranks...

WhereTF do people come up with 4 or 5 ranks of archers firing at non-Large Targets? <boggle>

HMMMM lets see. Put 2 ranked archers on the hill. Ok that makes a bit of sence. Then put 2 ranked archers off the hill (the base if you didn't know), their we have 4 ranks, WOW just using my head a bit, but thats ok only simple minded people wouldn't have got that. Also ask and people can give you the answer.

Pokpoko
22-04-2009, 22:06
actually, a crossbow can be shot indirect,just as bow,it's just that it wasn't really useful;)
anyway, i think it's sensible that normal bow is the least powerful ranged weapon-guns, with the exception of the earliest ones(which the ones in WHB clearly aren't) pack far bigger punch than a bow, crossbows also out-power the bow...what SHOULD be the thing that makes bow stand out is it's speed and,yes, the indirect fire capability.
give the bow x2 ROF and be done with it:P

Arduhn
22-04-2009, 22:12
Pokpoko, I don't really agree with that line of thinking. I think what makes the bow less powerful in this era, if anything, is the time requirement for training an effective bowman. A skilled bowman vs a skilled crossbowman or gunner should be able to loose more shots, more accurately, with just as much stopping power. However, training on a gun or crossbow can be measured in weeks, whereas a bow takes a lifetime to master. Therefore, any casualties to the bowmen would be irreplaceable, whereas the gun, or crossbow casualties could be replaced within a month provided there are able-bodied men to take their place. This is part of the reason why the English won such amazing victories in the Hundred Years War, but eventually lost the war due to attrition.

slingersam
22-04-2009, 22:16
Any modifications of the archery weapons that involve modifiers won't affect Tomb Kings, keep that in mind...

OOOH, nice thinking. I still see this as not a problem because they can still be able to fire from 2 ranks if on a hill, and that could lead to a potential 20 shots for 160 points hitting on 5+. Add another unit, and then they can start shooting again that whole unit. So that could potentially be very devastating. Look at it this way. 4 units of 20 archers 2 on a hill 2 at the base. If they all shot thats 80 shots 1 round. Now magic phase comes arround and they are able to shoot again Potentially another 80 shots (depending on how well your magic phase goes). This can lead to a total of 160 shots with approximately 53 of them hitting. That can be some serious damage.

Condottiere
22-04-2009, 22:45
While most bows handling techniques can be taught to recruits within a reasonable period of time, the quintessential English longbow could only be properly utilized by someone trained since early adolescence.

The classic Yeoman archer seems to reside in this game within the ranks of the Wood Elves; the humans equipped with it cannot be considered an elite or even veteran unit as represented by any English force between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.

Urgat
22-04-2009, 22:56
Bows really haven't changed much since 4th edition. I seem to recall that crossbows (and maybe handguns too) were fire every other turn at the time.

Yeah they did, but you could rotate ranks w/o any hit malus to go round that.

Conotor
22-04-2009, 23:01
That really depends on the armor. I wouldn't depend on this with plate mail, neither at a 100yds nor at 10yds :)

Actualy a british bodkin arrow could punch right threw platemail. It took a shield to stop it.

ukcarpy
22-04-2009, 23:13
I'm just thinking that bows are in WFB as the basic way of having ranged attacks, with crossbows/handguns as technological advancements available only to those who develop them (Empire and Dwarves mainly as they are the ones related with tecnological advancement).

I quite like the idea of volley fire available to them. Maybe the solution to the Tomb King question is to make them only hit on a 6 if they choose to volley fire?

slingersam
22-04-2009, 23:40
If anything I think volley should allow you to shoot an extra 6" at -2 to hit. So a person with ballistic skill 3 can hit enemy units on 6's

Cats Laughing
23-04-2009, 00:20
HMMMM lets see. Put 2 ranked archers on the hill. Ok that makes a bit of sence. Then put 2 ranked archers off the hill (the base if you didn't know), their we have 4 ranks, WOW just using my head a bit, but thats ok only simple minded people wouldn't have got that. Also ask and people can give you the answer.

