I know... they can't - according to the rules.

It's a good rule as they take a while to reload and the time spent in moving is exchanged for time loading the weapon. However, what if they didn't move or shoot on a previous turn but just reloaded? Then they could both move and shoot on a subsequent turn.

It would be easy to keep track of the crossbowmen's moves by noting a turn when they just loaded. If, later in the game, they moved and fired, the note could be crossed out and so on.

If I had a crossbow, I wouldn't run into position to shoot it without the thing loaded. I'd load first, then move and shoot!

_________________
Painting again...

this is exactly what they currently do. they shoot every other turn.
I think of it like this:

turn 1:
- shoot (worth half movement as usual)
- reloading (spending the other half)

turn 2:
- move into new position to get ready for next shot

so almost to the same effect...

_________________
OFTENTIME,THE SHADOWS SERVE NOT ONLY TO CONCEAL THOSE WHO WISH TO DO EVIL,BUT ALSO PROTECT THOSE WHO SEEK TO DO GOOD

In theory and real life that would happen, but I don't think it would work game wise. When I'm facing a mass of crossbows, I skirmish like hell trying to get shots in while he can't to whittle them down a bit. If they can move and then fire, that goes right out of the window as he could just move forward and let rip - so I vote no.

In theory the rule you suggested is fine. The current rules do have a slight problem where the lack of crossbow movement can be exploited unrealistically by enemies who linger around the maximum bow range, but I would hope most opponents don't resort to such cheap tactics. The current rules are much simpler, and in most cases sufficient. If you don't mind the additional effort it does make a good house rule. However, the corsair crossbowmen do carry that enormous shield thing around too, which would also take some time to deploy...

No, thats called tactics or do you suggest you just march forward and get shot to pieces? The no move and fire rule is just a simplification to give crossbows a dissadvantage instead of shooting every 2nd or 3rd turn due to a slower rate of fire. If players vote yes to move and firing then this must be balanced out with a lower fire rate or similar rule.

I voted yes, simply cause it sounds cool.

And even if the current rule do try to represent the realistic shoooting... it still
makes a very big disadvantage and makes people manipulate with the shoot range , so why not make a change? Although im quite happy with the current rules

_________________
I am the Mouth of Sauron, here him speak'

I agree with hithero. Also, I know I would get confused as to whose turn it is to shoot.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

I think this house rule would only work if applied to groups of Uruks. It could be unworkable if trying to do it with individuals - imagine if certain models just reloaded while others moved and others shot! Perhaps groups of 5+ Uruks armed with crossbows or all the crossbowmen have to do the same thing each turn.

This rule in effect would only give a slight advantage over the current use of crossbows as its main advantage would be to move into shooting range (18 inches) and shoot immediately. It could give further advantage throughout the game when moving into line of sight but I imagine that most of the benefit would be used the first time they got to shoot.

They would still probably have been shot at before they got to shoot and it is important to bear in mind that they could suffer from volley fire. Remember that crossbows cannot benefit from the volley fire rule so I thought that something like this might even it up a bit for them.

I've not tried it out yet as I just wanted to see what opinion was.

If anyone gives it a go, please let us know the outcome.



As to crossbowmen 'letting rip'... Well that's what they are for after all.
Loose the dogs of war!

_________________
Painting again...

Well, I understand what you're saying: as long as one turn of movement is used reloading instead of moving, they may fire it at any point, regardless of moving or shooting (so they could not move, then move for two turns, then shoot, but would then have to not move the next time to reload).

However, a simpler version of this is to say that they came to war (other than in scenarios where their camp is being raided and they were sleeping or whatever) with them loaded and so they may only move and shoot for their first shot or just the first turn or something similar. The reason for them not doing so later? They'd rather reload and shoot someone or get the Hell out of the way/into their face...

I think there is often some distinction between tactics which are legitimate, and those which are just exploiting the simplifications inevitable when translating the mechanics of battle into the tabletop format. I think everyone can agree that, when people exploit weaknesses in the design of a game, reguardless of the nature of that game, it ruins the experience for everyone else involved. However, what constitutes as exploiting the rules really depends on how an individual interprets how the game should be played. For this reason there are a lot of grey areas with reguard to the appropriate etiquette players should observe for these matters, so I think it is best left to the individual to decide what is fair conduct.

The current rules do leave crossbows vulnerable to exploitations within the rules, which could be largely averted by allowing them to load in one turn the fire in a subsequent turn. With reguard to the point cost of the crossbows, I do not feel this would warrent any change. For the same cost as an elf bow they have one more strength, but lose the ability to volley. This seems fair to me. As a house rule I think the rule is reasonable, and I have used a similar rule myself in the past with great success. Indicating which model can shoot can be as simple as facing some foward, and others backward.

Note: The original post has been edited to make my views on the matter somewhat clearer.

Well, if the rule was implemented, the points cost wouldn't need to change because if you choose to reload and not shoot that turn, then the model does literally nothing for a whole turn (they can't reload if in combat, I assume ), then in another turn, they move and shoot. It's the same as moving one turn and not shooting, then not moving the next, but shooting...

Is reloading a crossbow the same with the game?

_________________
crossbows

I think numbskull is perhaps a spambot: a single word in the signature, which is a link, a single post, no use of the coins, short post that doesn't make much sense.

If you're not, I apologise, in which case can you try to rephrase you question, please?

i think the rules come pretty close to capturing the essence of crossbows vs bows. the crossbow was an unweildy machine that had to be set on the ground and drawn back before placing the arrow. that being said it hit harder and did more damage (the church outlawed its use against other christian armies). so i think the rules capture that effectively. the only change i think would capture the essence more would be an accuracy bonus. i normally leave crossbows out of my tournament armies due to their lack of mobility.

i would surely expect my opponents to take advantage of my crossbows not being able to move and shoot and i would exploit it on them. every one wants to have fun but if your not playing to win then whats the point. i played against guys that werent trying and just made dumb moves and it was horribly boring and frustrating. so i agree with hithero on that fact

_________________
HOLLA

I like the simplicity of the rules as they are currently written. However, I do think that you can probably use a house rule that allows them to move+shoot as long as they spent the turn prior completely immobile (no move, shoot, fire, spell, etc.).

It won't be a major balance issue but will tip the scales slightly in favor of the XBows. It really does make a big difference if they can hide out of range or under cover and "prep" their weapon, then rush forward and use it the next turn. That free turn of shooting isn't something to be taken lightly. It may only be a minor thing but without several games of testing you never know.

From a reality perspective, walking around with a loaded XBow probably was not that easy of a task. I would imagine doing so might have been prone to misfires, especially if you tried to run. Even a modern XBow or firearm (rifle, pistol) isn't something I'd rush around with fully cocked back and ready to fire on a hair trigger, and that's with modern precision manufacturing.

I think XBows work well if you keep their limitation in mind in your strategy. If you have any valuable objectives near your starting zone, use them to cover it. If you have to advance, advance them at full speed with the rest of your force then let them set up to provide cover fire. In most games we play they are able to get to a good flanking position either during the Move of Turn 1 or 2 so that by 3 they are shooting. Spread them out a little and minimize the risk of volley fire (and their armor is usually enough to minimize volley risk any way), etc.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com