PDA

View Full Version : Guns in WHF



Tiberius Frost
08-06-2005, 06:10
This is a thread about the rise of guns in Warhammer. I'm not necessarily complaining, just making a point.
Historically, guns replaced bows and crossbows (obviously).
So how do armies without gunpowder plan to deal with opponents who regularly field artillery?
In the games I've played, I've noticed that armies like Empire don't field crossbowmen anymore. Handgunners are simply better.
Armies like High Elves don't field archers at all. (in the games I've played)

Largely, I would put this down to blackpowder weapons losing the "shoot every second rule" turn in 6th edition. Before the latest edition, guns could only shoot every second turn, which was a huge disadvantage.
Empire handgunners (and I suspect dwarf handgunners too) were allowed to deploy in two ranks, and one rank could fire each turn. Of course, you still had to buy twice as many handgunners to get the shots.

I suppose that rule was removed to help the flow of the game, and is understandable. However, without any real increase in the price of guns it seems (to me, anyway) that bows/crossbows have largely become obsolete.

Enter all the new guns in the game, (Skaven ratlings, lightning cannons, Ogre leadbelchers, and now undead pirates I'm told, to name a few), and I see little reason to actually field regular archers anymore (unless they're brimming with extra rules, like the wood elves).

How does everyone else get around this? Anyone have some successful house rules that you use? Has anyone else noticed differently?

taer
08-06-2005, 06:21
Yeah. Ponies rock.

Anyway, I don't think Guns are the ruling authority in the shooting phase, it just matters what you want. Crossbows have a greater range than handguns, which can mean an extra volley, and both are just as effective at shooting no-armor save guys. Bows allow you to move and shoot, making them more flexible when the enemy gets close. Also, many bow-armed guys can skirmish, which, when combined with the fact they can move and still shoot (something neither handguns or crossbows will allow you to do) they are a common sight on many a battle field. Furthermore, shooty Fast-cav almost always use a bow. And the reason for the rapid-introduction of more black powder armed goons is simply a choice of what looks better in terms of the particular range, and the fact you can be a lot more inventive with black-powdered weaponry than you can with stringed weaponry. Hell, in Lustria, black powdered weapons are iffy, and both crossbows and bows are far more reliable in the damp conditions.

Eldacar
08-06-2005, 06:30
Armies like High Elves don't field archers at all. (in the games I've played)
That's because the High Elf Archers are overpriced for what they do (which isn't much).

Personally, I think that the amount of guns in WHFB is just this side of all right, because things like the Zombie Pirates aren't that good with the weapons anyway. But if they start to get too many more, then I'll start to think something has gone wrong somewhere.

Galonthar
08-06-2005, 08:01
I must confess that guns fit in with empire,

but I don`t think guns / blackpowder weapons fit in with a fantasy world
(but well,... then again I don`t think empire fits in with fantasy too... :eyebrows: )

in my eyes fantasy is supposed to fight with bows (and maybe a few crossbows, for them too smal to wield bows :p )

Eldacar
08-06-2005, 08:27
but well,... then again I don`t think empire fits in with fantasy too...

IIRC, Warhammer is based around the Renaissance era in history, but with a few additions and so on.

Tyra_Nid
08-06-2005, 08:45
Yeah, id say theres a few additions.

Elves, dwarves, magic, dragons etc ;)

Nukem
08-06-2005, 08:50
+1 on the Renaissance Era.

They had guns at that point but not everyone possessed them. And the ones people had were not all that great.

In some instances I prefer Stringed weapons over black-powder weapons. Heavily forested areas.. Ummm places where I can move and fire while hiding in some sort of terrain.

Now In my empire army I use a nice mix of bows/crossbows/guns. Not too many to outweigh the other. Except for my civil war empire army ;)

I think the guns are at a perfect place. Not too many armies have them and as much damage they can do, in my mind shooting alone can't win a battle cleanly. <---JUST MY OPINION.

Cheers

FlameKnight
08-06-2005, 09:21
Guns are superior to bows because guns were superior to bows.

About the empire not using crossbows; from what I've read in some history books, the Holy Roman Empire (which the empire is "based" on) did replace their crossbowmen with handgunners, because they were simply better.

The only reason that armies take bows any more is because of reluctance to accept technology and/or being too poor.

Rövhalt
08-06-2005, 09:41
Well that's not right. Handguns didn't become better than Bows until mid 18-century. The renaissance flintlock rifle had a long reload, short ranged and nearly impossible to hit with. Beyond 50m you needed luck to hit your target, whilst an English longbowman could hit an apple at 300 paces and reload and fire before the arrow had hit the target. An impossible feat with flintlock rifle. And of course they were prone to blow up in your face pretty violently.

Alric
08-06-2005, 09:57
As things are now guns are ok , I dont think they should expand it further.

Early guns were highly inaccurate and hard to aim , and werent very effective until rifling was used. One of the early uses of guns was against armored cavalry .

As long as the ranges stay short they should be ok as it is.

Galonthar
08-06-2005, 10:15
And of course they were prone to blow up in your face pretty violently.

hmm.. couldnt GW make a misfire chart with handguns... :angel:

Scythe
08-06-2005, 10:18
It's not the guns that are unbalanced. It's the bows that are overcosted in most cases. The HE archer is the best example of this, which is at least 2 pts to expensive. However when priced reasonable, bows are still seen (think about brettonian or khemri archers for example). Just drop the bows pts cost for other races.

And for personal preference, add a volley fire rule, and make units with US 16+ count as large targets (eg +1 to hit). I'd also like to see every standard unit fire in 2 ranks, but that might be pushing it a bit.

Rathgar
08-06-2005, 10:22
Ok here's my two Karl's:

I think that the way guns are distributed in the Warhammer world are fine at the moment. Not to cheapen or have a go at anyone's argument, but you can't really compare the Warhammer world to our own historic world. It is not so that a new "better" weapon comes along and then becomes common place in all armies, because the different races' cultures in WF are so dramatically different (some even having a completely different psyche). For example Elves. Elves are never going to use black powder weapons? Why? Show an elf a black powder explosion and she'll say: "seems a lot of effort when you could just use magic…".

Magic I think is the main factor slowing down progress, just think how long the cultures have been around in WF. The empire has lasted 2522 years in a similar setting to our own European cultures, and look how "far behind" it is.

They say necessity is the mother of invention, a lot of things technology could do magic CAN do already, better in some cases. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

FlameKnight
08-06-2005, 10:39
Mabye allow bows to fire over friendly units at -1 to hit?

thecuckoo
08-06-2005, 10:58
I think this is basically a fluff issue. What happened historically with gunpowder weapons was that from the end of the medieval period onwards, longbows started to decline in use as powder weapons grew in usefulness and reliability. The main reason for this was that it took a skilled man to use a longbow, and they had to be paid accordingly, whereas any old peasant could be taught to use a crossbow in a short space of time, and peasants were cheap.

What then happened was pikes started to get longer and longer to protect infantry from the increasingly more effective cavalry. Infantry tended to form squares of pikes, guns and cannons would plonk away at the other guys and cav would try to force a breakthrough to the rear. Guns also made armour redundant. (In other words, in Warhammer, guns aren't nearly as effective as they should be!)

What warhammer cannot do is to replicate this 'evolution' in warfare across all races. If it could, then most armies would have pike-armed infantry blocks (that could form squares) and would be bristling with powder weapons. Knights in armour would cease to exist.

Griefbringer
08-06-2005, 12:15
Handguns didn't become better than Bows until mid 18-century. The renaissance flintlock rifle had a long reload, short ranged and nearly impossible to hit with. Beyond 50m you needed luck to hit your target, whilst an English longbowman could hit an apple at 300 paces and reload and fire before the arrow had hit the target.

You might really want to check your sources, or at least the terminology.

Ahem, the chances of hitting an apple with longbow at 300 paces are pretty low, and that tends to really be on the reaches of maximum range for that weapon.

As for rifles (= rifled firearm), they were relatively accurate, due to the rifling (grooving in the barrel) giving the shot a stabilising spin and the tighter fit to the barrel giving it a higher velocity. Smootbored gunpowder weapons on the other hand were significantly less accurate.

Rifling was already known in the early 17th century, if not earlier, but due to the slow reloading times and such it for long time saw use mostly in sporting weapons and in the hands of some marksmen - militia forces of American War of Independence being particularly famous. In a similar way, while flintlock was available from early 17th century, it took until the later part of that century for it to replace matchlock as the firing mechanism of choice in military muskets (matchlock being for a time less likely to fail to fire, as well cheaper to manufacture).

Lord Lucifer
08-06-2005, 14:38
People, please, read the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rulebook, it has a very good rule dealing with situations where people attempt to introduce logic into any discussion relating to the Warhammer world.

