2026 Proposed Amendments #5.1 Loose/Close Infantry Bw, PBw, XBw

[lionheartrjc]

See here.

Change "Close/loose infantry PBW, Bw, XBw count S as a wound when shooting <= 1BW."
Reduced points cost,

Note: This replaces the rule that applied to XBw. The shooting at <= 1BW is simpler than "standing to receive a charge".
This improves shooting slightly for PBW, Bw and XBw.

[martymagnificent]

So will Xbow not be differentiated from Bw at all?

Martin

[nikgaukroger]

Still do not downgrade when shooting at FArm foot or elephants within 1 BW as currently.

[martymagnificent]

Still do not downgrade when shooting at FArm foot or elephants within 1 BW as currently.

That is rare almost to the point of non-existence.

martin

[nikgaukroger]

Rare for sure. Hence the points reduction 

[martymagnificent]

One, minor, issue to consider with this proposal is that it does create a rather counter-intuitive situation where shorter ranged  shooting weapons want to stay in their own range but out of 1MU of bows/etc. ie a javelin unit would want to be further away from the bow unit. Not a deal breaker, but a little odd.

Another minor shooting thing that irks me is that everything except artillery gets upgraded against unprotected, even firearms. I don't think firearms should get this upgrade and you could, perhaps, make an argument for crossbow or even powerbow not getting it either.

Martin

[Kokor Hekkus]

Does this mean that Yorkist powerbow will have the option to upgrade to drilled, after all at Towton they advanced, fired, then retired out of range of the returning Lancastrian fire

[nikgaukroger]

As I posted elsewhere - that is better dealt with by a scenario specific for a Towton refight as it involved the weather at the battle. Have to be careful of making exception normal when rule writing.

[badhabum]

One, minor, issue to consider with this proposal is that it does create a rather counter-intuitive situation where shorter ranged  shooting weapons want to stay in their own range but out of 1MU of bows/etc. ie a javelin unit would want to be further away from the bow unit. Not a deal breaker, but a little odd.

Another minor shooting thing that irks me is that everything except artillery gets upgraded against unprotected, even firearms. I don't think firearms should get this upgrade and you could, perhaps, make an argument for crossbow or even powerbow not getting it either.

Martin

Interesting and to be studied

[Doomsmile]

See here.

Change "Close/loose infantry PBW, Bw, XBw count S as a wound when shooting <= 1BW."

Glad to see shooting get a bit of love, but this implementation creates a massive overlapping inputs problem when skilled shooting vs. superiors is brought into the mix.
Because skilled shooting already gets +wound on S (or "spicy" dice, as my group short-hands it), skilled shooters get no close-range bonus against superior troops.

Not sure how to fix this, this feels like a massive problem!

Still do not downgrade when shooting at FArm foot or elephants within 1 BW as currently.

That is rare almost to the point of non-existence.

I'm afraid I have to agree here; if that's the only difference between bow and crossbow, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of modeling, especially since most crossbows in MeG exist in contexts where there are no FA foot or elephants.
Unless some extra distinction is added, might be best to just call all of them "bow" and call it a day.

[nikgaukroger]

See here.

Change "Close/loose infantry PBW, Bw, XBw count S as a wound when shooting <= 1BW."

Glad to see shooting get a bit of love, but this implementation creates a massive overlapping inputs problem when skilled shooting vs. superiors is brought into the mix.
Because skilled shooting already gets +wound on S (or "spicy" dice, as my group short-hands it), skilled shooters get no close-range bonus against superior troops.

Not sure how to fix this, this feels like a massive problem!

We concluded that it was something we could live with and see how things pan out in practice and deal with if it was an egregious problem. Of course, if anyone has a simple solution we have missed please post it. FWIW we considered "double S = Skull" but felt it was too much - the MeG granularity boundary has been reached 

Still do not downgrade when shooting at FArm foot or elephants within 1 BW as currently.

That is rare almost to the point of non-existence.

I'm afraid I have to agree here; if that's the only difference between bow and crossbow, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of modeling, especially since most crossbows in MeG exist in contexts where there are no FA foot or elephants.
Unless some extra distinction is added, might be best to just call all of them "bow" and call it a day.

Rather a lot of crossbows in the medieval period alongside FArm dismounted knights.

[nikgaukroger]

However, I'd not be against combining Bw and XBw into a single category.

[martymagnificent]

We concluded that it was something we could live with and see how things pan out in practice and deal with if it was an egregious problem. Of course, if anyone has a simple solution we have missed please post it. FWIW we considered "double S = Skull" but felt it was too much - the MeG granularity boundary has been reached 

Well it could just be double S= dice upgrade (ie usually green)

Martin

[SteveO]

I am all for trying to tweek shooting so it is simpler to adjudicate and average shooters perhaps receive a small buff as has been originally suggested. However, I am also for not trying to replicate modern firepower effects for average shooters in an ancients ruleset.

[Princeps]

[...]

Another minor shooting thing that irks me is that everything except artillery gets upgraded against unprotected, even firearms. I don't think firearms should get this upgrade and you could, perhaps, make an argument for crossbow or even powerbow not getting it either.

Martin

Would totally agree with this, in line of what I had already pointed out here

Best,
Antoine