Handguns vs crossbows - ideas to make handguns a better choice

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Unwieldy for handguns makes a certain sense if you consider them to fire by rotation in deep blocks, as was historically introduced by Maurice of Nassau. Moving such an arrangement and getting it set up in a new place would take a bit of time, I suppose-
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    Unwieldy for handguns makes a certain sense if you consider them to fire by rotation in deep blocks, as was historically introduced by Maurice of Nassau. Moving such an arrangement and getting it set up in a new place would take a bit of time, I suppose-
    It's a question of scale. Turns aren't 5 or 10 minutes of activity. They must represent at least 30 minutes if not an hour. At which point that unwieldiness isn't really significant.

    And it's worth pointing out that Maurice of Nassau's system actually decreased the size of infantry units to make them more mobile.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Idum wrote:

    @DarkSky this second option sounds quite nice actually! Considering unwieldy would be removed in this case (or changed to fit your description), this would be an elegant way to improve the initial mobility of these units, thus reducing the gap crossbow/handgun since both would then be able to outreach weapons & spells with range 24".
    After the first volley though, each movement or shoot would have to be thought out one turn in advance: this might as well be a further tactical depth, or simply players would move these units even less once they have shot once.
    Im sorry but its the worst idea ever.
    totally impossible to play with and way too easy to play against.
    unless you boost the dammage output to the extreme!
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!
  • How about a series of changes to better define the Crossbow & Handguns roles in the army:

    Light Infantry new option:
    Muskateers:
    This unit may replace it's Crossbows for Handguns and gain Wall of Lead - X pts/model

    Wall of Lead:
    This Model may always take the Stand and Shoot Charge Reaction regardless of the distance between it and it's Target. When this Model performs a Stand and Shoot Charge Reaction it ignores the To-hit penalties for Soft Cover, Hard Cover, Long Range, & Stand and Shoot.


    Marksmens Banner:
    R&F models in the Bearer's unit gain Accurate.


    Ready! Aim! Fire!
    Target loses Unwieldly.


    The intent of these changes would be to cement Crossbows as the go-to for longer range gunline style gameplay and make Handguns the close range fire support for advancing Parent Units.

    The Change to Ready! Aim! Fire! Is to use it to keep Light Infantry more accurate while moving with their parent unit into engagement range. Restricting this to an Order limits the ability to abuse it for "avoidance" gameplay since EoS can only issue so many orders in a given list.

    Marksmens Banner now takes the role of the old Ready! Aim! Fire! By giving Accurate. This was done primarily because it's current version would become redundant with handguns.

    Of course these thoughts are just my two cents.
    Cheers!

    Edit: I didn't realize the name Wall of Lead was already taken as rule for a different army so obviously it would need a different name.
    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated June 1, 2019
  • Guys I have two points:

    Regardless of which solution we end up recommending, I believe we should in addition recommend free or half price command groups. Why? Because it is so damn cool and a lot of us would love it for the fluff alone! And why not? It seems like the primary argument against it is that it does not really matter. Well, I suppose that if something will make half of us happy and make the other half don't care, then it is a win-win change :D

    It is, of course, a condition for this change that the free or half price command groups does not make the units more expensive, or remove the real fix we propose to this unit.



    In addition, I would like to address the argument against bayonets. I do not agree that bayonets would damage the immersion of the game. I have a lot of different GW handgunners, and I have seen other people using models from other companies as well. It is clear that there is no single era of handguns being used for inspiration on all these models, but rather different era's and widely different looking handguns. Basically, the modellers cared about what looked cool, rather than some specific age of history. Some of the GW models even have bayonets!

    It is true that once bayonets became integrated and perfected, it historically removed or lessoned the need for a number of close combat weapons, since you now had one-type-fits-all weapons instead. But that did not happen over night. There was an era between the introduction of the first crude bayonets and the implementation of "modern" bayonets in most European armies, where bayonets existed on the battlefield at the same time as more primitive weapons such as pikes. Depending on your definition, this era was 80-200 years long. It could easily be imagined that EoS is in such a transformative era and uses primitive bayonets alongside other weapons.

    We can dismiss bayonets with rules-based or playstyle arguments, but I do not agree we can dismiss them with immersion arguments.
  • How this change in balance between handgun and crossbow that are proposed here fit to other shooting weapon, especially bows?

    Spam of cheap archers (like goblin) shooting with volley fire ?
    Repeater crossbow ? - Crossbow that shoot 2 times without unwieldy but only s3?
    Sylvan longbow ? - AP 1, Quick to fire (with elves better bs and movement) and s4 on short range with ability to shot with volley fire.
    Throwing weapons especially on skirmish and with quick to fire ability?
    Infernal dwarves special weapons ?

    Of course, know that we have a very cheap light infantry, that are fine to use in combine with parent/support unit mechanics, but fact is that normal crossbow & handguns are far from be having the same tactical flexibility like bows. I'm not up to with actual trend in dwarves army, but how many times they use shooting units and how many of them are with handgun/crossbow? They have the same problem (handguns have accuracy that make them more expensive).

    I use only crossbowem as main shooting unit, beacause of range, and sometimes small handgunners unit to march with imperial guards to support them wih small fire, s&s but more important to use them as chaff. Making them shot with higher S but lower range & without unwieldy will make them better in that role, but then handgun/crossbow/bow balance will be trash.

    With too low range on handunners and no protection will make them very vulnerably to enemy shooting units (even that with thorowing weapon), and without any change in s&s will be a a invite to crush them in combat if you want bigger unit of them.

    P.S Good to back to this forum :)
  • It's true, handguns and crossbows being unwieldy is a stupid bit of Games Workshop legacy. But it is what it is, and changing it would require reworking the core rules for ranged weapons. Also known as not going to happen before 3.0 at the very earliest.