I won't give the exact rule, that may be infringement of Intellectual Property rights :p
But suffice to say it involves impact, velocity, and the hardback rulebook itself ;)



Anyway, as far as the Empire goes, if you want to run off the background... well, unless your army hails from glorious Averland, the chances of Crossbows being standard issue are slim to none. Crossbows are popular in the southern reaches of the Old World, virtually unheard of in the north.

Rövhalt
08-06-2005, 15:20
You might really want to check your sources, or at least the terminology.

Ahem, the chances of hitting an apple with longbow at 300 paces are pretty low, and that tends to really be on the reaches of maximum range for that weapon.


I take you've never shot with a longbow. A british longbowman could hit an apple at 300 paces. And the maximum range for a longbow is longer than 300 paces. Try and double that and we have the real range. And then we have the 200 pounder bows who could shoot twice as far as a normal longbow.
The reason for changing from the bow to the gun was that an archer needed to train from a really early age to get the strenght and accuracy that was required from the Lords.
Yes, I need a lesson in 1700-century military terminolog, but you need to go out and try to shoot with a real longbow and see if you can draw it fully without trembling like a leaf, if you could draw it at all. I know I can't.

Lady Bastet
08-06-2005, 15:30
What are the volley fire rules in Warhammer Ancients again?


Mabye allow bows to fire over friendly units at -1 to hit?

Simple, Reasonable and effective, it certainly works for me.

Cherrystone
08-06-2005, 18:16
Havnt got the book on me at the moment but if im recalling correctly i think half of the back ranks my fire with the 1st rank as usual.

I allow all shooting units to fire in 2 ranks ( 3 if on a elevated position).

I think that handguns in the next edition should be reduced to a 20" range and maybe some type of missifire (for each hit roll of one roll again on another one the unit takes a hit, for example), this should balance it up between bows, crossbows and handguns.

Scythe
08-06-2005, 19:41
Can't really say they are unbalanced in the first place. Handguns give you armour penetration at cost of 6" range over a crossbow. It's not a bad deal, but not great either. Crossbows certainly have their uses. Misfire would swing the pendulum just the other way; you would never see any handgun again in an army.

cubbster
08-06-2005, 21:39
I think that guns in WH are not too overpowered, its just that bows don't have many special rules of their own (that aren't army) specific. I play lizardmen so have no access to guns, and limited access to bows (southlands) but I can normally do fine in games against empire/dwarfs (skinks with blowpipes).
Guns are a neccessary part of WHF for some armies but I don't think they are too overwhelming at all.

samw
09-06-2005, 01:13
How about allowing indirect fire for bows? You just have to see 'enemy' in that direction?

Griefbringer
09-06-2005, 09:58
I take you've never shot with a longbow. A british longbowman could hit an apple at 300 paces. And the maximum range for a longbow is longer than 300 paces. Try and double that and we have the real range. And then we have the 200 pounder bows who could shoot twice as far as a normal longbow.


Are we using the same size of a pace? For me one pace is approximately the same as one yard.

Anyway, I agree that a major advantage of the gun was the training and expenses involved - almost anybody could be quickly taught how to use a hand-held firearm, and the weapons themselves (as well as shot and powder) could be produced quickly and effectively.

As for having fired a longbow - no, I have never done that. I seriously doubt that I would have the strenght to draw it. Besides, firing true longbows these days is not too easy, so I would probably need to travel to some mountain top in Wales where I could find an old bowyer who knows how to make them like they used to be.

For a rather lenghty debate of early firearms versus bow, see a rather lenghty debate (featuring people much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am) at http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=42693

Rövhalt
09-06-2005, 10:59
Are we using the same size of a pace? For me one pace is approximately the same as one yard.

Now that's the big question, is it not... A yard is almost a meter, right?

Warlord Queek
09-06-2005, 12:02
I think guns shouldn't be in the whole WHFB..

Handguns etc. deal way to much damage. If guns weren't that strong, it wouldn't be a problem at all, but since they schoot at strength 4 and have the Armour Piercing Ability, it's just lame and unfair to field them.

With the cannons I can live, but guns really should be weakended or removed!

Griefbringer
09-06-2005, 12:07
Now that's the big question, is it not... A yard is almost a meter, right?

By definition: 1 yard = 0.9144 meters.

Scythe
09-06-2005, 12:16
I think guns shouldn't be in the whole WHFB..

Handguns etc. deal way to much damage. If guns weren't that strong, it wouldn't be a problem at all, but since they schoot at strength 4 and have the Armour Piercing Ability, it's just lame and unfair to field them.

With the cannons I can live, but guns really should be weakended or removed!

Crossbows are S4. Armour piercing on handguns is not *that* much difference, is it?

Wolflord Havoc
09-06-2005, 12:22
Guns replaced bows and to a lesser extent cross bows for one reason.

Training.

You can teach someone how to fire a Musket or Arqubus (handgun etc) in an afternoon - it takes years of practice to become proficient with a bow and with the increased numbers of people living in cities less % of a population knew how to use bows.

Take the British Army - it was not untill 1890s with the advent of the Lee Metford bolt action rifle (the predesessor to the Lee Enfield) that they could match the shear killing power (man for man) of Henry Vs army at Agincourt when the English and Welsh archers 'darkened the sky with arrows'.

Having fired both a musket and 'attempted' to shoot a bow I can say the Musket is easier than the bow to shoot. Also Shooting a bow requires great stamina and I am given to understand that 20 to 30 shots was the maximum for an archer (using an English or Welsh Long Bow) before he was totally knackered.

Also with the need to field larger armies as countries became more and more industrialised it became harder to produce 'warriors' who were 'happy' to go blade to blade with the enemy - much easier to train some peasent to stand in line and shoot at some bloke (or Ork or Elf whatever) who is 100 yards away.

Griefbringer
09-06-2005, 12:40
Take the British Army - it was not untill 1890s with the advent of the Lee Metford bolt action rifle (the predesessor to the Lee Enfield) that they could match the shear killing power (man for man) of Henry Vs army at Agincourt when the English and Welsh archers 'darkened the sky with arrows'.


Actually already with Henry-Martini rifle (use in 1870's) trained British riflemen could fire 10 shots per minute when firing at will. When volley firíng (whole rank or unit shooting at the same moment) this would be somewhat slower.

Renka
09-06-2005, 12:46
Hm, the main factor that tipped the ballance between bows and guns in Japan were the fact that they penetrated armour like there was no tomorrow.
The famous battle between the daimyo Takeda Shingens "invincible" cavalry that had trampled uncounted foes under theit hoves were massacred by 2000 men armed with teppo (a Japanese rifle) led by Oda Nobunaga (who, much thanks to the gun, almost managed to become the Shogun).
Of course, comparing Japan to western civilizations would be like comparing a street urchin to King Arthur (we are speaking 200+ years back in time, mind you!), but the point remains. The bullet have a obvious edge over the arrow, the penetrating ability (due to the fact that the bullet constantly spins around its own axle thanks to rifling) where the arrow fly "straight" forward, and this is represented by the Armour Piercing rule. Anything else would not be logical.

Griefbringer
09-06-2005, 20:44
The bullet have a obvious edge over the arrow, the penetrating ability (due to the fact that the bullet constantly spins around its own axle thanks to rifling) where the arrow fly "straight" forward, and this is represented by the Armour Piercing rule.

As far as I know, the spinning motion does not really affect the armour piercing capability, the good armour piercing of an early gunpowder weapon being mainly caused by the velocity of the shot. What the spin gives is a stabler trajectory and thus higher accuracy (as well as higher velocity, as it would fit the barrel more tightly)

In any case, rifled weapons were a minority of military firearms (mainly just issued to some special units, or irregular units using their hunting weapons) until the invention of the minnie-bullet (that could be quickly loaded to a rifled musket) around 1830's, before that most of the weapons were smoothbores.

