"Bowfire reconsidered?" Topic

Ok, I am recently back gaming with MA along with my two sons. Oldest son is painting up two 120AP armies Wood Elf and Dwarf. All of us like the rules and the flavor of the game. However, I have posted before about a few things I'd like to see tweaked. Bowfire is one of them.

I believe it was Chipco's Fantasy rules (another set I loved) that had demoralization as a result. It made for a -1 to your Attack factor and if a 2nd Demoralization occurred you also would be driven back and inch or two. Third one killed you. I wonder if this was used how would it affect play. Since 'Enhance' and 'Rapid Fire' are some pretty nasty options maybe not too much? You could also have each supporting unit of archers provide an additional +1 to the attack. Then, I could easily rationalize a unit being destroyed on one shot. I'm probably going to create a chart and try it out.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

John

Haven't seen the MA rules, and/or played them, but the results sound fairly good to me, as far as game mechanics go, especially the demoralization and being driven back combo.

The official rules have only a kill or no effect as results. I had a Wood Elf army that shot up two different enemies in two different games. I like to win but it just felt like the results were way too deadly. I prefer to think of most bow fire as being disruptive in nature.

Thanks,

John

Sounds good, but maybe three levels is too much to track in MA? Two might work better – demoralized (-1 Attack), then dead.

I'm flexible. I need to try it out to get a solid feel for the change. I just think the one shot dead is way too effective.

Thanks,

John

IMO an archer with Shoot II is no more deadly than a Light Infantry with 2 boosts to it's Fight Score.
The archer costs one less point, but also has 1" less move, and dies much quicker.
So unless you are saying all things being equal archers are not as efficient as warriors your stance sounds like sour grapes. Maybe the Dwarves need to change tactics rather than change the rules.

I thought the same as you about the Black Sea Pirates "rifled weapons" rule until I thought out the math.

It is more deadly since it can fire at range. If enhanced the unit can become death machines. Also, I'm the one who objected and I had the Elf army. 2 Cavalry shooter stands and 4 infantry all with shooter II. It was like Hmg's were firing. I could have a effective chance of killing Monsters and Characters too.

Thanks,

John

John,
I agree with you. The same thing for artillery. No good reason that a "battery" of scorpios should completely kill a unit at this scale. One consideration is giving all units a 5+ save vs shooting. I definitely like Chipco's take on it.

Yeah, we're on the same page. I just am not certain till I get a few games in on exactly what we'll adopt. Should a unit take 3 hits, 2 hits or 3 hits just on Characters and Monsters? Should they recoil if they take 2 hits? Will doing this unbalance things? All I am certain of is that bowfire now is broken.

Thanks,

John

Hmmm, no further discussion? OK, it seems that the game will not evolve. Oh well, it still kicks grass for Fantasy but I will not be using it for Ancients.

Yea, as a potential customer for MA, I've been watching this thread since it started, and was a little surprised that it stalled.

Im sure someone will be along to comment shortly.

Well, Mike may still chime in. MA doesn't seem to have a lot of in depth chatter. However, looking at the number of topics here at TMP for MA you'll see pretty constant discussion going on here. The forum is pretty dead. That's why i started posting here instead.

The problem and solution as I see it is that fans can discuss what house rules/fixes they have found that work for MA and implement them. The downside is that I'm doubtful how much official recognition they may get.

I like the rules. They are a massive step forward from HOTT. However, they really do need some tweaks and additions to make them top tier. That's why i have been talking so much about the tings I'd like to see changed.

Thanks,

John

I'm still a way aways from having armies ready, so don't have practical comments yet to help on this, just musings. But I am interested in following how this goes.

Ok, well.. I'm back :)

Ah, the topic of bowfire. John, I see where you are coming from and I have been expirenced both types of results. We have playtested this for along time. Is bowfire deadly, yes. Is it overpowered? I don't think so. Let me explain.

Archers are pretty weak units. The only thing they have is ranged attacks. In most cases, they have one chance to hit you before they are charged(if that is your opponet's tactics), if they miss, they are usually dead. They key is the tactics. As an archer stand you want to have more than one shot and as the target, you want to take out the archer or stay out of range.

