Longbow vs armour

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Longbow vs armour

    The longbow have for me always been an anti armour weapon. Ever since i read about Agincourt and the defeat of the French Knights I've always had a fascination of longbows. For me the small arrows have always been symbol of the fall of the big knights.
    I know this is the-ninth-age and not real life, yet it hurts my heart that longbows are S3. no extras against armour.

    My suggestion would be to change to rule to either be:
    Add Lethal strike to the weapon - (There is a possibility to add the same restriction here that also goes for spears so essentially the same rule)
    Add Any roll to wound of 6 will have the AP(6) rule
    or simply add AP(1) to the weapon. -

    To my knowledge only two armies are allowed to use longbows HE and KoE. Neither armies are armies that will be overpowered by this addition to the rule.

    I know we might hit SE territory with the AP(1) rule which is also why I added the possibilities for the other rules. Personally I think it could work well if both spears and longbows had the same rule.

    First of all the units of the two armies that carries long bows will need a price increase, although depending on the chosen rule from 1-3 points.
    Second of all I think this will make Elven Archers and Bowmen more attractive, something I think they are not today. Archers and Bowmen was rare visitors at the gaming tables in 8th ed, at least in my gaming area.
    Thirdly S3 shooting is currently only able to pick away chaff. Adding a slight anti armor effect will make them more versatile, giving a wider range of list building possibilities without being over the top.
  • Hmm.. I'm not quite sure if I like your suggestions. I think I rather find it disturbing that AP is too generously given. Dark elf crossbows get AP(1) when standard S4 crossbows do not? Not really logical.

    But well, I'm not saying those rules are bad, maybe they are needed for balance. But fluff wise I'm not a fan of AP creep ;)
    Revere the ancestors, obey your king, bear your arms with pride, fear no foe, hate the Greenskin, mistrust the Elf, and you can do no wrong.
  • You've got a point there. I guess I'm a bit too warhammer influenced. In my world bows are weapons of puny elves as opposed to heavy weapons like crossbow and handgun ;) .

    But a crossbow does have higher penetration than a bow in real life, or not? Then crossbow should also get AP if long bows get it? And then, to set it apart from handguns, which are only viable over crossbows because of AP, handguns should also increase their AP :P
    Revere the ancestors, obey your king, bear your arms with pride, fear no foe, hate the Greenskin, mistrust the Elf, and you can do no wrong.
  • Riismanden wrote:

    The longbow have for me always been an anti armour weapon. Ever since i read about Agincourt and the defeat of the French Knights I've always had a fascination of longbows. For me the small arrows have always been symbol of the fall of the big knights.
    I know this is the-ninth-age and not real life, yet it hurts my heart that longbows are S3. no extras against armour.
    One of those modern fairy tales about medieval warfare...the oh so deadly long bow as weapon of mass destruction and ruin of the armoured knights. Especially concerning Agincourt for further reading

    Peter N. Jones: "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." in "Materials Characterization", Ausg. 29, S. 111-117

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

    some experiments:



    Result: Longbows couldn`t normaly pierce the typical plate armour (set with gambeson) of the early 15th.(you may still hit some weak points). Even heavy chain-mail offered some protection against the arrows of the longbow. The later full plate armour (maximillian style) of the knights and men-at-arms of the later 15th. / early 16th. offered even a reasonable protection against the early handguns.
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • I think that the sources presented, which I have read previously, all suggests that Longbow arrows was armour piercing except for the best class of armour and plate armour. It was able to penetrate the armour protecting the limbs, weaker versions of heavy armour etc. For me this would be describing the effect of AP(1), or to wound rolls of 6 (hitting a limb) having an armour ignoring ability.
    I agree that the crossbow the should have S4 (more energy) and AP(1) and plus 1 to hit on short range, on the other hand they should only be able to shoot every second turn (they do have unwieldy), which was the reason that the longbow was used more often on the battlefield compared to sieges and vice versa with crossbows. So it is hard to translate real life into 9th age.
  • Well, I don't think that sticking to historical sources really helps. Also Roman Pilums were quite anti-armour, as well as some crossbows that fired bullets in some middle europe areas. Firslty used for hunting, then in combat. So every army using spears/javelins/crossbows could use this sources to their advantage.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • Oh yeah, basing the rule set in reality would require an extensive over haul in multiple places in my opinion and pretty much needs to be avoided completely and ignored for this game.

    Just for kicks here is a list of things that would change in my opinion:

    Crossbows, especially the ones with unwieldy, would "realistically" be something like str 3 or maybe 4, AP (4) at close ranges.

    Short bows would have to have quick to fire and multiple shots of some flavor.

    Long bows would have extended range and perhaps AP 1 at half range.

    Spears/Halberds would be the ultimate weapons in the first round of combat regardless of target, and if combat was won by the side with the spears, shorter weapons would continue to be at disadvantage for successive rounds until a combat was won, representing the advantages of an unbroken spear wall. The reach advantage would have to be accounted for in a bonus to ws or initiative or both.

    Holding a shield in one hand would reduce your potential AP by 1 (representing a minor decrease in strength) in addition to parry. It would also have to provide a very large armor bonus to smaller ranged weapons up to and including crossbows.

    Great Weapons would have to be changed in identity from big swords to something like Lucerne hammers, and would probably be completely ineffectual against massive monsters. Spears would probably be the only thing you could fight a giant with. That and ballistas.

    Lances would only be allowed to be used in a single charge and unless the enemy was broken on impact the lance would be discarded.

    WS bonuses would have to be handed out to all the monstrous infantry in the game to represent the supreme advantage reach represents in armed combat.

    Using WS to defend against monstrous attacks from things like dragons would honestly have to be discarded. It doesn't matter how good you are at the finer points of sword play if a Giant just flattens you with a tree trunk lol. A roll of 1 on the "to hit roll" would represent a successful dodge, lightly armored infantry would dodge on a roll of 1 or 2.

    People in plate armor would have reduced movement, and in combats lasting longer than an entire turn (2 combat phases) would be unable to pursue broken opponents due to fatigue unless mounted or undead.

    The list goes on and on lol.

    The weapons and armor are just approximations that serve to create an enjoyable game.