Oddly enough, that's not what the rules say, though...

You get one extra rank for being on a hill, not one extra rank per rank on a hill.

Also, the previous High Elf Citizen Levy rules also said that archers may fire with one extra rank, not with one extra rank per rank that can fire. In all likeliness, a rule to allow archers to fire in two ranks would be worded similarly.

One extra rank means add one, not multiply by two and certainly not add one per rank already capable of firing.

PS: an archer unit with any ranks on a hill is an archer unit on a hill that gets +1 rank able to fire. In your example, the first rank on the hill is the extra rank that being on a hill allows you to fire. The fact that their LOS is probably not physically blocked by the rank in front of them is merely a result of the tiered hill terrain many people use. The fact of the matter is that whether or not they are physically touching the rank in front of them they are still part of the same unit and the rank in front blocks LOS as normal, with one rank being allowed to see thanks to the special rule allowing an extra rank to fire for being on a hill.

PPS: don't call people simple-minded when you're wrong.

Pokpoko
23-04-2009, 00:28
A skilled bowman vs a skilled crossbowman or gunner should be able to loose more shots, more accurately, with just as much stopping power.
with all respect,there is no chance a bowman,no matter how strong, will put out quite as much energy as heavy crossbow or chemical explosion that propels the bullet.not without modern bows at least...

That really depends on the armor. I wouldn't depend on this with plate mail, neither at a 100yds nor at 10yds
Actualy a british bodkin arrow could punch right threw platemail. It took a shield to stop it.
it depends on the source i guess.i'v read somewhere that to penetrate,the archer must have shot at nearly point-blank, and even then there was a chance that it'll slide off a sloped surface.

slingersam
23-04-2009, 00:43
Oddly enough, that's not what the rules say, though...

You get one extra rank for being on a hill, not one extra rank per rank on a hill.

Also, the previous High Elf Citizen Levy rules also said that archers may fire with one extra rank, not with one extra rank per rank that can fire. In all likeliness, a rule to allow archers to fire in two ranks would be worded similarly.

One extra rank means add one, not multiply by two and certainly not add one per rank already capable of firing.

PS: an archer unit with any ranks on a hill is an archer unit on a hill that gets +1 rank able to fire. In your example, the first rank on the hill is the extra rank that being on a hill allows you to fire. The fact that their LOS is probably not physically blocked by the rank in front of them is merely a result of the tiered hill terrain many people use. The fact of the matter is that whether or not they are physically touching the rank in front of them they are still part of the same unit and the rank in front blocks LOS as normal, with one rank being allowed to see thanks to the special rule allowing an extra rank to fire for being on a hill.

PPS: don't call people simple-minded when you're wrong.

Not following you, really. Can you explain that again.

Cats Laughing
23-04-2009, 01:37
Ok, here's what happens when you deploy your archers on a hill

Put two ranks on a hill. Both can fire thanks to the extra rank that being on a hill allows.

Put a third rank on the hill. You still get only two ranks firing, even if the third rank is on a higher tier, because hills only give one extra rank of firing.

Put another rank infront of the previous three ranks(at the base of the hill). First rank can fire and one other rank can fire, but only because the hill allows an extra rank.
Normally ranks of a unit block LOS to the ranks behind it, which is why normally only the first rank of archers can fire. Being on different tiers of a tiered hill does not allow additional ranks to have LOS and be able to fire. The hill special rule granting one extra rank is what allows an extra rank to fire.

Hence, we're back to the proper way of playing which is:

Front rank can fire, as normal
Being on a hill allows one more rank to fire (for two total)
A special rule (such as the old HE Citizen Levy rule) that allows an extra rank will allow one more rank to fire (for a grand total of three).

slingersam
23-04-2009, 03:58
See I thought that the hill granted an extra rank, and then people off the the hill got to shoot since they are not blocking line of sight.