I created an all archer (Robin Hood)army to test with David to see if that would be an uber army. Against his Dark Elves, I lost. Why? #1. He mostly stayed out of range, split me up and picked me off. #2. I rolled some crappy die in some key points.

I am not saying that bowfire is not powerful and deadly, it is. But I think it should be. The same could be said for Magic. Before I left for a job a week ago, Jason and I were playing Pirates vs Orcs. My spellcaster wiped out 30% of his army on one turn with the luckiest rolls ever..

Also, as far as saves, Special units like General, Horde, Scout, Monstrous, Swarm and Spellcaster all have 5+ saves against shooting attacks.

We are working at keeping Mighty Armies a fun, fast paced game. Is it perfect? No… but we are trying :)

RebelMike

Ok, let me recount our experiences. I had an Elf army. I had two Cavalry units with Archery II. I also had 4 or 5 bow foot units with the same. I was deployed at the edge of a wood. with the foot units. I was mainly non moving at that point. I rolled a 5 one turn and a 6 the next. I was able to enhance @ 4 units each turn. That meant I could kill even nasty units on a 5 or 6 and I did. I killed 4 units in two turns. I won two games back to back quite readily. Perhaps this wouldn't have been quite as nasty if we had been playing larger games?

Thanks,

John

Mike,
Glad you're back! My experiences have been quite different. In almost every game I've played archers and artillery wipe out two or three units quite easily. Forgetting history and only going from a gaming perspective, I feel that the game's focus is about massed combat. The focus should be on the clash if shields more than ranged combat.  Even artillery has it too easy to wipe out units. 
I just picked up Dark Elves and Pirates and both look very promising. The various pirate traits will be finding their way into my Renaissance lists very soon.

Well, my son is flocking his Wood Elf army now. So, I guess we'll be getting more games in the next few days. I'll see first hand again how deadly bows can be. I have a fantasy Egyptian and Indian armies almost ready to try out. My Dark Elves are still unpainted. Maybe the Orcs should come out to play!

Thanks,

John

Yes Orcses!!! I have about forty more to paint and I'll have all my orcs ready to go. We play 28mm but using GW's modular trays and put between eight to ten models, filling the trays. Beastmen, goblins, Bretons, elves, dwarves, skeleton undead, Chaos warriors, and vampire beastlord undead to follow.
Breton longbow will be shooter 2 and longranged, support of 1.

Wow, that should look really impressive! We use our 28mm stuff for Armies of Arcana. Yeah, Orcs are pretty cool. I have a mix of BRF, Partha and Grenadier.

Thanks,

John

I've had similar experiences as John when I've played with/against missile heavy armies.

I've thought a lot about this and one idea I have is to run shooting just like a group combat.

Shooting I = FS 2
Shooting II = FS 3
Shooting III = FS 4
Art I = FS 4
Art II = FS 5

Supporting units would add 1 to the total

Shooter vs target unit or group
If the shooter loses nothing happens
If the shooter wins but doesn't double, the target is recoiled
If the shooter wins and doubles, the target is destroyed ( normal saves still apply)

I haven't tested this out at all, so I'm not sure how much it'll effect the game or if it's even worth testing out.

Just some thoughts.

Well, my sons and I played again a week ago. I had 3 Horse archer units and 4 Foot archer units with long range all with Shooting II. I killed 4 units the first turn. My sons army hid for most of the rest of the game. The army was very deadly.

Kmfisher, do they recoil their normal move distance or something else? I like how your chart looks.

Thanks,

John

I think maybe 1/2 move back sounds right. It would have to be tested out to see what feels right.

Ok, reread this again. So, if your target was a group and they lose but aren't doubled the WHOLE group falls back 1/2 move?

How is the Defenders score calculated? I don't really see supporting units helping much with bowfire. Plus, since Monsters, Heroes,Heavy infantry, etc. already have a FS of 5+ they would be almost immune to bowfire. I think only the target stand is calculated AND supporting archer units provide a -1 per to the defender.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

John

My initial thought was to have it work exactly like normal combat. The target group would calculate its fighting score just like in a normal combat.

