Here's my impression of the longbow as represented by the rules of Battlelore: Longbow units get to roll two dice and it hits on the opponent's unit color or sword on shield. Not too bad, but here's some obstacles I have when using longbow units. The range on this is 5, so usually you can fire at units the first round of the game (if your longbow units are at least three rows from their side and if some opponents are at least three rows from there side...give or take, I don't currently have a gameboard in front of me). Anyway, the longbow units get a bonus, in my opinion, if they can get to a wooded terrain hex. The can still attack from the hex with their full dice, but they gain a benefit from the cover the woods provide. However, many units (especially mounted and goblin) can charge up to longbow units and get within striking distance on the first or second turn of the battle. My understanding is this is somewhat realistic, in that Medieval cavalry were often used to rush up to archers, darting underneath their arrows on their swift steeds, to inflict mayhem (thus the benefit of archer's stakes). However, this would leave a mounted unit exposed on its flanks if another mounted unit could sweep in on it, or if the archer unit was protected by infantry (as was often the case), then the infantry could move in on the enemy cavalry and do some damage.

Here's where I have an idea to portray some of the longbow abilities a bit more realistically. Often, archers would be deployed behind infantry so they could fire their arrows over the infantry, and the infantry would have a wall of spears (or halberds or swords as it may be) to thwart a mounted charge. In Battlelore, other units block line of sight, so archers cannot fire over infantry. I think archer units should be allowed to fire over other units. However, suppose archers fire over one of their own units that is in melee with an enemy unit. Just like in real life, if an archer is lobbing an arrow, like a hail-Mary pass, as opposed to firing straight-on into an enemy, their shot will be less accurate and there will be a chance they will strike their allies. To reflect this, I would propose a house rule where archers can fire over units normally. However, since all combat is resolved after movement, if they fire into an enemy that is in any kind of melee with one of the archer's ally units (including battle backs, etc.), then the archers not only roll to see how much damage they inflict on the enemy unit, but they must roll again to see if they hit any of their own guys.

Also, I think the archers should get some sort of benefit from firing from atop a hill hex. The English dominated many of the early battles of the Hundred Years War, and credit for many of these victories is given to the English longbow. At battles such as Crecy and Agincourt, the English had the high ground and they decimated overwhelming French forces by raining arrows down on them. The credit for some of these victories can't be given solely to the longbow, however, for the French employed some terrible tactics that also contributed to their defeat. However, the element of the English archers utilizing high ground as a platform of fire is a brilliant and common war strategy that I think should translate into Battlelore. I think archers shooting from a hilltop should not only be able to fire over allied units, but should also get some type of bonus for being on high ground...maybe if they are shooting directly down onto an adjacent enemy they get to roll one extra dice if the roll a lore symbol or something along these lines. Any thoughts?

Hail and kill!

I like the idea of archers on an elevated terrain hex firing over adjacent units on a countryside, bridge, passable stream ford, or marsh hex (pretty much anything on lower ground that isn't forest, which has trees to block the shot).

As for an extra die, it makes some sense, but recall that the hill already forces attacking enemy units to battle uphill with only two dice. That rule already affects the battle mechanics.

Before this post is interpreted to be against house rules in general - let me state explicitly that that is not the case Also, I believe I understand what is being suggested, and they make for fine and interesting house rules (and who knows what else FFG has up their sleeves - perhaps they will be official at some point ) - but if instituted Longbows will become even more so the most influential unit on the board. I think that's what you're looking for, Interceptor, and if so you've got it.

Realism with board games is a tricky notion, but here's how I reconcile the current abstractions within the game: hexes on the board are used to mark areas of influence by a particular subset of ones forces as a whole, predominantly being of a certain "unit" type, but always made up of a few to several different types of combatants. I'll go into more detail about this if desired, but hopefully my meaning is coming through.

Along the lines of Taeblewalker's comment that "that rule already affects the battle mechanics" in regards to archers on hills - I feel that concept can be applied across the board when it comes to particular rules in the game impacting battle mechanics of particular situations. Explicit die modifiers for flanking bonuses are not needed in this game, for example, but many want them (hey, here's Battles of Westeros for you...) and nothing stops one from house ruling.

Where does it indicate in the rules that Longbows have a range of 5 as Interceptor states? I've often thought Longbows should fire further than "common bows" but I've always understood the Longbow has a range of 4 like the common bow. Have I missed something?

b_fortner7 said:

I take it to mean that's one of his house rules.