Adlan
09-06-2005, 21:24
Actually it's not that hard to find a real longbow (there is three in my shed, one of them is 5'4" one is 5'8" and one is 6'1" and one inch taller than me)
The difficulty in making a longbow is infinding Yew wood of the right quality, the ky thing here is to be friendly with your local Vicar.
I am lucky in that respect because he and my grandfather both used to teach at the same school. Having formed friendship with th vicar, thank the kings of England who insited on a yew tree being planted in every church yard.
Now a long bow is in effect a giant spring, the combined propertys od heart wood and sap wood make it very powerful. my own has a draw of somewhere between 100-120 pounds and is a light draw compared to historical ones.
I can shoot reasonably accuratly to about 100 yards, within about a yard at 150, and within a 10 yard circle at 300. I can also just about manage 1 clothyard on the string with one in the ground.
Because the problem lies not in finding or making the Longbow (we have plenty of examples from the mary rose)
But in finding the Longbow Man.
Now i'm a reasonable guy of 16, and due to my longbow use (i've practaised once every week or so since i was 12) my right arm is stronger than my left. But a trained long bow man, was a freak. The skeletele remains from the mary rose really isllustrate this. These guys were big beefy well fed soldiers. Their left arms were pretty muscular.
But Their bow arm. These guys trained every sunday since they were tiny. we have documents showing little kids being given little longbows. They trained since childhood to use these massively powerful springs and it changed them.
and then we get onto the battle cappabilitys.
300 yards, hit a man size target, not a problem. 600 Yards is the maximum outside range for these deformed long bowmen so a big target fine. But the arrow will be comming down by gravity and at a very steep incline.
100-20yards Killing zone. Fired along a flat trajectory. Bodkin arrow. Straight through plate. Straight through bone. Straight back out. (see it done, and if anyones butcherd a pig, they know how hard it is to cut. Now stick to 3mm steel sheets in the way.

where as a musket ball wil splash off (ever gone metal detecting over civil war sites (english not american) you will turn up loads of deformed leadbullets. Thse have hit the breastplate or helmet of an enamy, left a dent or caused a headache. but have not penetrated.

And Japanise civilisations were not, are not and will never be better than western. Different. More advanced. But never better. does any one know the composition of japanese armour? We'll se bout this arrow proof army.

But thats enough of my rambles on my hobbie.

Back On Topic, I think the leval of guns is about right. with the industrial revolution just around the corner (though magic will dely as pointed out) and poulations in cities growing. the trained archers (Empire Woodsmen) will be decreasing, while the poor of the cites make good soldiers (scum of the earth who joined up for the drink), they lack the years of training to churn out good archers. Crossbows and handguns are effective after only a months training (step one powder step to wadding step 3 bullet step 4 ramrod step 5 fire step six kill enemy with ramrod inseated of bullet, get disqualified for non wysiwyg weapon)
But as a longbow fanatic i would love to see a volly fire rule. and mopre archer armys (i'd really love longbow DoW, bring back bertrand the brigand)

Warlord Queek
10-06-2005, 01:14
Crossbows are S4. Armour piercing on handguns is not *that* much difference, is it?
But crossbows belong in the whole fantasy warhammer, while guns don't. And -1 armoursave is a diffirence, if handguns are the only ranged units one fields
It would be nice to make a rule for a chance of all guns exploding, not only cannons!

Delicious Soy
10-06-2005, 01:38
Adlan: You seem to know what you're talking about but from what I've read, bows (and firearms for that matter) were only effective at relatively short range against a fully armed knight. Now this is the point where people start screaming "Agincourt! Agincourt!"

Agincourt was a victory mainly because of two reasons

1. A freshly Ploughed Field
2. Ill disciplined French Chivalry

On most fields cavalry were always the descisive factor, at the correct moment a cavalry charge would usually turn a battle. But if a bunch of psychotic French knights decide to charge across uneven ground at an entrenched foe, then yes they will be slaughtered.

Ranged weapons in an open field at this stage were auxilaries that were better for engaging other infantry, rather than cavalry, so in WFB I wouldn't want to see shooting dominating the battlefield, because it never did during the several periods encompassed by the armies of WFB. Infantry and cavalry should be more numerous than the ranged weapons, and their effect is what should be desicive. Or the 20 feet of dragon crashing into them. Or the Daemon wing wings and an axe. Or the mage blasting armies apart with magic. You get the idea :p.

twisted_mentat
10-06-2005, 05:10
One of the things that makes blackpower weapons fluffy for the empire is that is the empire is one of the few factions/nations/races what ever that actaully is willing to change. Only other that does it as well is dwarves. and the empire's close relationship with dwarves expands this ability to change.

if a Gun or cannon or steamtank makes it easier to crush the enemies of sigmar, then its a good thing!

The matchlocks we see in the Empire is roughtly what people would of been using in the 15-early 16th century. Not effective in small numbers, like one or two guys, but in a block, it would be terribly effective, as all firing in unison, it shells out a wall of lead or stone bullets, that can stop a charge in its tracks. Though these weapons were very slow to reload, and they needed pikemen or other infantry around them ot protect them from charges.

The fact that black power was alot easier to make (though much more unpleasent) than arrows or bolts, also, it took years to train a decent bowmen, a gunner could be trained in a few days. Though a bow could be fired on a rainy day, while a matchlock could not.

rifeling, while introduced in the late 18th century, wasn't common because a rifle was slower to load, not only because more effort was needed to put in the shot, but also because of the fact that bullets were not uniform in shape. This ment that the force of the powder exploding would be forced around the bullet, rather than behind. Only wrapping the bullet in oiled leather or partchment, would the bullet grab the grooves.

Though it got better later when the mini-balls appeared, they were better made, and helped the french defeat the Austirans in Italy, and also determined the outcome of the American Civil war. Though they couldn't help the french aganst the Prussians, as the prussians were armed with breachloading, cartrage firing needle rifles.....mm...using my degree for pointless babling...

FlameKnight
10-06-2005, 06:13
But crossbows belong in the whole fantasy warhammer, while guns don't.
Who says they don't? This isn't "lord-of-the-rings"hammer. The fantasy setting of warhammer is very specific, it's nothing like many normal fantasy games. Such games emphasise a general "timeless age of swords and chivalry, elves, orcs and dwarves. This is often referred to as (as far as I am aware) "high fantasy". Warhammer is a setting that isn't-so-rosey; it is more "real world", throwing a whole bunch of evil magic, evil races, and evil people into the mix. This is often called "dark fantasy". In this case, the setting of the empire is 15th century Holy Roman Empire, at which time they did have guns, cannons, and mortars (no helblasters or steam tanks though, although the ideas did exist).

So you are mistaken, guns do belong in WARHAMMER fantasy, but not in lord of the rings. (Besides, crossbows don't really fit in lord of the rings either, the crossbows the orcs use in the movies weren't in the books. (as far as I recall))


It would be nice to make a rule for a chance of all guns exploding, not only cannons!
No, it really wouldn't be nice. There isn't such a big chance of handguns exploding for there to be a rule for it, and most misfires wouldn't result in any damage to the gun or to the firer. Even the exploding rules for cannons are a little too harsh; there wasn't a 1 in 36 chance of cannons exploding in real life.

Rövhalt
10-06-2005, 07:52
By definition: 1 yard = 0.9144 meters.

Well, I can fire a 30 pounder about sixty meters and a longbow is about 100 pounds then 300 paces, or meters call it what you will, is quite viable. Adlan has put it very well.
On the topic of Japan, thier armours was made mostly of varnished wood and sometimes leather IIRC, metalplates didn't come until the arrival of the white devil. And Samurai is one of those factors that are not very keen on change. Bow and sword, that was the true weapons of a warrior. And I dont think they used Longbows in the Japans, I could be wrong though.

Griefbringer
10-06-2005, 09:17
where as a musket ball wil splash off (ever gone metal detecting over civil war sites (english not american) you will turn up loads of deformed leadbullets. Thse have hit the breastplate or helmet of an enamy, left a dent or caused a headache. but have not penetrated.


I will give kudos for your experience on firing a longbow (which I have no chances of matching), but your knowledge on historical armour might require a bit of finetuning.

By the time of the English Civil War (1640's) a lot of the armour was made to actually stop a shot from gunpowder weapon. There was a common habit of "proving" this bulletproofness by firing a close-range shot at the piece of armour before putting it out for sale - this would leave a dent in the armour which was called a "proof" and such armour would be called "proved".

I would consider it rather unlikely for a longbow to have been able to pierce such an armour.

Enazel
10-06-2005, 09:30
Um, different types of damage, a Musket ball was made of lead and squished flat as it hit a target, reducing the actual pressure behind it, messy against an unarmour man, but not particularly great against plate armour. While an arrow as a small area at the head where all the force behind it is directed and would pierce armour that a bullet would dent only.

athamas
10-06-2005, 09:32
one simple this to bring the balance power back to the bow, would be to allow all bow units to shoot in 2 lines, thir represents that most gunpowder units come in 2 lines, and its the ranks swaping over!



long bows are remarcable good at penatrating armour, however they require alot of training, any fool can use a gun!

Tiberius Frost
10-06-2005, 11:34
I think most people will agree on a few specific items:

Longbows have a greater effective range than early handguns

Longbows were useful at penetrating armour

Longbows have a higher rate of fire than early handguns


So shouldn't these be represented in the rules somewhere? Currently, a longbow has a 30" range while a handgun has a 24" range. Implying that the gun has an effective range of 4/5 that of the longbow.

A bow and a gun get 1 shot per turn. PERIOD. Implying identical reload times.