Eulogy2
23-04-2009, 04:08
british bodkin arrows can penetrate plate armor. but even those that didnt penetrate, the impact itself often was enough to kill or disable a man at any range.

Cypher, the Emperor
23-04-2009, 04:15
The battle at Agincort disagrees with Warhammers low armor penetrating longbows...

But here is an idea, yes its shamelessly stolen from Warmachine, but its a great idea. Many units in that game have the ability to manipulate the way they make ranged attacks, the two best are like this:

Combine Ranged attack - Represents the archers focusing on a single target, allowing you to gain bonuses to hit and damage based on how many members participate.

"Volleys" - These create an AOE that damages things under them, pretty cool IMO. But there are some units that take it even farther, they can create a fire zone, which is an aoe that stays on the board, it represents the unit waiting to fire at another unit that advances twoards them. Basically, if an enemy enters that AOE, they can then instantly make ranged attacks against them.

Just cool ideas from another game. Personally the way I think they could get around this and accentuate the "arrow storm" effect would be to negate the penalties to Stand and Shoot on bows.

Stormhammers
23-04-2009, 04:36
I just learned about the battle at Agincourt and that was amazing. I too believe that bows could be much more effective. Maybe give archers the ability to "fire for effect" making them attack with a template but give them penalties if they are engaged in close combat (being they are concentrating on firing as fast as possible)and maybe ungrades available for bodkin arrows, giving a longbow unit armor penetration.

I play empire and neither of these would benefit me really...but it would still be a nice idea, and I do have 16 bretonian archers, might make a force based around them perhaps?

dijit80
23-04-2009, 09:04
When it comes to whether or not an english longbow could or could not penetrate plate armour is very much dependant on where you hit. the slope peaks of helmets acted to deflect a plunging arrow and were pretty effective. Breastplates were also sugnificantly thicker than the rest of the armour and an archer would need to be a close range to penetrate that. Longbows were especially effective against the weaker parts of the armour covering the legs, arms and faces - a shot here was still enough to disable the knights. What longbows were also pretty good at was killing horses - wound or kill a horses and it creates bedlam in the charge getting in the way of the other horses, effectively slowing the charge. Why on earth a mounted model gets an additional save is beyond me, in close combat yes where the height advantage is significant, but against archery - no, the horses is easily injured and a wounded or dead horse does not a knight make.

As a note Henry's archers also were equipped with large axes/hammers, so after the knights were on the ground after being wounded or falling from their horses they would be hacked to death where the where. Henry's forces also murdered countless numbers of wounded and captured french knights after the battle.


I think Warhammer Ancients has worked out how to get massed archery effectively - the front rank fires as normal and each rank after that can also fire with half its models. This would also get around things like TKs. Though they can't do this for stand and shoot. simple and effective

The Red Scourge
23-04-2009, 09:46
Actualy a british bodkin arrow could punch right threw platemail. It took a shield to stop it.

Agincourt was won with mud, not archery :D

Shiodome
23-04-2009, 10:09
^ a lot of horses and a few knights were shot down. then the rediculously over armoured french got cut down in hand to hand by lighter armoured troops with pole arms and armour piercing picks and hammers (i.e the ones not sinking into the mud so much were facing guys utterly exhausted after having to walk/run through knee deep mud in full plate... ). the longbow didn't do much at all baring luck to a fully armoured knight at anything other than close range.

Pokpoko
23-04-2009, 10:24
Agincourt was won with mud, not archery :D
oh come on, don't you know welsh longbow was medieval version of Tiger panzer? Eh, he's pretty cool guy, kills french barons and doesn't afraid anything:angel:

Condottiere
23-04-2009, 15:50
No, that would be a heavy crossbow, the medieval equivalent of the 88mm.

Cats Laughing
24-04-2009, 02:25
See I thought that the hill granted an extra rank, and then people off the the hill got to shoot since they are not blocking line of sight.

