The One Ring
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/

[*] The Reality Check - Archers - by Thrór Clawhammer
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5575		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  The One Ring Community [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:  [*] The Reality Check - Archers - by Thrór Clawhammer
Category: House Rules
Type: Miscellaneous

Article Name: The Reality Check - Archers
Author: Thrór Clawhammer
Description: Improving the reality of archers in your games of LOTRSBG

>>Read Full Article
Author:  KingofRohan888 [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Aswome.

looks really good.
Author:  MacGothmog [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nice work...

Nice addition to everyone who wants to add that extra bit of detail to gaming.

More gaming articles, please...
Author:  hithero [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sorry, but unfortunately this article has many errors.

Fire arrows - are not used against 'human' targets. Also the rules to not take into effect the loss or range or accuracy from a burning arrow and are unlikely to set a man alight. They should also have to remain stationary with a fire nearby to ignite the arrow. The rule would also allow warg riders to use flaming arrows.

High Ground - OK.

Cavalry Archers - this rule will basically allow a horse archer to have free heroic shooting every turn; which is daft as a foot archer would be able to shoot quicker and more accurate than a warrior on horse.

Firing against the Charge - Again, allowing fee heroic shooting and fire twice a round as well? The rules represnt the chance of getting a shot off before contact anyway by the enemy not making contact. Your rule allows a model to shoot at a target an inch away in one move and then allow another shot in the next with the uruk still an inch away. 2 shots at a target who has not moved at all?

Confusion Volleys - can't see this one working, way to powerful, an ok idea but needs amending and playtesting.

Fallen Warriors - OK
Author:  Olofér [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting!
I have often been annoyed that there's no rule for shooting at charging enemies..
Author:  Dorthonion [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would be inclined to agree with Hithero. There are some moments in the films and books that would be nice to recreate but the fairness and practicalities of the game system are such that it would imbalance combat in favour of bow-armed troops.

Height lending extra range - yes, as that is exactly what happens in the real world. Height making you a more difficult target for those below - yes, again that is a known real world fact (and please, no arguments based on gunfire, this is archery, and besides, I am a very competent and experienced shooter).

Fire arrows - for siege work, destroying buildings etc, no issue with that. In battles, the only use was to ignite areas that had been treated with oil or other inflammables to cause confusion and terror among an enemy force, especially one featuring horses. Fire arrows have slightly less range and less accuracy due to the added weight and the uneven aerodynamics caused by the flammable wrapping.

A good effort, and one that can be built upon but playtest to death first, especially against someone very cynical of the notion - if they come to accept it, as some form of compromise, then maybe you have got the balance just right.
Author:  TheBaz1 [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Why wasn't this considered by the proofreaders :?:
Author:  hithero [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
That depends on what the proofreaders job is. The article in itself is well written and presented and good to read, its just that most of the content is flawed or incomplete. For example, I can't see Balrog tripping over a fallen Goblin.
Author:  Thrór Clawhammer [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:26 am ]
Post subject: 
@hithero
I don't understand your comment on firing against the charge. The second shot is only allowed if the first shot hit and killed, and the first shot is only allowed if the opposing player has already declared that he is charging the bowman. Along those lines, your complaint doesn't make sense at all.

I can see sense in your other comments though - and am editing as I type.
Author:  hithero [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Thror -
Turn 4 - an orc moves 6" to within 1" of an archer, you get to shoot.
Turn 5 - orc declares charge, you get another chance to shoot before the orc gets to move!
Turn 5 - you get to shoot another enemy if you kill the orc.

Thats pretty rapid firing there, why should the archer be able to shoot twice with no penalty?

The rules already cater for shooting at charging targets, ie. if they fail to contact, you get to shoot. Being charged should not increase an archers chance of killing the enemy.
Author:  Thrór Clawhammer [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 
Ah... I see what you are getting at. Perhaps "unless the charging model started their move within 3" should be added to the instructions?
Author:  thedarklord [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:10 am ]
Post subject:  Archers
These rules are fairly realistic but i see what hithero is getting at

they are almost giving the archers "supernatural" powers, i think archers should cost more points with these rules included.

thedarklord. :sauron:
Author:  Thrór Clawhammer [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:35 am ]
Post subject: 
The rules have been revamped since hithero read them, so you don't really know what he is getting at.