You're right about the range...it is 4, not 5...my mistake. Crossbows get only 3. However, I read that in Code of Chivalry, crossbow units no longer get a penalty for shooting on the move. This is an interesting and pretty powerful enhancement to the crossbow. You'd think the longbow could use a little rules upgrade, too (I still want to see flaming arrows),

Toddrew. I definately see what you're saying about rule abstractions. Some games specify how big a hex is in regards to scale, for example. Such as one hex is equal to 1-mile or something. Since this is left abstract in BattleLore (and necessarily so in my opinion), the idea that units have an "area of influence" does make sense. I can see maybe not giving archers any sort of bonus dice in their attacks from hill terrain, but I still think archers should be able to fire over other units. Maybe since this would be less accurate, treat this as shooting on the move.

Interceptor said:

For what it's worth, I prefer not to play with the revised Crossbows/Arbalestier rules. In our games Crossbows are green units by default and fire 2d when not moving, 1d when moving. Arbalestiers are blue units, but may not fire on the move. Playing under those constraints, I value the Longbows over the Crossbows (obviously - though bold does have value, even for a unit that doesn't hit on bonus strikes in melee) and the Arbalestiers slightly below the Crossbows (though that is very situation dependent valuation )

Interceptor said:

I was thinking that if units were allowed to fire over friendly units, that a 1-2d check roll should happen for those units - but gets complicated pretty quickly. To me, the problem with allowing the ranged units to be couched behind a line of strong melee units, is that it is almost never going to be worth the opponent's energy to encroach that line - and maybe that is the "reality" one wants the game to portray, but it is too powerful for my tastes.

I've been waiting to see where FFG takes BattleLore, and see if more of Richard Borg's rulesets come out, either through FFG's rules or other means, but I am interested in "enhanced" rulesets for this game. Things like"only red units are battle savvy", "archers/ranged units on hills may fire over adjacent friendly units (possibly even some forms of the combined arms mechanic in Napoleonics, though at first blush I don't think it is necessary)", "Battle Savvy 2.0 - a unit that is bold or fully supported battles back at full die value, a unit half supported battles back at -1d, a unit unsupported battles back at -2d" (saw this one mentioned on a BGG thread - I like it in theory). Potential for many, many others, but that is what I fear - game would get muddled rather easily.

toddrew said:

Unsupported green units battling back at 2D would have no penalty whatsoever, while half supported green units would battle back at only 1D according to that system! If I were to use that sytsem, and I'm not at all sure I would, I would say -1D and -2D, which means that unsupported green units don't battle back at all.

While I agree with some that the Battle Savvy by default rules reduce the luck of the game, since battles are less command card dependent, I also see the potential for future units being battle savvy, rather than necessarily bold, lost by this default. I had imagined some Amazon customs that were Battle Savvy but not bold, and the "design space" has been squished a little by the default Battle Savvy rules. A way I found around it was to give Amazons a power called Sister Glory - each Amazon unit provides two points of support to another Amazon unit. This recreates a middle ground between Bold and not Bold.

Firing from behind the enemy seems like it would in fact be game-breaking, though firing over allies from an elevation seems better - it comes up less often.

One more thought - I don't know how to edit a previous post - rather than red only as battle savvy, blue should be as well. After all, they are "well versed in military matters."

Taeblewalker said:

I see this reasoning for BS being "luck reducing" a lot - but it introduces the element of a battle back being dependent on whether or not a flag is rolled. One has control over when to issue orders and the foresight of a command's worth of cards to determine how to position ones units. I appreciate the reduction in randomness that Medieval Tactics provide when compared to BS. Hand management is not all about drawing "good" cards. What BS does do is shift some of the determining power of the cards and positioning to the determining power of the dice.

But more to the point you were making, Taeblewalker - yeah, BS would've been a good racial/factional ability.

First of all..."Sister Glory"...that sounds hot!

Anyway, I don't think Battle Savvy makes the game too random...BattleLore accurately reflects many aspects of Medieval battles, in my opinion. With battle lines drawn on a left, center, and right, it was important to hold these lines to keep one flank or another being outflanked. With Battle Savvy, nearly every melee attack can be subject to a battle back. This means you have to be very careful which fights you pick, because if the unit you attack does not retreat or is not eliminated, they can battle back and they could do some real damage. Thus the importance of maintaining strong lines. There will be a point when your forces ar mobolized and a concentrated strike can decimate the enemy. This seems realistic to a Medieval battle to me. Also, the idea of battling back by-itself seems realistic. Some old role-playing games had rules wherein combatants would act in a particular order, and this did not seem realistic to capturing the violent and wild melee of battle. A battle back is natural. What soldiers are just going to stand idly when being attacked? True, they might hold behind their shields against a vicious onslaught, but given the opportunity, they are going to lash out with sword, axe, or spear. I think battle backs capture this idea, and in so doing, capture some of the chaos that must have been felt on the battlefields of the Middle-Ages.