Longbows do nothing to armour, because they're S3.

I don't understand why longbows in warhammer are so ****-poor. They have the same range as a crossbow. This doesn't make sense. Being able to move and still fire your bow isn't that great an advantage, when because of your lousy strength you probably won't do anything anyway.

What about armour piercing longbows? Not that many armies actually have access to them, (High Elves, Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Empire in limited numbers) or increasing the range a bit? Or decreasing the range of the handguns...?

As I pointed out earlier, handguns used to have a rule that slowed down their rate of fire. This rule was removed in the latest edition and suddenly handguins are a lot more popular,... or is it just me?

Falcon
10-06-2005, 12:38
I agree. It seems to me troops with bows should have better range and be armour piercing. They should also be much more expensive. Gunners should have less range and be a lot cheaper. I wonder if accurary can be brought in as well.

BTW I don't think there's too much of a problem with Guns in WHFB, but I just couldn't resist the pony vote :-D

Griefbringer
10-06-2005, 13:46
As I pointed out earlier, handguns used to have a rule that slowed down their rate of fire. This rule was removed in the latest edition and suddenly handguins are a lot more popular,... or is it just me?

I think that if there has been a single factor that has increased the popularity of handgun, it must have been the inclusion of plastic Empire handgunners in the starter boxed set. :rolleyes:

Scythe
10-06-2005, 16:28
So shouldn't these be represented in the rules somewhere? Currently, a longbow has a 30" range while a handgun has a 24" range. Implying that the gun has an effective range of 4/5 that of the longbow.


Weren't longbows 36" in previous editions? Never quite understood why that range was reduced...

Cheesejoff
10-06-2005, 16:36
Weren't longbows 36" in previous editions? Never quite understood why that range was reduced...

I think that would make them better. Either that, or a "volley" rule that lets them fire in two ranks and get extra range, but at -2 to hit.

Adlan
10-06-2005, 16:48
That would be good to see,
36" range for longbows.
I suddenly see a lot more brettonian peasent armys.

But as for the armour piercing, i'm a big fan of the long bow (you can probably tell)
But at it's maximium range it wouldn't do the fabled in one side out the either then squer to horse.
But as I said at 20-100 yards (short range) shot on a flat trajectory rather than for ditance. It would go through plate, chainmail, cloaths, body and out the otherside.
However, there was on instance in the hundred years war where this did not happen.
Itailian mercenarys on the french side. In Blued steel armour, blued steel is much harder, and much more exspensive to produce. Blued steel will not be penetrated by a bodkin until about 20 yards. By which time itwas to late. (luckily several knights on foot where behind the lines, magaed to fend off the italians while the archers massacred the french infantry). Blued steel, didn't catch on as it was far to exspensive to produce and also became brittle unless done expertly. often faults in peices appred during combat. (incidently if anyones seen that knight film with the nike armour, know the one i mean? thats blued steel)

So maybe a within 12 inch armour percing rule? and a 36" range?
And a LongBow DoW Unit :D (Bring Back Bertrand The Brigand)

And yes, arrows are difficult to make (the guild of boyers and fletchers do the best, but i make my own) you need managed woodland, with coppiced hard woods (to produce the shafts) and fine goose feathers for the fletching. where as gunpoweder and shot needs lead, carbon (charcoal), suphur, and salt peater (horse dung and ****)


Bring Back Bertrand The Brigand!

Griefbringer
10-06-2005, 17:40
Weren't longbows 36" in previous editions?

Only for Wood Elves.

As for the armour piercing at short (half) range for longbows, back in the 3rd edition they had that ability - it was probably dropped for the sake of simplicity, though I would also see that rule making it back.

Now, where is my pony?

Scythe
10-06-2005, 18:05
Ahh, only WE had it then... long time ago that I played 5th edition obviously.

Adlan
10-06-2005, 21:37
I never go the way WE used longbows.
I mean it's very impractical in a densly forseted area (it's taller than your own hight, unweildy and the arrows are 3 foot long) surly somthing more along the lines of a recurve or mongol bow is better (there is one type of bow i've seen based on archeological finds, about 4'-5' and very nice, they used to stock it at eagle bows but now no longer)

Forgotmytea
10-06-2005, 21:54
I dom't think they're too overpowered, although if they continue this way they will be. Some of them I think we could really do without, such as Leadbelchers & ratling guns - these armies have enough fat & hard/furry & hard stuff anyway without miniguns and portable cannons :eyebrows:. Anyway, to counter the endless artillery I:

Vampire Counts: Zombie meat shields all the way, people! :D

Night Goblins: Take exceedingly huge units and grind forward while using Wolf Riders to harass the missile units

Chaos Dwarfs: Pump a load of death rockets into them! Show them the meaning of true firepower! Mwa ha ha ha! :evilgrin: :skull:

Dark Elves: Scream. Apart from that, I try to use the Dark Riders to distract/neutralise the missile fire, and hit it with magic, but that's about it - my DE ground to a halt ages ago to make way for the Tomb Kings.

-Forgotmytea

Griefbringer
11-06-2005, 07:47
I never go the way WE used longbows.
I mean it's very impractical in a densly forseted area (it's taller than your own hight, unweildy and the arrows are 3 foot long) surly somthing more along the lines of a recurve or mongol bow is better (there is one type of bow i've seen based on archeological finds, about 4'-5' and very nice, they used to stock it at eagle bows but now no longer)

Well, since Tolkien had his elves pack longbows, and Errol Flynn had one in the Robin Hood movie, was there any other way for GW to go?

Perhaps the elves use smaller bows in the woods, and only pick the longbows from the arsenal when they come to fight outside the forest on the open land? :rolleyes:

Pokpoko
11-06-2005, 19:26
surly somthing more along the lines of a recurve or mongol bow is better
the only problem with mongol-type reflexive bow,is that it needs a very specific enviroment and ingredients to make-mainly low humidity and lots of animal bone(or was it sinews?),which were both aplenty on steppes,but i cannot picture lorien as particulary arid,or elves slaughtering poor cow to get their bones:]

Crube
11-06-2005, 19:35
I vote for no problem - My heart really says I want a pony though - can I Change my vote...

arxhon
11-06-2005, 20:31
but I don`t think guns / blackpowder weapons fit in with a fantasy world

Depends on your definition of "fantasy". ;)

I happen to like guns in the Warhammer world. It's part of what distinguishes it from the average run of the mill Tolkein-wannabe world that is so prevalent in fantasy. Even Tolkein had a use of gunpowder in LotR that a lot of people somehow gloss over.

That said, i can't really comment on the prevalence of guns on the tabletop, since i haven't actually played the game in over 3 years. :o

Scythe
11-06-2005, 21:13
Dark Elves: Scream. Apart from that, I try to use the Dark Riders to distract/neutralise the missile fire, and hit it with magic, but that's about it - my DE ground to a halt ages ago to make way for the Tomb Kings.

Well, just shoot back! Repeater crossbows fire twice as many shots as handgunners, and handgunners die quite easily even to simple S3 fire. Bolt Throwers also work well, but they usually have better targets. Altough my dark elves are played almost as a horde army, so a few casualties here and there don't bother me too much...;)

amagi
11-06-2005, 21:54
I've always thought the human armies, especially Empire, should have more Fantasy elements to them.
There is some attraction to the idea that the Empire, despite being essentially normal humans with historical weapons, is able to survive and prevail against all the many magical creatures, monsters, and demons.

However, one problem with this is that they are so mundane, and there are so many powerful enemies that this stretches belief. More importantly, they would simply be more interesting with more fantasy elements.
This could probably be done without much diminishing the theme of holding off the monsters through ingenuity and technology.

One suggestion for this is to make some of their guns magical in some way.
Perhaps the too-weak Engineer character should be upgraded to take even more powerful, partially magical guns (like magic item choices).
Or even an elite unit with magic guns/ammunition???
Anyone agree?

Stouty
11-06-2005, 22:18
I see your idea: your a fan of the whole techno-mage stuff which is fair enough and the odd edition wouldn't be that bad at all (steam tank anyone?) but generally I'm happy with the balance.

Back foul dragon! I have a stick and it goes.....BANG!!!

Or

Back foul dragon! I have a stick and it goes........ *handgunner swallowed by dragon*

Griefbringer
12-06-2005, 08:55
As fro the techno-magic thing, that tends to be more of a Skaven affair, with all their warplock guns and such.

amagi
12-06-2005, 10:33
Yes, I know.
That's the way it is now.
I'm suggesting a change in the theme...

And all the Skaven guns are magical.
I'm only suggesting a few magic guns for characters (or just the Engineer, who desperately needs to be upgraded anyway) and maybe an elite unit or two.