    As far as I see it, the singular issue that gives crossbows an edge in utility is the way their range is, unlike handguns, just long enough to shoot into the enemy deployment zone on most deployment types. The old Games Workshop legacy rule of giving handguns a bonus to range the first time they shoot would mitigate that. In WFB 6th edition where that was the case, crossbows were still a competitive alternative.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Remove or change unwieldy is not a good idea.
    Lets find a more specific concept for EoS that solve our issue.

    To do this lets play with our specificity: the order.
    Lets create a new order (not avaible for artificier)

    "follow the rythm"
    When a character give this order, the targeted unit and the unit of the marshal that give the order cant move farther than his advanced rate neither make any wheel during movement phase. Those units are not considered to have moved
    for any other rules purpose.

    This would stay EoS specific, we dont touch the core rules;
    And the bonus would be compensated by the drawback to limit move of the giving order unit.

    And for flavour, i think this order would be prety cool, representing the possibility of our battle line to move straigh forward keeping cohesion, but unable to make a complex move, such take care of side threat
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • Casp wrote:

    "follow the rythm"
    So you basically trade Accurate for "Quick To Fire when moving 4'' straight forward". How would this solve anything? Crossbows won't ever use it, because they can fire more effectively from just standing there with "Ready! Aim! Fire". Handguns will use it once, to get in range, then switch to Ready! Aim! Fire!". So basically you invented a rule for one situation and one unit only: Light Infantry with Handguns on the starting player turn 1. There must be better solutions.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Casp wrote:

    "follow the rythm"
    So you basically trade Accurate for "Quick To Fire when moving 4'' straight forward". How would this solve anything? Crossbows won't ever use it, because they can fire more effectively from just standing there with "Ready! Aim! Fire". Handguns will use it once, to get in range, then switch to Ready! Aim! Fire!". So basically you invented a rule for one situation and one unit only: Light Infantry with Handguns on the starting player turn 1. There must be better solutions.
    It will fix the range issue only.
    The restrictions to movement is too much, as they won't be able to support the parent unit that well.
    But the idea of having an order that allows light infantry to make an advance move and count as not having moved is cool.
    That way heavy infantry support units are still better at movement. And light infantry will have to choose between getting accurate and moving into position, thus keeping the difference of x.bows and handguns without xbows being as supperior as they are now.
    Artificers should also have this order.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!
  • First
    i dont trade i keep both order. ;)

    Second;
    It allow you to move and play objective with a parent unit, and staying at 8" from a parent so beeing able to shoot on 3 rank, able to use stand & shoot reaction... maybe OP ? but pretty cool.. so to be tested.

    This rule would really allow what we are looking for: wich is, play our light troops as support unit, without force us, to stay immobile.
    And Tthere isent such a big internal issue between crossbow and handgun. I always prefer crossbow, because its more reliable for facing all matchup possibility. But when i play handgun, i often really satisfy, because the ap 2 also open lots of mathcup.

    So the internal issue is pretty light.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • @Casp
    But the unit itself will have to trade as it can only have on order at a time.
    I think that a 4" move (with allowed wheels), will just slightly be in favor of handguns which is excatly what we need.
    And as you say make us less stationary.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!
  • Smythen wrote:

    But the unit itself will have to trade as it can only have on order at a time.
    Are you sure about this ?
    Its not as i understand rules; For me a character can give a single order, but an unit can receive 2 order.

    About wheel and artificier, yes maybe; its adjustment, to prevent this order to be too powerful.
    Anyway the main drawback will be to force the unit giving order, to also move maximum at advance. So maybe we dont need those additionnal penalty.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • Didn't read the whole thread, sorry.

    My idea would be to make the Handguns stronger penetrators which change the game so that shields and even heavy armour are made inefficient.

    Either +1 Strength at short range,

    Or Penetrating (3) at short range,

    Or even No Armour saves at short range, to keep it simple.

    Somebody can probably mathammer the exact increase in effectiveness, and then choose one that doesn't make them too efficient for their points, but makes them a viable choice compared to Crossbow and Pistol.
  • So many crazy ideas, good ones, bad ones, a whole lot of different special rules, weapon rules and orders were proposed.

    I think light infantry in general is in a really good spot at this time. I still would not take handguns with the current rules. So if i may add an idea myself: why not simply create a point difference between the options, thus adressing the one issue of inferior handguns. Wether increasing Xbow's cost by 1 or deacreasing the handgun's i'm not the person to judge. But i would advise against these extra rules that were proposed.
    Peace
  • baexta wrote:

    So many crazy ideas, good ones, bad ones, a whole lot of different special rules, weapon rules and orders were proposed.

    I think light infantry in general is in a really good spot at this time. I still would not take handguns with the current rules. So if i may add an idea myself: why not simply create a point difference between the options, thus adressing the one issue of inferior handguns. Wether increasing Xbow's cost by 1 or deacreasing the handgun's i'm not the person to judge. But i would advise against these extra rules that were proposed.
    Peace
    While i somewhat agree. I think it will look weird that x-bows cost more. It ruins my idea of immersion with superior technology.
    And there is still the issue with very static gunlines vs the imo more cool slow but mobile combined arms.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Smythen ().

  • Sorry, did not read the whole thread.. But I spotted some nice ideas.

    To keep it simple without adding rules, I would simply remove Unwieldly. It just does not make sense...

    I think the short range bonus on handgun should then be emphasized by adding a +1AP or no S&S malus (in general I find this rule stupid anyway).

    I played a gunline recently, but I think I will drop it just because the opponent can avoit it by staying off range and thus making uninteresting games...