Remember, these are House Rules, and could even be adopted as Special Rules for scenarios - aka, "the defenders are confident in their stronghold, and have elected to beging firing purely for the purpose of firghtening their enemies. The defenders may fire "Confusion Volleys"

But overall, what you have to remember is that these are House Rules, and you don't have to use them if you don't agree with them.
Author:  thedarklord [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:40 am ]
Post subject: 
I meant to say earlier that these rules are stilll very good but they just needed a little tweak. Its better than what i could think up :sauron:
Author:  Tobold Hornblower [ Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, I wouldn't know about the implications, as I haven't played enough, but I like the ideas, and the articles reads very clearly. I appreciate anyone taking the time to put this sort of thing together. It certainly doesn't come easily to me, and I expect it's the same for most of us. We all have lives (really, I do!), so making the time to put an article together will always be worthy of my respect.

Nice one, Thrór, I enjoyed reading it, and the images it conjured up even more. I think I could well be a fan of more complicated, advanced rules. Then I can pass this hobby off as more than a kid's game. ;)
Author:  Oldie [ Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tobold Hornblower wrote:
Then I can pass this hobby off as more than a kid's game. ;)


How dare you! - Consider yourself locked in the Dungeon for 48 moves being tortured unmercifully by Saurons minions until you are screaming

"It is not a kids game - It is an obscession". :) :)


.
Author:  Lord Seamus of Lamedon [ Mon May 21, 2007 5:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Personally I like them. Although, flaming arrows are a bit unrealistic. "Setting people alight" is not possible with an arrow unless you cover them in oil first (not a bad idea though, catapult some cooking oil over and then start up the barby :twisted: I'm evil for a good player eh?) also, I think that if an archer has fired at a charging enemy they shouldn't shoot in the shooting phase, after all, he'd probably be gathering his nerves and wiping the brown stains off of his armour. Other then that:
(....\............../....)
. \....\........... /..../
...\....\........../..../
....\..../´¯.I.¯`\./
..../... I....I..(¯¯¯`\
...I.....I....I...¯¯.\...\
...I.....I´¯.I´¯.I..\...)
...\.....` ¯..¯ ´.......'
....\_________.•´
.....l-_-_-_-_-_-l
.....l-_-_-_-_-_-l
ROCK ON!
Author:  the director [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
i like most of the things in this article, the only thing i would say is that 1 rule has been missed out which seems pretty obvious. It is easier to shoot something that is closer to you! Trust me i do archery in my spare time it is a lot easier to shoot accuratly at 10 yards then it is at 100. maybe for every 6'' closer a model gets ther eis a -1 on dice score needed to vscore a hit until a maximum of 2 or something
Author:  TheElvenLord [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Although, flaming arrows are a bit unrealistic. "Setting people alight" is not possible...


Actually this is very possible.There have been many recorded cases of flaming arrows being used.Especcially in raids on a town or city.The reason was that normal arrows did no damage to buildings.When fire was attached it could hit a roof,which was the most likely thing to hit.And it would set it alight because the rooves were made of hay(thatched).This would cause mass panic as if people went outside they could be hit by arrows but if they stayed inside they would be burned to death.So this gave civilians and soldiers alike no cover.Also alot of building were built close together and the fire would spread rapidly.

Another advantage was when people were in close formation people would catch alight and the nearby soldiers would back away and this would cause confusion in the ranks.

Conclusion,Flaming arrows WERE used alot and were a very effective weapon.

Hope this helps

TheElvenLord

PS.Nice article by the way
Author:  Valdor [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
TheElvenLord wrote:
Conclusion,Flaming arrows WERE used alot and were a very effective weapon.


They were indeed used a lot, but this was about the fact if an arrow can put a man on fire. Of course, hit a thatched roof and it's on fire, but a person won't catch fire that quickly.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/