FlameKnight
12-06-2005, 10:58
Sorry, but I wouldn't want the Empire to have any techno-magic. Most of the enchanted weapons, armour, and trinkets carried by characters are meant to be either really, REALLY ancient weapons given/stolen from the elves, or weapons with dwarven runes.

The only way that I would accept "Magic ammunition" was if it was due to dwarven runes.

And skaven guns aren't really magical (in being enchanted or whatever), what they do is fire crazy chaos stones. Skaven often mutate because of the warpstone, and I don't think mutations are tolerated as much in the empire, so warpstone handgunners are out of the question.

I like the empire, because it doesn't diverge too far (as far as it's army) from the Holy Roman Empire that it is modeled on, aside from the colleges of magic and the (relatively) rare wizards. Wizards and ancient swords are fine, but I really don't want GW to mix magic and technology.

Griefbringer
12-06-2005, 15:30
The only way that I would accept "Magic ammunition" was if it was due to dwarven runes.


I don't think dwarf runesmiths would really be bothered to carve any runes on small lead shot.

Kelroth
12-06-2005, 15:46
Considering they can barely be bothered to do it on mighty cannon (IIRC what I read of the fluff), I doubt small pieces of lead are worthy of their attention.

FlameKnight
12-06-2005, 16:04
I know, that was my (not so well put across) point. Rune magic is just about all that is used on technology, and what I was saying was, that his idea of magic ammunition would need dwarf runes, which (as you have said) isn't very likely to happen.

In empire armies, I'm happy with the amount of magic in general. Wizards are primarily used for magic defence, and their aren't uber magic item combos that can be found in other races. What we get back from lack of magic, is awesome technology; wonderful handguns, artillery, and volley guns, and a tank!

Alman
12-06-2005, 16:45
The Empire army is just great as it is. Really I love it, and alway seem to come back to playing it for fun. Handguns are not overpowered, if they were in the hands of a better shot (i.e. BS4) and armoured to the teeth, then they would be too good, the weapons good, but the bloke who holds it is T3 with no armour, oh and if a few of his mates die then chances are he'll run for the hills.

Also have you noticed that in most of the 'civilised' armies that use bows, the bowmen are better shots (High Elves and Wood Elves) (Ok so there overpriced, but thats a different story)

Scythe
12-06-2005, 17:15
Well, they are elves... they always shot better as other races. And elves just happen to don't like gunfire...;)

Gethalorre
12-06-2005, 18:47
Plus, if you're a Wood Elf, there are plenty of friendly trees around to make bows from...

Lafeel Abriel
12-06-2005, 19:46
I, personally, think we have plenty of guns, and related stuff, already. Really the remaining races all have their own, fluff, reasons for not using them.

Tiberius Frost
13-06-2005, 02:59
I think the Empire army is balanced well, I just don't think that longbows are represented well, especially in comparison to handguns.
A problem here is that very often the models aren't sculpted with what look like longbows, (think HE archers). Historically a longbow is easily the height of a man, but on most of the warhammer models they aren't.

I still say the Longbows-range 30" and crossbows-range 30" is a huge problem. I'd personally like it if longbows got some new special rules to reflect that it takes skill to produce and to use them. This is almost represented in the curent rules, with not very many units/armies having longbows, and could be fixed simply by changing the rule in the WHF rulebook. Of course, points costs might change, but it would at least give longbows a bit of flavour, rather than simply bows with 6" extra range.

Largely my gripe with 6th ed Warhammer is, there are more guns but less monsters. Isn't this a fantasy game??

FlameKnight
13-06-2005, 03:11
Largely my gripe with 6th ed Warhammer is, there are more guns but less monsters. Isn't this a fantasy game??

At the "present" in the warhammer world, all the monsters are dead and gone (or sleeping). And I say, good! If an army has too many powerful monsters (see steam tank), less importance is placed on maneuvering, if a monster can just move forward and open up a can of whoop-ass.

Tiberius Frost
13-06-2005, 07:22
By 'monster', I don't mean steam tanks. They're made of metal. No.

I mean Pegasi, unicorns, giant spiders, where'd these all go?

In the back of the HE army book are some stats and points values for alot of them. My brother and I were playing a siege a while back and he had about 100 points left and nothing to spend it on (playing orcs). I suggested he use one of his old spider rider models as a goblin hero on a spider out of the HE book, so he did.

It was hilarious. I mean, it's not really that great a unit, but it is fun to use. He had it climb a tower (spiders ignore terrain except for water features) and battle a war machine crew. It took about 3 turns for the him to kill 2 elves crewing a bolt thrower due to defended obstacle rules, and they did get a wound on the goblin (remember goblin big bosses can only take light armour). So I hardly think that the non-flying monsters are that powerful, and they can easily be taken down by artillery or a decent combat unit.

Griefbringer
13-06-2005, 09:59
Well, back in the 4th and 5th edition the amount of monsters that could be fielded on a tabletop went a bit too wild - you could easily field a big flying beast for every infantry unit in your force if you wanted to!

Scythe
13-06-2005, 16:29
Still, I think they've gone to far with 6th edition. Take the Dragon. The current dragon is acctually weaker than the weakest of 3 'levels' of dragons around in 5th edition. That just doesn't feel right. Monsters could be a little more common and powerfull (tough obviously this would be reflected in pts values).

Cheesejoff
13-06-2005, 16:45
Still, I think they've gone to far with 6th edition. Take the Dragon. The current dragon is acctually weaker than the weakest of 3 'levels' of dragons around in 5th edition. That just doesn't feel right. Monsters could be a little more common and powerfull (tough obviously this would be reflected in pts values).

Agreed. They've overcompensated for monsters. They should be toned up! Arise the spiders!

anarchistica
13-06-2005, 17:29
And of course they were prone to blow up in your face pretty violently.
That's a myth. They would, like modern day weapons, simply not work There usually simply wasn't enough gunpowder for them to actually blow up violently, though in a handful of freak cases with the wrong dose it went wrong.


Crossbows are S4. Armour piercing on handguns is not *that* much difference, is it?
Yes, it is. S4 AP reduces any saves by 2, which means it halves the chance someone passes a 1+ save and completely ignores 5+ saves, which most infantry have.

I made a topic about "realistic" rules for weapons a while ago, an extract:

Rate of fire is per 30 seconds. Assuming the user is trained, a longbow can be shots every 5 seconds, a crossbow every 40 and a handgun every 30. Repeater Crossbows fire once every second -going faster isn't effective-, which would lead to them having a hilarious multiple shots (30).

Range: 1" = 10 metres. Note that this is effective range, many people forget that.

-Longbow: 18-26" (depending on which historician you stick to, i'd go with 24), S4, -1S penalty vs. heavy/full plate armour, 3 shots per turn, multiple shots (6). Oh, and anyone using a longbow would have S4 (and a deformed back).

-Bows/shortbows*: 10-16", S3, -1S penalty vs. heavy/full plate armour, 3 shots per turn, multiple shots (6).

-Crossbow: 36" (though you can get them as far as 450 metres), S4, 1 shot per turn, must spend a movement phase to reload weapon, no penalty for moving and shooting, +1 to hit when not moving and weapon is steadied on a shield, wall or something similar.

-Handgun: 5-8" (not kidding!), S4, armour piercing, +1S bonus vs. full plate armour, 1 shot per turn, must spend a movement phase to reload weapon, no penalty for moving and shooting, +1 to hit when not moving and weapon is steadied on a shield, wall or something similar.

-Repeater Crossbow: 9-10", S3, additional -1 to hit for moving and shooting (total -2), multiple shots (30) when not moving and weapon is steadied on a shield, wall or something similar. Before firing the multiple shots, roll a D6; On a 2+, it's ok, on a 1 the weapon suffers from a misfire and can't fire this turn.

Adlan
13-06-2005, 17:46
That is great :D
only one quibble, longbows have much greater range then cross bows, as demonstated at the battle of Crecy. Where cross bow men had to advance into the range of longbows to use their weapons. This is becasue a long bow can be fired in an arc (aimed high falls down verticly) where as crossbows are more effective as a linier shot. Of course i've never handled a cross bow so i don't know the actual facts. This is going on what i've read and seen and had described to me.

Scythe
13-06-2005, 17:49
Yes, it is. S4 AP reduces any saves by 2, which means it halves the chance someone passes a 1+ save and completely ignores 5+ saves, which most infantry have.


Yeah, but to counterweight that, crossbows have greater range (and thus also a greater half range of 15", which some people forget). It's true that handguns are more effective against real armour (eg knights), but crossbows are usually more effective against lightly armoured troops, due them getting an extra volley fired, or due one turn without the -1 to hit modifier from long range.