Thinking more on it I could see two possibilities:

1 a single target is chosen

Or

2 the FS of the shooters is calculated like a group

With the first option, I think it'll defeat the idea behind changing how shooting works. It'll allow the shooters to become snipers and cherry pick the most threatening target. I also think it goes against idea of how missile troops were actually used.

I think option two might be the best in this case. The numbers may need some adjustment to find the right balance. In this case a doubled result would destroy d6 stands, just like normal group combat. On average a unit of archers should be able to drive back an average group and on occasion cause a casualty. To me this fits my image of missile troops in combat.

Please keep in mind none of this is tested, and I have no idea how it'll effect the game. Just thinking out loud right now.

Let us know when you test it out. I would like to hear the results!

I agree with Mike. I'd like to see how this plays out. Your concept of how missile troops worked I believe is sound. I think disruption of the battle line causing disorder to the enemy's plan is realistic. Cherry picking is pretty much what archers do now. For us to stay with the rules something has to change.

Thanks,

John

Ok, so are you suggesting to calculate the Fight support of the shooter's whole group, or just of other shooters in the group?
Thanks.
-Edgar

Rebel Minis:
Unfortunately I'm not gonna have much time to game till November, fortunately that gives me time to finish my elves to test it all with. Once I've played a few games I post up my thoughts.

Capt Flash:
I was thinking that the FS of shooters would be the FS of one main shooter, and a +1 for each additional shooter that is in base to base contact with the main shooter. Also each group could only shoot once per turn, this would keep a group from splitting fire.

A group of shooters with shooting II arranged in a block of four

AAAABBBB
CCCCDDDD

would shoot with a FS of 6, 3 for the main shooter A, and +3 for each of the support shooters B, C, and D. If they beat their target then the target is driven back, if they double them then 1d6 units are destroyed.

If anybody feels inclined to please test this out. I'd love to hear other ideas and experiences.

Hmmmmm…….so what would the target FS be and how would you calculate it? Also, I think a -1 to the enemy would be better than a +1. If you are calculating the FS of the entire enemy BG then I'll disagree with you know. Archery simply won't do squat then, especially against tougher units.

Thanks,

John

The FS of the target/target group would be figured out exactly like close combat. The combined total of the first rows FS, plus the support of all the others in the group. Exactly like combat.

An average group of 4 units, being targeted would roughly have a group FS of 8.

Shooting should have some effect, but not dominate play. When I think fantasy warfare and shooting, I think of the scene in 300. "Today we shall fight in the shade." This fits my idea of how effective shooting is in a fantasy setting.

Like I've said previously, none of this has been tested. I've tried to follow the general design principles of Mighty Armies by keeping things simple and intuitive.

I'm glad to see this is generating some discussion.

Re reading a few things a thought occurred to me,

The shooting groups FS would be calculated exactly like a group in combat. Ie Add the FS of the front units, plus +1 support for all others.

The example above would become FS 8. 3 from unit A, 3 from unit B, and 1 each from units C and D.

The idea being to make shooting mechanically similar to close combat.

Actually, Archers have a FS of 2 and support of 1. So it would be the archers have a total FS of 6 vs at least a 6 FS of Light infantry and a FR of 8 or more vs other infantry. Sorry, that makes Bowfire worthless. I like the idea of disruption forcing the enemy back instead of always killing. But what you describe simply won't work.

Perhaps the solution is for Missile units to have a separate MS (Missile skill number)?

It's either something like that or creating a brand new firing chart which includes demoralization/disruption.

Thanks,

John

I think something got lost in posting here.

My idea was to convert the shooting levels to a FS only for shooting. Shooting units would maintain their FS as is for close combat, but use the FS based on their shooting ability in ranged combat.

An average shooting unit in close combat would be a FS of 2 and a support of 1.

The same unit with shooting II in ranged combat would have a FS of 3 and support of 1.

This weekend I'm going to try to organize this all better and make it a little clearer.

I'm not sure that units should support a defender receiving missile fire.

Yeah, I am a little confused on the support as well.

I'd say no group support to target unit. Maybe randomize which unit gets hit? Justifiable as while one target was the main priority another unit suffered the most damage in the hustle and bustle of combat?