I'm ok with the WAY shooting works, just not how weak the bows themselves are. An arrow can kill a man much more easily than a spear would, but spear wielders have a better chance of wounding most of the time.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

with 1/3 bows my archers do turn the tide of the game on a regular basis.

In a PRE british war bow period, archers were not as effective (compared to british war bow) and were not that widely used (compared to the british forces in france).
In the shield wall vs shield wall saxon/viking times what point was a bow?

Once plate armour and good chain mail were invented and shields strengthened the bow lost alot of its performance.

SBG should reflect a balanced field. Not the field of the british war bow. OTHERWISE we would need a shots limit, supply lines and other anoyances.
A bow at range never stood much chance of killing (pre war bow), actually were more effective at fairly close range where the power would take them through the chain mail or find gaps e.g. face

So basically my point is realism is not always fun or appropriate.
Otherwise 40k would be 1 space marine vs 100 guardsmen, 1 land raider would take up too much space,
Otherwise nepolionic games might last a whole day
Otherwise LOTR would be won by the army of the dead ALL THE TIME!

Standard Elf army at 700pts:
Legolas, +/- 66 Wood Elves
25 bow shots

Imagine playing vs a D5 Moria army at this moment with a 75 model limit:
Turn 1: 25 shots, 16 hits, 5 dead.
Turn 2: As above
By the time Goblins reach combat (it takes them about 5 turns at least if elves don't move and more if they move back) you have killed about 25-30, even more. At this point you have 67 models vs 45 and yours are of higher quality. Even a complete noob would win this game.

Now against D6 Army (Usually with about 60 models due to better troops)
Turn 1: 25 shots, 16 hits, 2.5 dead
Again about 4-5 turns of shooting before combat = 10-15 dead (on the higher side if the army includes a lot of D4/5 spearmen)
That leaves you with 66 against about 45-50 - HUGE advantage.


Bows may SEEM weak when used in small numbers, like 5 or 6, but once you reach the proper 1/3 of the force and you build a solid force, then shooting is one of the most influential parts of the game. In many ways people should thank GW for the Shadow Lord because before he appeared the game was very much based on shooting with Hobbits and Elves roaming and destroying everything. SL cuts on shooting slightly, but there are ways to get around him and he can't feature is small point armies too often. If you were to play some big tournaments you'd find out that the bows are as balanced and as good as they should be.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

I have a worked out a 250pt, 500pt, 750pt, 1000pt and 1500p harad army, I have made sure that in each of these armies, 1/3 of them are equipped with bows! Haradrim also have the special rule of 'poison arrows' meaning if you hit a d1, you get a second chance and a re roll, works wonders!

_________________
LOTR Warhammer blog: http://www.ab-miniatures.blogspot.com

Yes, the Shadow Lord is the saving grace of many evil armies- without him the 25+ casualties in many evil armies is a complete reality. I know, I've been there many, many times, and the only time I was able to survive was in the large battles, where I had enough troops that 20 or so casualties didn't really stop the relentless horde. Yes, the bows are effective, plenty effective, no matter how you look at it. They do influence the game, they can win it for you if you are really good at shot application, but they are not unstoppable. Though my personal gripe about shooting is the fact that everyone, from Legolas to your average goblin in Moria who doesn't even know what a bow looks like, has to roll the exact same numbers to make it past an inanimate obstacle. Non sequitor.

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”

I'd say that's well taken care of by the initial hit role. The way I see it, the elf hits the guy on a 3+, and then the second role determines where he places the hit? The second roll has more to do with the cover than the shooter. If that makes any sense.

_________________
http://napoleonicstrategybattlegame.yolasite.com/

@TheEggman- Mmm. Yes, I suppose that the second role could be the determinant of the various 'other factors' that play into shooting.

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”

There's no bad systems, just incorrect usage. Don't waste volley fire on armoured units, use it against scouts or cavalry, aiming for the horses.

_________________
http://www.middle-earth-marauders.blogspot.co.uk/
Tabletop Gaming in London. New members welcome.

Why volley at cavalry? You can hit them normally. Volley at those hiding behind the line eg banners, hornblowers, drummers, cheap 1 wound casters etc and at cheap spear support.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

volley at heroes on horses is useful if the rest of hte force is mounted or if the hero is an uber hero of might like Boromir COTWT otherwise like Gothmog said, you are better off hitting banners, horns, drums and casters or weak heroes.

Also it is always an instance where you are far better off hunting for the warriors that you wound easiest, even though they might not be the most expensive- the rational behind this is that one can take down more models in order to seek to acquire a numerical advantage.

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”