Nice realistic weapon list btw. My dark elves would love that repeater crossbow.

anarchistica
13-06-2005, 19:44
That is great :D
only one quibble, longbows have much greater range then cross bows, as demonstated at the battle of Crecy. Where cross bow men had to advance into the range of longbows to use their weapons. This is becasue a long bow can be fired in an arc (aimed high falls down verticly) where as crossbows are more effective as a linier shot. Of course i've never handled a cross bow so i don't know the actual facts. This is going on what i've read and seen and had described to me.
All weapons are fired in an arc, 0 degrees is still an arc. ;)

But to answer it: The effective range is far shorter for a longbow. At Agincourt (a battle won by the Mud/Brittain alliance) they started firing as soon as the enemy got within 260 metres.

Crossbows have a greater effective range, are more powerful and easier to use. Longbows can be fired much quicker, don't need to be reloaded, can be fired more effectively on the move (Ever wonder why mounted crossbow troops are virtually non-existant? For the same reason that tanks used to have **** poor accuracy on the move...) and can be lobbed over obstacles.


Yeah, but to counterweight that, crossbows have greater range (and thus also a greater half range of 15", which some people forget). It's true that handguns are more effective against real armour (eg knights), but crossbows are usually more effective against lightly armoured troops, due them getting an extra volley fired, or due one turn without the -1 to hit modifier from long range.
Very few lightly armoured troops are used in "tournament/serious" WFB armies, and those that are usually bring tons of friends. That, and the fact that Empire Handgunners can have a sniper/repeater champion make crossbowmen so unpopular.


Nice realistic weapon list btw. My dark elves would love that repeater crossbow.
Yes, imagine that. "Ok, my 10 RXB's fire at your unit. That's 300 shots..." :eek:

LaughinGremlin
13-06-2005, 20:59
I voted for the pony to promote subliminal messages of halflings and future lists which incorporate halflings.

The balance between bullets and arrows in the game is good.

Stouty
13-06-2005, 21:41
Still, I think they've gone to far with 6th edition. Take the Dragon. The current dragon is acctually weaker than the weakest of 3 'levels' of dragons around in 5th edition. That just doesn't feel right. Monsters could be a little more common and powerfull (tough obviously this would be reflected in pts values).

Personally I think the dragon should be even rarer but even more powerfull (gimme all you got archaon). Dragons should be like Lord+1 lvl characters, and not bad mages either, but oppinion differs :p


But to answer it: The effective range is far shorter for a longbow. At Agincourt (a battle won by the Mud/Brittain alliance) they started firing as soon as the enemy got within 260 metres.

Longbow was good don't get me wrong but I must pee on it's holy fire: it couldn't touch steel plate, unless wielded by an absolute hulk it just wouldn't penetrate. Archers were for H-T-H with a mud tag team pal.

The crossbow should be more competitive but thats just a personal preference. I'd like to see 36" if they didn't move last turnm but if we're going to go down the history route then all of a sudden:
- Hand guns get 8" range (me and some frends use a RoR I made for some peasants with 10" uber handguns, FUN!)

-empire list gets merged with the Tilean one

-Characters become nameless and pointless

-Everything gets killing blow

Darmort
13-06-2005, 21:46
I see no need to get more Monsters, most of the time they're safe, except against Gunnery Trains. Dwarfs should be cut down at the very least. Empire... Marksmen shouldn't be able to get all those Sniper Rifles, Machine Guns and Death Launchers. Well, Repeater Pistol... maybe, ;)

Griefbringer
14-06-2005, 10:06
Crossbows have a greater effective range, are more powerful and easier to use. Longbows can be fired much quicker, don't need to be reloaded, can be fired more effectively on the move (Ever wonder why mounted crossbow troops are virtually non-existant?

Not all crossbows were made equal - there were heavier and lighter ones with different levels of pull (and thus differences in velocity -> range and penetration).

As for mounted crossbowmen, they were used by the 15th century German and Italian armies. Presumably they used lighter crossbow that could be actually reloaded while mounted.

Scythe
14-06-2005, 11:22
Personally I think the dragon should be even rarer but even more powerfull (gimme all you got archaon). Dragons should be like Lord+1 lvl characters, and not bad mages either, but oppinion differs :p


Well, I tend to agree. I didn't state my opinion correctly in that post. Dragons should be more powerfull, but rarer indeed (only in 3000 pts or more), while standard monsters should be a little more common (and could use a boost here and there).

Galonthar
14-06-2005, 13:10
Personally I think the dragon should be even rarer but even more powerfull (gimme all you got archaon). Dragons should be like Lord+1 lvl characters, and not bad mages either, but oppinion differs

hmm... I agree,... make dragons rare (if its soo special that Imric rides a dragon, because of all the dragons in Caledor (it was Caledor wasn`t it?) are sleeping, why can their "normal" princes ride them too then??),...
and more powerfull, (c`mon, 1 lucky cannonball can slay a dragon, and a dragon can`g butcher half a unit in 1 or 2 turns...... I wouldn`t dare too call a dragon "mighty" or "powerfull" anymore then!!)


about the bows,... a rule that would allow a LB too fire multiple shots, instead of one would be quite realistic,...
the only prob. that would occur then would be that there will be threads like "repeater CB`s, are too weak",.. etc, posted by angry DE`s, who see their weapons becoming next to worthless

also I think the "only the front rank can fire missile weapons" rule is crap :wtf: , a man can surely aim his arrowhead (rifle, etc.) between the rank in front of him,...
a unit must be very packed indeed if that wouldn`t be possible

Darmort
14-06-2005, 13:39
That last paragraph; It's to stop having units of say, 20 Dark Elf Repeater Crossbow men in 4 Ranks shooting 40 shots a turn and then having +4/5 Combat Resolution when fighting. Making a very hard unit to kill without something bigger than, say, 20 Chaos Knights. :roll:
It's to stop power gaming, unfortunately, many people just deploy in a line and then rank up to the same effect...
It does stop all of that sort of thing to an extent, anyway.


Asur though... they get to fire in 2 Ranks... why? They have bows and aim upwards - HANG ON A SECOND! Brettonian Archers have Bows! They can aim upwards too! Stupid rule...

||RaveN||
14-06-2005, 16:00
Guns?? well..I'm a orc so I don't use guns.But when I play with my skaven(Clan skyre):P
so okay.Guns is great but I don't want more of them.

-Raven

Avian
14-06-2005, 16:15
That last paragraph; It's to stop having units of say, 20 Dark Elf Repeater Crossbow men in 4 Ranks shooting 40 shots a turn and then having +4/5 Combat Resolution when fighting. Making a very hard unit to kill without something bigger than, say, 20 Chaos Knights. :roll:
It's to stop power gaming, unfortunately, many people just deploy in a line and then rank up to the same effect...
It does stop all of that sort of thing to an extent, anyway.
Here we allow all bows to fire in two ranks at short range and three ranks at long range, while crossbows (inc RXBs) can shoot in two ranks at long range.

Doesn't make a whole lot of difference, to be honest. They are still overpriced.

Scythe
14-06-2005, 16:19
That last paragraph; It's to stop having units of say, 20 Dark Elf Repeater Crossbow men in 4 Ranks shooting 40 shots a turn and then having +4/5 Combat Resolution when fighting. Making a very hard unit to kill without something bigger than, say, 20 Chaos Knights. :roll:
It's to stop power gaming, unfortunately, many people just deploy in a line and then rank up to the same effect...
It does stop all of that sort of thing to an extent, anyway.


Asur though... they get to fire in 2 Ranks... why? They have bows and aim upwards - HANG ON A SECOND! Brettonian Archers have Bows! They can aim upwards too! Stupid rule...

That rule is long gone... HE archers just fire in a single rank... which is part of why they suck so much (the other reason their rediculess high pts cost).

Still, I agree with your points to prevent ranked units to fire with 4+ ranks, but in general firing 2 ranks instead of 1 should not be that unbalancing in my opinion.

Besides, I do that trick with my DE crossbowmen all the time. Deploy on a hill if possible in 2 ranks, and spend a turn before the expected charge to reform in 4x4 or 4x5. Stand and shoot, +3 ranks, +1 banner, +1 high ground, a good chance for outnumbering and 4+ armour save due shields. Very effective.

edit: Just saw your post Avian. I agree it doesn't help making bows that more effective (HE archers remain a rip of etc), but it makes units less spread out I think, which reduces the vulnerability of archers a bit (and your options to deploy are not so limited by your ranged unts).

anarchistica
14-06-2005, 22:05
Longbow was good don't get me wrong but I must pee on it's holy fire: it couldn't touch steel plate, unless wielded by an absolute hulk it just wouldn't penetrate. Archers were for H-T-H with a mud tag team pal.
As i said:

-Longbow: 18-26", S4, -1S penalty vs. heavy/full plate armour

They could touch it though...while glancing it. ;)


Not all crossbows were made equal - there were heavier and lighter ones with different levels of pull (and thus differences in velocity -> range and penetration).
Well i'm going from the most common crossbow, the one with the iron thingie where you placed your foot in when reloading (:p) and the lighter windup ones.