You know what, you're completely right. I reread the rules closely last night and found out that I was totally wrong and being a complete **** to boot. I'm sorry if my idiot remarks offended you.

I'm glad I learned something new though and hopefully gained some humility, so my total embarrassment at least got me something good.

So I can fire in 3 ranks without any special rules beyond what a hill provides. First rank 'on the flat' shooting as normal, second rank 'on the hill' shooting over the first rank that doesn't block LOS, and third rank as the extra rank provided by being on a hill. Cool.

The crow does not taste good and neither does my foot...
But at least my archers got a boost from learning to read.
(and Seaguard might be worth taking)

kdh88
24-04-2009, 02:56
I say what I ahve said before: if we're going by historical comparisons, then the main advantage of bows over other weapons should be rate of fire, so make them mutiple shots (x2).

slingersam
24-04-2009, 05:53
You know what, you're completely right. I reread the rules closely last night and found out that I was totally wrong and being a complete **** to boot. I'm sorry if my idiot remarks offended you.

I'm glad I learned something new though and hopefully gained some humility, so my total embarrassment at least got me something good.

So I can fire in 3 ranks without any special rules beyond what a hill provides. First rank 'on the flat' shooting as normal, second rank 'on the hill' shooting over the first rank that doesn't block LOS, and third rank as the extra rank provided by being on a hill. Cool.

The crow does not taste good and neither does my foot...
But at least my archers got a boost from learning to read.
(and Seaguard might be worth taking)

Lol, no problem. No harm was done in the end. Also I'm wondering how effective were arabian archers at getting through plate mail. I heard that Knights didn't wear as much armor because of the heat.

Charistoph
24-04-2009, 06:16
I say what I ahve said before: if we're going by historical comparisons, then the main advantage of bows over other weapons should be rate of fire, so make them mutiple shots (x2).

For non-artillery, only the sling and throwing weapons could match it's speed, but neither of those could match the power. Another advantage, as was mentioned before, is arcing fire. You could technically arc a bolt or a handgun round, but it would be horribly inaccurate, and the rounds really aren't designed for it, while arrows are. In other words, you could easily shoot arrows over the wall, while that wasn't very practical to attempt with other foot-based weapons.

Condottiere
24-04-2009, 07:22
Basically, firing for effect would be a mild form of cluster munitions, not something anyone wants to experience. Once the yeomen are positioned, they have plenty of time to draw a bead, if they choose to do so.

dijit80
24-04-2009, 08:50
Lol, no problem. No harm was done in the end. Also I'm wondering how effective were arabian archers at getting through plate mail. I heard that Knights didn't wear as much armor because of the heat.
I've been researching arabian troops for an araby army I'm currently converting, at the time of the crusades many arabian mounted troops wore just as heavy armour as their crusader counterparts - full chainmail hulberks, with helmets and mail veils. Horses didn't really have barding, but then no one did in that period, that mainly comes later. From what I can see theres no real difference in the armour of the arabs and their european counterparts at the same time, from 7th to 13/14th centuries. It's only when the europeans start using plate armour in the late 14th to 16th centuries that things change.

During this time the longbow wasn't really present and only became common in English armies in the hundred years war - 14th century. The arabs typically used a compound bow or self bow, which is typically lighter than a longbow, though some mongolian compound recurve bows have a comparative power to an english longbow.

slingersam
24-04-2009, 09:48
For non-artillery, only the sling and throwing weapons could match it's speed, but neither of those could match the power. Another advantage, as was mentioned before, is arcing fire. You could technically arc a bolt or a handgun round, but it would be horribly inaccurate, and the rounds really aren't designed for it, while arrows are. In other words, you could easily shoot arrows over the wall, while that wasn't very practical to attempt with other foot-based weapons.

