Torn Liveries - Wars of the Roses Rules set

[KarwickWingmaker]

Here's a link to my Wars of the Roses rules

https://media.wix.com/ugd/ba9835_e12afa3a7e714ff9a3698eac6f1d25bc.pdf

These are the amended rules (thank you for your feedback)

https://media.wix.com/ugd/ba9835_876360cae8cc4a5989c16730d6e2216c.pdf

[Dez]

"Longbow <12 inches 12 – 18 inches>18 inches -1 dice when rolling to hit
Bow <10 inches 10 – 14 inches>14 inches -1 dice when rolling to hit
Crossbow /Handgun <8 inches 8 – 10 inches >10 inches -3 dice when rolling to hit"... ?
The crossbow is more like a child's slingshot in terms of characteristics ...

[KarwickWingmaker]

"Longbow <12 inches 12 – 18 inches>18 inches -1 dice when rolling to hit
Bow <10 inches 10 – 14 inches>14 inches -1 dice when rolling to hit
Crossbow /Handgun <8 inches 8 – 10 inches >10 inches -3 dice when rolling to hit"... ?
The crossbow is more like a child's slingshot in terms of characteristics ...

Noted, cheers for the feedback

In fact those penalties are for having moved and shot on the same turn, though I will add some bonus to reflect the power of the crossbow

[Dez]

Range shooting? At least not less than a simple bow.

[Charlie_]

Looks like a nice little set of rules!
How many models per side do you play with these rules?

Also, in regards to shooting, do the weapons actually have maximum ranges?

[KarwickWingmaker]

Range shooting? At least not less than a simple bow.

The ranges are actually more for weapon accuracy than a maximum range of the weapon. At the scale of 28mm which these rules are intended for, I didn't see the need to introduce a maximum range. Therefore all of the Long Range profiles of the weapons are anything above a certain number. So for a crossbow, anything further than 10 inches is long range. Though I may have to implement a long range for crossbows, that needs play testing for sure.

'Simple' bows were not used often, and the intention is to have them used by light cavalry (rarely, if at all, may I add), so there's little need to worry about bows out-competing crossbows in this respect. Their main competition is the longbow which, firing at long range, definitely out-competes the crossbow.

This is why the crossbow gets more powerful at closer ranges.

Cheers for your response though, it's great that this game is getting some interest!

[KarwickWingmaker]

Looks like a nice little set of rules!
How many models per side do you play with these rules?

Also, in regards to shooting, do the weapons actually have maximum ranges?

No maximum range, with 28mm miniatures on a 6'4 table - which is what I would generally expect - a longbow would be able to fire relatively accurately at those distances. I may later add a maximum range to crossbows however.

Thanks for the feedback! I would recommend around 40 - 100 models per side to replicate battles, yet skirmishes are still within the realm of these rules. I wanted the rules to be adaptable for almost any situation.

However I doubt I'll get a chance to recreate Towton on a 1:1 scale, though if you have a spare 70,000 miniatures I'd commend you for playtesting that 

[Charlie_]

Interesting.... I have been thinking about weapon ranges myself for my own ruleset. I like your thinking....
Something I'm thinking is that the maximum possible range of any weapon isn't going to be the same thing as the effective battlefield range. So I don't think wargames rules should worry too much about how far longbows, crossbows and other weapons can shoot, but rather the distance at which they will be able to have any and significant significant effect, which I'd argue should be pretty short.
So, I like the idea of weapons having long (or unlimited) range on the tabletop but perhaps being effectively useless (or at least insignificant) at such extremes, and being at their most effective at quite short ranges. Makes sense to me.

(I'm no archer myself, but I've always imagined the chances of hitting a moving target at any great range on a battlefield must be pretty slim (assuming you are not a champion medal-winner or something). Imagine you are standing in a field with a crossbow, trying to shoot somebody walking across the other end of the field... The chances seem pretty slim of hitting him to me, let alone that hit being fatal or incapacitating. But if he's up close, say within 20 or 30 metres, and suddenly getting an arrow in him seems very possible.
But then there's the idea of shooting an arrow into a dense mass of troops - if you can get the range right and land it their area, there is a good chance of it hitting someone.
This is something I've been pondering for my own rules lately, interesting to see how you've approached it )

[KarwickWingmaker]

These rules include a difficulty to hit, as well as a number of wounds needed to cause a casualty. This means that at long range shooting at some men at arms it would require 4 rolls of 6 to cause a single casualty, which makes shooting relatively ineffective at very long range.

Also with the abstract nature of writing rules to simulate medieval battles, 12 miniatures on the table can't just represent 12 men. With this in mind, units in these rules  are representing many more men than are depicted on the table. Therefore a large body of men shooting into another large body of relatively densely packed men will have a much larger effective range than say one archer aiming at one man 300 yards away.

I hope that clears some of that up haha

[Dez]

Schemes are there? Simply, I wonder how it looks in kind?

[KarwickWingmaker]

Schemes are there? Simply, I wonder how it looks in kind?

I'm not sure I understand your question, sorry

[Dez]

You made the rules. This is normal! You should have tested them? So show at least some pictures or descriptions.

[KarwickWingmaker]

You made the rules. This is normal! You should have tested them? So show at least some pictures or descriptions.

Ah gotcha, well actually these rules have not been playtested yet, hence why I put them on this forum, to get other people's opinions before i get the chance

I don't belong to a wargames club as of yet so i don't actually know anyone who likes wargaming. It's just an extension of my love for history haha

[SteveBurt]

Crossbows can fire as far as Longbows, and are at least as powerful (often more so), and certainly at least as accurate (again possibly more so as you are not having to hold the string back while aiming).
Their disadvantage is their long reload time.

[KarwickWingmaker]

Crossbows can fire as far as Longbows, and are at least as powerful (often more so), and certainly at least as accurate (again possibly more so as you are not having to hold the string back while aiming).
Their disadvantage is their long reload time.

That is not historically accurate I'm afraid, nor does it actually match the laws of physics

Crossbow bolts are also severely affected by strong wind in comparison due to the small size of the bolt

A crossbow bolt could possibly fly just as far or maybe farther than a longbow but its effective range at which it would be both accurate enough to hit the target, and still powerful enough to go through armour and injure the target is quite a lot shorter




I will try and find more on this topic soon as it is a common misconception that crossbows have longer effective ranges than longbows of the period


This being said, a crossbow is likely to be a more powerful at the shorter range it is effective within in comparison to a longbow