As for mounted crossbowmen, they were used by the 15th century German and Italian armies. Presumably they used lighter crossbow that could be actually reloaded while mounted.
Those crossbows were quite different from most crossbows in WFB. They're more like the crossbow pistol from Mordheim or that Mengil Manhide has or the 'crossbows that count as bows' used by the Birdmen of Catrazza. These were little more than bows that could be pre-loaded (sort of a derringer principle).

Griefbringer
15-06-2005, 09:07
I am agreeing with your view on the crossbows used by such mounted crossbowmen.

BTW. that is also the way WAB Armies of Chivalry treats such light crossbows - effectively the same as bows.

Commissar Vaughn
19-06-2005, 13:41
my only gripe about gunpowder weapons is the amazing ranges availabale. lonbows and crossbows were both good to about 300 yards (30" on the table) handguns were good to about 50 and pistols were good to about 10 yards, so why on the table do empire handguns have a range equal to a modern slr? and why can a medieval pistol fire further than any pistol/revolver/handgun in history? technology going backwards?

apart from that nowt wrong with gunpowde, just dont expect to see me use too much of it.

Griefbringer
19-06-2005, 14:03
I will definitely agree about the excessive range of the pistols - and actually it has grown during the years (back in the 3rd edition it was 6", and with all the normal penalties).

Then again, 1" range would be a tad on the short end - perhaps 4" would be still within realms of playability.

Cheesejoff
19-06-2005, 19:13
Or maybe give them -1 to hit at long range...and beef them up in combat too balance it out.

Lordmonkey
19-06-2005, 21:35
I think guns and other blackpowder weapons are about right. You must remember that although the Warhammer world is inspired by history, it is NOT history. If it were exactly the same, there would be nothing sparkly and shiny about it, would there? So a handgun can fire 7 miles if the loremasters at GW so wish.

Griefbringer
20-06-2005, 22:33
Or maybe give them -1 to hit at long range...and beef them up in combat too balance it out.

Beefing up pistols in close combat? Like they weren't pretty stonking good already!

amagi
20-06-2005, 23:46
Personally I think the dragon should be even rarer but even more powerfull (gimme all you got archaon). Dragons should be like Lord+1 lvl characters, and not bad mages either, but oppinion differs :p I agree completely. Dragons should be more powerful and should probably have some levels of magic.
I'd suggest having two categories though--not as complicated as 5th ed. but it still allows having really powerful dragons without making dragons in general too rare.

So there'd be a Greater Dragon that's stronger than the current one and has magic.
And a Lesser/younger Dragon similar in power to the current one or a bit weaker even.
Incidentally, I hate the fact that most dragons are "sleeping" in the background story. I don't see the point. Wouldn't the WH world be more interesting with dragons? They'd still be just as rare in the game.

Freak Ona Leash
21-06-2005, 00:04
There were some rules published a while ago that were 5th Ed.-esque. They had blue dragons, green dragons, red dragons and black Dragons rules. Also, they had rules for the different level of dragon, Dragon, Great Dragon and Emperor Dragon. An Emperor Dragon hurts, thats all I can say.

Scythe
21-06-2005, 12:37
It would be nice to see the different colors of dragons back rule wise. Even if it doesn't add that much gamewise, it adds character...

Freak Ona Leash
21-06-2005, 12:41
I can only find the rules in one place and I believe it violates IP so I can post it where everyone can see it. ;)

Griefbringer
22-06-2005, 09:18
Back in 3rd edition Dragons used to be potentially very nasty - basically you had no less than six different levels of them, and the stronger dragons would also be wizards!

Kjell
22-06-2005, 20:53
Oh, how I would love for the different colours of dragons to come back... Well, there technically are four kinds (regular, black, forest and Chaos) but blue and white are nowhere to be seen. Ironic thing is, HE dragons are all blue dragons. :p

I really wish that cold and lightning damage were included a lot more, too. Currently very few attacks do cold damage (one Dark spell, the Lore of Ice available to a grand total of one special character and the yetis) and none really do lightning damage. Yeah, there are the Celestial spells but that's about it. Right now it's down to the name of the spell. The Warp Lightning spell is not real lightning even though it is a bolt and no matter what Dragon Ogres might think. :rolleyes:

Scythe
23-06-2005, 13:56
Oh, how I would love for the different colours of dragons to come back... Well, there technically are four kinds (regular, black, forest and Chaos) but blue and white are nowhere to be seen. Ironic thing is, HE dragons are all blue dragons. :p


Which all seem to breathe fire for some very strange reason..... :eyebrows:

Tiberius Frost
25-06-2005, 02:22
I have a very nice red High Elf dragon, thank you...
Yea, I've often wondered about why they got rid of different colours of dragons. I don't think I'd much like spell-casting dragons, or dragons available to _every_ army in the game again, but a bit of flavour would be nice.

PS: Knybody who remembers the old dragon-lightning rules knows they were pretty lousy, and kinda dumb. It would be better if they just used the flame template like all the other dragons.

Squirrel
25-06-2005, 09:22
They do kinda still have different coloured dragons...DE have a Black one and WE have a Green one...

Unsure if the HE one is supposed to be white or blue(maybe just generic) but If i remember correctly during the war of the beard they were level one mages and could use the lore of fire...

Also Chaos have the multicoloured chaos dragon...

They all have diferent breath weapons and such so adds a little flavour to the game.

Brucey...

Darmon
25-06-2005, 17:20
Which all seem to breathe fire for some very strange reason..... :eyebrows:
The Black Dragon breaths acid, and I believe the chaos Dragon breaths some kind of corrosive gas...

Scythe
25-06-2005, 22:22
The Black Dragon breaths acid, and I believe the chaos Dragon breaths some kind of corrosive gas...

I was refering to all high elf dragons being blue/white, but still breathing fire (a red dragons breath basically) instead of lighting or wathever.


They all have diferent breath weapons and such so adds a little flavour to the game.

Hmm, most of them either S4 or S2 -3 save, with some extremely minor details (like an automatic panic test instead of a leadership test to allow movement). Some more flavour would be not a bad thing.

Imho, some color dependant advantages wouldn't be to bad for my taste. Like a red dragon having +1 S, a blue one +1 A or something like that (maybe as an upgrade costing an extra hero slot?)

Or do something with magic level. Dragons becoming a lvl 1 mage for x pts and a hero slot, and the lore depending on the color of the dragon (red=fire, blue=heavens, white=ice, black=shadow/death etc).

Lordmonkey
25-06-2005, 23:14
Or do something with magic level. Dragons becoming a lvl 1 mage for x pts and a hero slot, and the lore depending on the color of the dragon (red=fire, blue=heavens, white=ice, black=shadow/death etc).

Hmmm... Actually thinking about the armies that can have dragons, it wouldn't be too bad... the only armies that might abuse this could be V.C. due to extra power dice generation, since they can already mount a spellcaster on a dragon. I think it would work if it costed an extra hero slot.



Imho, some color dependant advantages wouldn't be to bad for my taste. Like a red dragon having +1 S, a blue one +1 A or something like that (maybe as an upgrade costing an extra hero slot?)


It's a nice idea. I wouldn't go as far as to impose a hero slot, maybe a heavy points toll, but nothing more. At the end of the day though, im a player who avoids allowing such a beast to gain its own points worth on the battleifeld... theres only so much a dragon can kill, and its often less than it paid to be on the battleifeld in the first place.

Scythe
25-06-2005, 23:26
Hmmm... Actually thinking about the armies that can have dragons, it wouldn't be too bad... the only armies that might abuse this could be V.C. due to extra power dice generation, since they can already mount a spellcaster on a dragon. I think it would work if it costed an extra hero slot.


Well, Zombie Dragons aren't really known for their great intellect, so I think you could easily state that such dragons can't be spellcasters... unless it concerns a vampire dragon.... ;)

Acctually, I did some rules some years ago to improve dragons under 6th edition a bit; I still had the word document on my laptop, so if you're interested. Maybe a bit overpowered (I also changed the basic profile quite a bit, but the general idea was to make dragons more like in previous editions).

edit: hmm can't seem to upload the file, just do it this way then:

Dragon

Dragons may be chosen as mounts for the following characters: Dark Elf Highborn, High Elf Prince, Wood Elf Lord. They take up an additional hero slot and an additional rare slot. Dragons may only be fielded in 3000 pts battles or more.