The sling in fact is a lot more powerful than the bow and arrow, as it could smash in skulls, and just shatter any bone on contact, anything could potentially be it's ammo. The only problem with it was that it's accuracy was abysmal, the range was below par, and no armor piercing capability. The bow was able to excel in all areas, except strength.

dijit80
24-04-2009, 10:36
The sling in fact is a lot more powerful than the bow and arrow, as it could smash in skulls, and just shatter any bone on contact, anything could potentially be it's ammo. The only problem with it was that it's accuracy was abysmal, the range was below par, and no armor piercing capability. The bow was able to excel in all areas, except strength.

A pole sling had high power, but a standard sling not that much. I seriously doubt a sling could be thrown with upwards 75lbs, so I'm a little sceptical about what you're saying here. A slings advantage was is cheapness and another problem with i was it required a relatively large area to use in order to swing and was therefore only really usable by dispersed formation (ie skirmishers).

Condottiere
24-04-2009, 11:50
As I recall my Sicilian ancient history, there are three types of sling bullets possible, the stone that you pick up, the cast lead one, and a rather largish stone that supposedly cracked armour.

dijit80
24-04-2009, 12:18
Either way the force you can put behind a projectile from a sling is not going to be comparative to that from a bow coupled with that an arrow focuses this power a a rather small point gives the bow and arrow a much better penetrative force - breaking bones disables troops yes, but a sling is most dangerous to the head and a helmet quickly limits that effect.

Braugi
24-04-2009, 12:33
The answer IMI is to allow archers to choose between direct fire or volley, with volley allowing the use of a template and being treated as a ranged guess...template size is based on number of archers performing the volley. There would be a range minimum of 15 inches for a volley, with a maximum maybe slightly longer than the max range.

IMO all range guess weapons should be able to ignore LOS...firing volleys of arrows as the infantry advanced in front of you.

Crossbows and handguns would not have this ability.

Stronginthearm
24-04-2009, 22:23
In WAB (warhammer ancients) bows are able to fire from multiple ranks, but each rank after the first only half the models rounding down are able to shoot as this factors in the inaccuracy of firing over the heads of your companions, this works prety well to represent massed bow fire.

Regarding longbows penetrating plate armour, it is very dependant on how thick the armour is and how much it covers. A reasonable medieval longbow archer could place an arrow in the vulnerable joins in the armour with bodkin points at 50yds - thats pretty decent. A bodkin arrow was also more than capable of penetrating most plate armour that wasn't on the chest and thighs and if it didn't penetrated the shock of the impact was often enough. Some of the bows found on the Mary Rose are up to 120lbs in draw weight, thats the equivalent of 50-60kgs of weight placed into a small bodkin point - that'll go through alot!

Against mounted troops a broadhead was more often used against the horse which was less armoured and caused massive wounds and huge amounts of bleeding. A bleeding horse doesn't like to run anymore.

Another point which warhammer fails to take into consideration is that massed archery could lay down a heavier rain of arrows that the crossbow and handgun. A typical archer could shoot 8-10 times in the time it took a crossbowman to load and fire once. The effect of this volume was two fold, firstly it had a pyschological effect - no one likes walking into a rain of arrows, even if the majority of them miss and the plunging arrows would stick up in the ground creating a pin cushion effect making it especially difficult to advance with horses.

Warhammer is actually pretty poor at representing medieval archery tactics, but as its a fantasy game you have to suspend your logical and use your imaginaton instead.

again in WAB there is a clear destinction between the longbow, composite bow and short or self-bow. the longbow is used almost exclusively by English and Indian troops and is typically the height of a man, the composite bow (or just a bow in WFB terms) are those bows used by middle-eastern troops which is shaped and laminated creating a powerful but smaller bow, and all other bows are short bows. Just because you've got a long stick with a string tied to it doesn't make it a longbow.

As an archer (both longbow and recurve) myself I hope I know a little of what I'm talking about.

Well If you are going to beef up bows to match history you end up having to make them more points to acount for training of the archer and make crossbows and handguns less points to show how even though they werent as effective it was much easier to train troops in how to use them and still be effective whereas bows required a whole lot more training in order to be that good

slingersam
24-04-2009, 23:07
Actually I was watching it on spike, it is a show about
how warriors can compete. They showed the sling
smashing an artificial skull. It produced great damaged.
The bow and arrow was classified better in all ways.

