Slitherine

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I am still in the process of reading the rules and just got to this bit

I was wondering what the reason was behind the - for crossbows vs Other foot?

Thanks

Fenton wrote:Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I am still in the process of reading the rules and just got to this bit

I was wondering what the reason was behind the - for crossbows vs Other foot?

Thanks

In the early days of the FoG testing crossbows had similar POAs to longbows against everything BUT rolled less dice. This didn't really work very well so after a bit of thinking by the authors and some input from testers the way they work changed so that they used the same dice as other missile weapons.

In order to get the right overall effect this meant that the current POAs were introduced.

The best way to think of it is that against an armoured target a slower rate of fire but higher penetration will give crossbows the same effect as bows. Less shots but each shot more likely to be effective so against an armoured target both bow and crossbow are at -

Against less well protected foot the crossbow while more likely to penetrate will still have the same low rate of fire so bows are more effective against less well protected targets hence bow are 0 or + while crossbow remain at -

There is a good argument that crossbow should perhaps be 0 against unprotected foot but they still have that low rate of fire issue.

Against mounted there is much the same issue for the crossbow. They don't deliver enough missiles to be as effective as longbow but have more hitting power than bow.

Thats what I was presuming

Thanks for that

I think most rules actually get too caught up in the comparative rate of fire between bows and crossbows, actually. While I understand the longbow can fire 5x to 6x as fast on the practice field, this gap is going to close in actual battle due to:

1. Ammunition availability
2. Fatigue
and 3. The problem of trying to aim and shoot when the other guy is shooting back.

So personally, I could see the argument for crossbows vs. unarmored/protected types go both ways.

Jhykron wrote:I think most rules actually get too caught up in the comparative rate of fire between bows and crossbows, actually. While I understand the longbow can fire 5x to 6x as fast on the practice field, this gap is going to close in actual battle due to:

1. Ammunition availability
2. Fatigue
and 3. The problem of trying to aim and shoot when the other guy is shooting back.

So personally, I could see the argument for crossbows vs. unarmored/protected types go both ways.

True, but theoretical arguments aside, crossbows need to be outshot by longbows to simulate history. (I appreciate that even this is open to discussion and the Genoese at Crecy may have been having an off-day for various documented reasons). The present rules allow crossbows to be outshot by longbows - which they would not be if crossbows had a 0 POA vs Protected.

A top down approach to simulate the (most widely held view of) history.

rbodleyscott wrote: True, but theoretical arguments aside, crossbows need to be outshot by longbows to simulate history. (I appreciate that even this is open to discussion and the Genoese at Crecy may have been having an off-day for various documented reasons). The present rules allow crossbows to be outshot by longbows - which they would not be if crossbows had a 0 POA vs Protected.

A top down approach to simulate the (most widely held view of) history.

Sounds well-reasoned to me.

I'd have to see how it plays to form a better opinion...