M WS BS S T W I A Ld
Dragon 6 7 4 6 6 7 3 6 8
Points: 350

Special Rules: Fly, Large Target, Terror, Scaly Skin (3+), Breath Attack

A Dragon’s Breath Attack depends on its color. Different kinds of Dragons have different kinds of Breath Attacks. Choose one color limited by your race from the list below:

Red Dragon (any race, also called Fire Dragons)
Red Dragons breathe fire. This attack uses the standard breath template. Hits are resolved at S4, and any unit taking at least 1 casualty from the breath attack must take an immediate panic test.
Blue Dragon (High Elves, also called Lightning or Sky Dragons)
Blue Dragons breathe bolts of electricity. This is treated as a ranged attack with a range of 24”. The dragon fires D6 S5 -2 save shots. Use the standard dragons BS to roll to hit.
White Dragon (High Elves, also called Ice Dragons)
White Dragons breathe Ice. Place the standard breath template. Hits are resolved at S3. Any unit taking at least one casualty from this attack moves, marches and charges at half its normal movement rate next turn.
Green Dragon (Wood Elves, also called Forest Dragons)
Green Dragons breath noxious and toxic fumes. Use the standard breath template to determine hits. Hits are resolved at S2, with no armour saves allowed. In addition, Green Dragons may fly trough and in forests.
Black Dragons (Dark Elves)
Black Dragons breathe corrosive acid. Use the standard breath template to determine hits. Hits are resolved at S3, with a -3 armour save modifier.
Yellow Dragons (High Elves, also called Sand or Gold Dragons)
Yellow Dragons breathe Sand. Place the standard breath template. Hits are resolved at S2, with a -2 armour save modifier. Any unit taking at least one casualty form this attack moves, marches and charges at half its normal movement rate next turn.
Purple Dragons (Dark Elves, also called Shadow Dragons)
Purple Dragons entangle their enemies with shadowy webs. Place the standard breath template. Hits are resolved at S2. Any unit taking at least one casualty moves, marches and charges at ¼ its normal movement rate next turn.
Brown Dragons (Wood Elves, also called Wood or Beast Dragons)
Brown Dragons can vomit balls of poisoned slime. This is treated as a ranged attack with a range of 18”. The Dragon fires D6 S4 -2 save poisoned shots. Use the standard dragons BS to roll to hit.

Options:
- Dragons may be a lvl 1 spellcaster at +50 pts and one additional hero slot. Red Dragons use the lore of fire, Blue Dragons the lore of heavens, Black Dragons the Lore of Death, Green Dragons the lore of life, Yellow Dragons the lore of light, Purple Dragons the lore of shadows, Brown Dragons the lore of beasts, and White Dragons the lore of ice (from the Kislev book).
- Dragons may be upgraded to an ancient dragon, with effects and pts cost varying with color. An ancient dragon uses up an additional hero slot.

Ancient Dragon benefits:
Red Dragon 40 pts +1 Strength
Blue Dragon 25 pts +1 Attack
White Dragon 25 pts 2+ Scaly Skin save, 6+ Ward save
Green Dragon 80 pts +1 Toughness
Black Dragon 30 pts +2 WS, +2 I
Yellow Dragon 35 pts 5+ Ward save
Purple Dragon 25 pts -1 to hit in close combat, 6+ Ward save
Brown Dragon 30 pts +1 Wound

Lordmonkey
26-06-2005, 01:44
Those are pretty cool Scythe, I like the fact that they are balanced yet enjoyable and interesting. It's a lot more like 5th and previous editions when dragons had some character about them. These days they've had to be toned down because of balance - not everyone got to have an emperor dragon, and when they did they were pretty much forced to take one or be crushed - dragonhammer, if you like.
As far as the breath attacks go, they seems really nice and balanced, as well as characterful. I think that, even with 80pts, a toughness 7 green dragon that can fly through woods is a bit too hard to kill. Also, dragons with ward saves are a bit too powerful, IMHO. I like that you've assigned each dragon to a different lore of magic - forces them to remain in character.

Cigaro
26-06-2005, 21:02
Some armies need boomsticks though. Look at CD and Empire.

Freak Ona Leash
26-06-2005, 21:28
Me and Kjell know the real rules for dragons ;) Mind you, rules for dragons were published by GW, but if you cant find them on your own, me and Kjell might give you help ;)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
26-06-2005, 21:38
Well, first up, it's a fantasy game, so please don't worry about the realism too much, okay?

Also, the different tend to reflect different periods of warfare.

Bretonnian is obviously medieval, Dogs of War tend to show a Renaissance flair, and the Empire is more akin to the Napoleonic era, when Blackpowder first started coming into it's own.

Some people, like my friend Lol, don't like Guns in fantasy, so he doesn't use them as a personal choice.

Sadly, a lot of people will take Handguns over Crossbows due to a perceived gaming advantage. Which is quite gay really.

Eversor
26-06-2005, 21:56
<snip> Dogs of War tend to show a Renaissance flair, and the Empire is more akin to the Napoleonic era, when Blackpowder first started coming into it's own.
:chrome: Uhm. Uhm. So gunpowder weapons didn't "come into their own" until the 19:th century? :rolleyes:

In fact, the Empire is very much a late midieval/rennaissance army.

b4d0m3n
27-06-2005, 09:05
Which is quite gay really.

Yeah, that's like, so homo. :eyebrows: Cut it the crap out.

On topics, I enjoy guns in my Fantasy. I mean, not every army needs them, but they sure as Hell make a lot of noise. And that, friends, can only be a good thing.

PBGhost
27-06-2005, 09:10
Sadly, a lot of people will take Handguns over Crossbows due to a perceived gaming advantage. Which is quite gay really.

So the gun tried to have sex with you or what? :eyebrows:

Anyway, on topic, I feel that guns are fine but longbows/crossbows need a buff. They do very little IMO.

EDIT: A resounding 29.53% of people want a pony. :rolleyes: :D

Scythe
27-06-2005, 10:01
Those are pretty cool Scythe, I like the fact that they are balanced yet enjoyable and interesting. It's a lot more like 5th and previous editions when dragons had some character about them. These days they've had to be toned down because of balance - not everyone got to have an emperor dragon, and when they did they were pretty much forced to take one or be crushed - dragonhammer, if you like.
As far as the breath attacks go, they seems really nice and balanced, as well as characterful. I think that, even with 80pts, a toughness 7 green dragon that can fly through woods is a bit too hard to kill. Also, dragons with ward saves are a bit too powerful, IMHO. I like that you've assigned each dragon to a different lore of magic - forces them to remain in character.

Well, I wrote them some time ago, and never tried them out, so they probably are not perfect. I gave the green dragon +1T because I run out of ideas really... there might be a better solution indeed. I don't concider the ward save that much of a problem. After all, they are quite limited (5+ at best), altough maybe a bit cheap for a T6 7W creature. Greater daemons also get ward saves, and they are stronger as dragons in most aspects....

But I have the feeling we're getting a little of topic....


Me and Kjell know the real rules for dragons Mind you, rules for dragons were published by GW, but if you cant find them on your own, me and Kjell might give you help

You don't have a link or something do you? Sorry, I'm just lazy at the moment... ;)


EDIT: A resounding 29.53% of people want a pony.

You DON'T want a pony???

:p

Freak Ona Leash
27-06-2005, 12:40
Uh, yyeah...the link. Well, it violates IP horibly so I dont know if I should post it.

Dante
27-06-2005, 13:36
Please, start another topic on Dragons or whatever, atleast don´t discuss it here, this topic is on guns... :cool:

Griefbringer
27-06-2005, 15:11
Uh, yyeah...the link. Well, it violates IP horibly so I dont know if I should post it.

You mean the ones from 5th edition bestiary book? I think that anyone really wanting those rules will be able to buy that book second hand for a couple of coins.

anarchistica
27-06-2005, 15:56
Well, first up, it's a fantasy game, so please don't worry about the realism too much, okay?
That's like saying the Warhammer world would be fine with 0 gravity and toxic air. Of course it's a game, but with a world so similar to ours the rules should at least make some sense, if not a whole lot.


the Empire is more akin to the Napoleonic era, when Blackpowder first started coming into it's own.
LOL! Yeah, Empire armies are 70% handgunners with some big pikemen units, a cannon batteries and some light cavalry.

It's not like blackpowder was invented in the 9th century and dictated the way armies were fielded after the 15th century. ;)

Lady Bastet
27-06-2005, 16:15
I think people are forgetting the role of magic here- from Balthasar Gelt's fluff-

Balthasar quite popular with the Alchemists' Guild, and even among the Engineers, who benefited from his research into new types of black powder.

see ;)


That's like saying the Warhammer world would be fine with 0 gravity and toxic air.

Why not? Would still make more sense than 40k! :D