Stormhammers
25-04-2009, 03:15
The answer IMI is to allow archers to choose between direct fire or volley, with volley allowing the use of a template and being treated as a ranged guess...template size is based on number of archers performing the volley. There would be a range minimum of 15 inches for a volley, with a maximum maybe slightly longer than the max range.

IMO all range guess weapons should be able to ignore LOS...firing volleys of arrows as the infantry advanced in front of you.

Crossbows and handguns would not have this ability.

I was thinking about this at work today and come up with pretty much the same idea, you just beat me too it. A later post also says that beefing up the archers should bring an increse in cost, that sounds great. I still like my bodkin upgrade, it would be expensive as well, all this would make archers better, but more expensive, the way it should be.

Arduhn
25-04-2009, 03:38
Actually I was watching it on spike, it is a show about
how warriors can compete. They showed the sling
smashing an artificial skull. It produced great damaged.
The bow and arrow was classified better in all ways.

Haha, ya, I saw that program too, it's pretty interesting actually.

I was thinking of a template thing too when I posted earlier about volley fire. I think an interesting way of doing it would be to place the template, and any unit under it would take a random number of hits, maybe affecting both players' turns in the shooting phase, but only move-able in the owning player's turn. Perhaps it could be randomised by say, every group of six archers in the unit generates a d6 worth of hits, every group of 3 generates d3, less than 3 are ignored. So, for example, 20 archers would generate 3d6 hits on any unit that is under the template.

Or maybe small template does d6 hits/6 archers, large template does d3 hits/6 archers...You know what? I think I figured out why they don't do this: it's just too complicated.

...actually no, that's much too powerful. Instead of hits, let's say it generates shots, which then need to be rolled to hit. Also, only members of the unit that are actually under the template ('look out sir' aside) would be able to be casualties, extra wounds would be lost.

Condottiere
25-04-2009, 06:31
I'm not too sure about this template ranged guess, since bowmen can quickly re-adjust the angle to compensate, unlike a mortar.

Stormhammers
25-04-2009, 07:13
well the guess range rule would be in effect to enable them to fire over obstacles.

Condottiere
25-04-2009, 07:39
Over obstacles? Without LOS?

WLBjork
25-04-2009, 07:50
We've been playing with allowing an additional rank of missile troops (not just archers) to fire, but this inflicts an additional -1 to hit penalty (on all shots).

Seems to work quite well, and makes larger formations more viable.

dijit80
25-04-2009, 08:44
Haha, ya, I saw that program too, it's pretty interesting actually.

I was thinking of a template thing too when I posted earlier about volley fire. I think an interesting way of doing it would be to place the template, and any unit under it would take a random number of hits, maybe affecting both players' turns in the shooting phase, but only move-able in the owning player's turn. Perhaps it could be randomised by say, every group of six archers in the unit generates a d6 worth of hits, every group of 3 generates d3, less than 3 are ignored. So, for example, 20 archers would generate 3d6 hits on any unit that is under the template.

Or maybe small template does d6 hits/6 archers, large template does d3 hits/6 archers...You know what? I think I figured out why they don't do this: it's just too complicated.

...actually no, that's much too powerful. Instead of hits, let's say it generates shots, which then need to be rolled to hit. Also, only members of the unit that are actually under the template ('look out sir' aside) would be able to be casualties, extra wounds would be lost.

I think thats a little too random and complicated to work well. Having odd numbers of archers creates problems. It could work if you say that for each archer you get a chance to hit - BS1/2 hits on a 6; BS3/4 hits on a 5, etc. Though it'd be move or fire.

Personally as said before I prefer WABs way of dealing with it, its simple and effective. It also makes mixed formations like the Persian Immortals
work with spearmen in the front ranks and archers behind. (For anyone too lazy to scroll up to see how WAB does it then the front rank fires as normal and half of each rear rank is also allowed to fire - no modifiers, no templates - simple but effective)

Gabacho Mk.II
25-04-2009, 09:50
....
To maximize the range of the bow (standard or long), you have to arc your fire. This was to great disadvantage for the French in the War of the Roses because they didn't have hard helmets to deflect these arced arrows.


I dont mean to be rude in any given manner, but I do not remember the French being involved in the fighting during the War of the Roses. From memory, the WotRoses was primarily an English thing. ;)

Condottiere
25-04-2009, 11:18
I dont mean to be rude in any given manner, but I do not remember the French being involved in the fighting during the War of the Roses. From memory, the WotRoses was primarily an English thing. ;)Well, there was Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI's wife.

Von Wibble
25-04-2009, 17:44
What about having BS or S (whichever is higher) determine armour savnig modifier? Someone with high BS has a much better chance of knowing where to aim in order to penetrate the weak spot of armour.

That way, a bretonnian peasant who is dirt cheap still doesn't do much. A wood elf gets armour piercing at long range in effect. A high elf gets armour piercing. A particularly good shooter such as a waywatcher gets a -2. And characters with missile weapons become quite devastating.

Imperius
25-04-2009, 17:47
That really depends on the armor. I wouldn't depend on this with plate mail, neither at a 100yds nor at 10yds :)

Errmm... Arrows are designed to go through platemail IRL. Infact wearing studded leather or chainmail is better agaisn't arrows but worse in close combat.

Condottiere
25-04-2009, 18:29
What about having BS or S (whichever is higher) determine armour savnig modifier? Someone with high BS has a much better chance of knowing where to aim in order to penetrate the weak spot of armour.

That way, a bretonnian peasant who is dirt cheap still doesn't do much. A wood elf gets armour piercing at long range in effect. A high elf gets armour piercing. A particularly good shooter such as a waywatcher gets a -2. And characters with missile weapons become quite devastating.That's sometimes referred to as an aimed shot, and usually in games that measure time there's a required time frame in order to have that steady hand to land a precision shot.

dijit80
25-04-2009, 22:03
In warhammer we have to suspend our logic; for instance axes are much more effective at getting through armour (especially chainmail) than the long edge of a sword, its only in a stabing motion that a sword can do much against plate armour - that doesn't factor at all in warhammer. The rules are creating out of game balance and ease, not as representing reality (otherwise the elven archers would always win!)

theunwantedbeing
25-04-2009, 22:49
Here's an idea that doesnt seem to have been sugguested.
Let models armed with ranged weapons Volley fire
Volley fire is a special rule that allows a unit to fire N x multiple shots where N is the number of complete ranks in the unit.

So a unit 5 wide and 4 ranks deep would be allowed to fire with 4x multiple shots.
A unit 5 wide and 4 ranks deep but with 2 models missing from the back ranks could only fire 3x multiple shots, as they only have 3 models available to fire with.

Cannot be performed as part of a stand and shoot reaction as it requires far too much time to be performed correctly.

2 ranks of High elf archers, 2x multiple shots if they want.
3 ranks, 3x multiple shots
Sea guard as a ranked unit become far more worth taking as now they can fire in however many ranks them have (usually 3+) which makes them really worth having.

Maybe add in that the unit cannot perform any manover and still do this, except for fast cavalry. This rule would be a core rule.

As for the whole, bows killing knights.
Killing knights with unbarded steeds, yes...in massed volleys.
Barded knights are another matter entirely as they are largely impervious to damage from even armour piercing arrows. A point blank range shot hitting a flat metal will punch through and take the knight out of course, but with the angled armour of knights such an occurance is unlikely, even with a large volume of arrows being fired.
A crossbow could have far greater penetrating power at shorter ranges than a bow, but with a far longer load time, although it was far easier to train people to be proficient with one as there's no need to build up muscles to be able to old and fire a bow effectively.

Arduhn
25-04-2009, 23:01
Haha, that's worded a bit differently, but it's exactly what I suggested earlier, including no move and fire. I didn't have the no stand and shoot part though, but that's a good addition.

Ravening Wh0re
26-04-2009, 01:58
I would've thought it would be simpler to just allow bows to reroll misses to account for rate of fire. Bows then don't significantly get more lethal but may manage to knock off another wound or two. It also doesn't change any of the existing rules.

Multiple shots x2 doubles their potential lethality as well as imposing a -1 to hit for it, which I think isn't quite so elegant.

R Man
26-04-2009, 02:36
For all those who think that bows could pierce plate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Remember at other battles such as Patay the French Knights simply overran the English archers when they were without mud to slow things down.

I think giving x2 multiple shots is best. It represents the hail of arrows well, but isn't too powerful. I worked out that for BS3 the multiple shots only work out to one more casualty against T3 5+ save troops. Plus, it works with an already existing rule.

P.S: Hope the link works.

The Red Scourge
26-04-2009, 03:05
For all those who think that bows could pierce plate:


Thank you. Its a question of the quality of metal, and arrowheads were made from crap and manure :p

dijit80
26-04-2009, 04:33
For all those who think that bows could pierce plate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Remember at other battles such as Patay the French Knights simply overran the English archers when they were without mud to slow things down.

I think giving x2 multiple shots is best. It represents the hail of arrows well, but isn't too powerful. I worked out that for BS3 the multiple shots only work out to one more casualty against T3 5+ save troops. Plus, it works with an already existing rule.

P.S: Hope the link works.
As i said there wasn't much chance of it piercing the breastplate, but other areas was perfectly possible and especially the horses. As the armour got thicker and horses more fully barded then the longbow declined to have the same impact it did before, but it was still nasty and the psychological effect of being hit like that shouldn't be underestimated.

R Man
26-04-2009, 06:42
Well if weak spots were easy to hit then people wouldn't bother with armour. But remember, the armourers also know about weak points, and can compensate accordingly.

However a bigger plus for the bows, is that not everyone would have that quality armour. Quite a few knights would have weaker armour, and while this is not a problem at longer ranges would become vulnerable at closer range.

Of course, that would be difficult to represent in game without stepping on the toes of other missile weapons like handguns. The multiple shots makes them better, just enough to be interesting while being more accurate historically and without impacting on the realm of other missile weapons.

Condottiere
26-04-2009, 07:36
Thank you. Its a question of the quality of metal, and arrowheads were made from crap and manure :pThat's to cause blood poisoning. Yeomen hadn't discovered cricket yet.

dijit80
26-04-2009, 07:37
Well if weak spots were easy to hit then people wouldn't bother with armour. But remember, the armourers also know about weak points, and can compensate accordingly.

However a bigger plus for the bows, is that not everyone would have that quality armour. Quite a few knights would have weaker armour, and while this is not a problem at longer ranges would become vulnerable at closer range.

Of course, that would be difficult to represent in game without stepping on the toes of other missile weapons like handguns. The multiple shots makes them better, just enough to be interesting while being more accurate historically and without impacting on the realm of other missile weapons.

Quite right. There is little doubt that handguns and crossbows were more effective at piercing armour. Especially handguns; when the matchlock handgun becomes commonplace in the 15th century then armour stops being used in the same way - it just doesn't have much effect. What a bow's advantage is is its rate of fire.


That's to cause blood poisoning. Yeomen hadn't discovered cricket yet.

Now thats an interesting concept - Bretonian peasants with cricketbats and stone hard balls as anti-armour!

Condottiere
26-04-2009, 07:52
Well if weak spots were easy to hit then people wouldn't bother with armour. But remember, the armourers also know about weak points, and can compensate accordingly.The solution to that is to throw more fletchettes at the problem. Statistically, something should hit and penetrate. And in enough cases, did.