Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

General Hobbs wrote:


I just looked at the new AoS archer models. They are using huge bows, with a 3 finger release.

ONe problem...the arrow is nocked to the right of the bow, not the left. NOT THE LEFT as it should be.

OMG How can you buy models that are so poorly designed...those look ridiculous. As an archer, I could never field those.

Seriously? This is what you're complaining about?

You do realize that AoS is a game and it's set in a fantasy world, that the guys using these bows are not average joes but instead some sort of mystical beings, and that they don't have to adhere to the mundane limitations of mere mortals like nocking their arrows on the left as opposed to right?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The string? Really? People are complaining that there's no string modelled?

I can't think of a single GW bow that does have the string modelled! And I play Wood Elves.

I was joking...

Much sarcasm detection failure in this thread....

 jmurph wrote:
Much sarcasm detection failure in this thread....

Ok. You got me.

But to be fair, with all the ridiculous bitching about AoS it's hard to detect when someone's pulling your leg.

 Kriswall wrote:
Are we all ignoring the fact that these bows don't actually shoot metal arrows, but instead shoot "crackling arrows of pure lightning"? For all we know, the metal arrow is just a conductive placeholder and the mechanism for summoning the lightning is in the bow/arrow combination.

Then it would look like what Hank from the D&D cartoon was armed with and would not be an original idea from GW, and we can't be having that. Nope.

So thats why they're nocking their arrows on the right

I practice hema, yet you don't see me whining about how most of the models with a sword are fighting in a way that would get them killed.
Maybe I should do it.

Vetril wrote:
I practice hema, yet you don't see me whining about how most of the models with a sword are fighting in a way that would get them killed.
Maybe I should do it.

Please do, I actually love hearing about this stuff.

Vetril wrote:
I practice hema, yet you don't see me whining about how most of the models with a sword are fighting in a way that would get them killed.
Maybe I should do it.

Yes please, go ahead and make my fragging solar year.

I haven't seen many models that have even close to a decent fighting stance.

Reminds me of all the Skallagrim's videos on how unrealistic the "heroic" fighting poses are in video games.

As for WFB poses... State troops' way of halberd handling seems to be pretty similar to what you can see on medieval paintings!

Also Empire's knights' lance forward pose.

But, yeah, overall a heroic pose looks ridiculous when you know how it all works. Perry Miniatures medieval unit kits allow you to assemble the models in very realistic poses based on historical studies, which is really nice. Also good non-heroic scale miniatures.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Please do, I actually love hearing about this stuff.

Let's just say that if you have a sword, you want to point it towards your enemy pretty much at all times (well that's not true but it's a good rule of thumb).

This is stupid for example - the dwarf is the worst because he's also offering his back.

I believe that is practicing a form of the Franco-Python school of armed combat.

To "pass wind in the general direction" of ones enemy is paramount to defeating him. Risk be dammed!

Anyway bowstrings......hmmmmmmm....pray let us continue this interesting discussion....

Just because this is epic:



I have just some basic experience with a bow (at least I can hit stuff ), but even I can tell modern archery is hugely different from ancient combat archery. Placing the arrow to the right side gives an important advantage (speed) even if it is much more difficult.
I'd be more worried about how their armour interferes with their archery, and mostly about how their sight must be next to nothing through those tiny holes.

Ok, gonna have to call a little bit of BS on that. Catching arrows in your hand is a myth. All bows designed to be lethal would fire their arrows far too fast for the human hand to catch them, much less fire them back at you.

We all just kinda ignoring that they've issued full plate to Longbowmen?

Fully articulated plate armor actually doesn't limit your movement very much at all. Its actually more flexible than chain mail. You could do just about anything you could do outside of armor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fully articulated plate armor actually doesn't limit your movement very much at all. Its actually more flexible than chain mail. You could do just about anything you could do outside of armor.

so historically archers wore full plate armor including full face guard?

bitethythumb wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fully articulated plate armor actually doesn't limit your movement very much at all. Its actually more flexible than chain mail. You could do just about anything you could do outside of armor.

so historically archers wore full plate armor including full face guard?

No, because archers weren't that rich. Some might have had half-plate in the late middle ages.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I have just some basic experience with a bow (at least I can hit stuff ), but even I can tell modern archery is hugely different from ancient combat archery

While I have respect for Lars, he simplifies things to make his videos more flashy. "Ancient combat archery" isn't a single discipline, it covers thousands of years of varying bow styles and archery styles. The way Lars fires his bow would not work with some of the heavy draw weight bows we know existed throughout history.

When it comes to "modern archery" and "ancient archery" both of those things are so wildly varied that you can't make any sort of sweeping statements like that.

Plus the most iconic bow of all time, the English Longbow, was fired from a stationary position most of the time. Archers would put their arrows in the ground next to them. Quivers were for transport, not when actively shooting.

Actually there's a sword technique where you keep it behind your head, ready for a vertical/horizontal right-to-left slash with a lot more momentum. Of course only viable if you have a buckler to counter the fact that you're keeping your weapon away from the enemy.

It was called vom tag. Not to mention the even more weird first ward from Tower Fechtbuch.


Edit: I heard that Lars' bow was supposedly weaker to allow him such rapid firing and I saw people accuse him of trying to be more flashy than actually practical (like a showman with lighter sword for more flashiness), although I have very little experience with archery, so I can't tell if that's true.

 Klerych wrote:
Actually there's a sword technique where you keep it behind your head, ready for a vertical/horizontal right-to-left slash with a lot more momentum. Of course only viable if you have a buckler to counter the fact that you're keeping your weapon away from the enemy.

It was called vom tag. Not to mention the even more weird first ward from Tower Fechtbuch.

I know that there are a variety of poste designed to invite the opponent's attack, like coda longa or posta di donna. That's why I specified that it was a rule of thumb, and not an absolute. What you will never see in hema however are things like the goretide's marauders poses - guys that swing with so much abandon that their weapons trail off to thir side... Exactly where a swordsman would want to move them in order to strike without putting himself in danger.

Vetril wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Actually there's a sword technique where you keep it behind your head, ready for a vertical/horizontal right-to-left slash with a lot more momentum. Of course only viable if you have a buckler to counter the fact that you're keeping your weapon away from the enemy.

It was called vom tag. Not to mention the even more weird first ward from Tower Fechtbuch.

I know that there are a variety of poste designed to invite the opponent's attack, like coda longa or posta di donna. That's why I specified that it was a rule of thumb, and not an absolute. What you will never see in hema however are things like the goretide's marauders poses - guys that swing with so much abandon that their weapons trail off to thir side... Exactly where a swordsman would want to move them in order to strike without putting himself in danger.

Although I'm not saying that picture is remotely realistic But the Marauder is using a hammer and shield rather than a sword, he looks to be pushing the dwarf away with his shield to guard his front and lining up a blow with the hammer.

I agree the images of people swinging weapons wildly is obviously a bit silly, but there must have been some swinging going on in different forms of historic combat given many weapons were obviously designed to be swung rather than stabbing like a sword (Danish Axes, maces and war hammers designed for penetrating armour).

I'm sure a lot of what "worked" in historical combat just came down to how much the person trained, practised and the metaphorical size of their testicles so that they didn't crap their pants when the actual battle started and lots of sharp and pointy things were coming towards them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I agree the images of people swinging weapons wildly is obviously a bit silly, but there must have been some swinging going on in different forms of historic combat given many weapons were obviously designed to be swung rather than stabbing like a sword (Danish Axes, maces and war hammers designed for penetrating armour).

I'm sure a lot of what "worked" in historical combat just came down to how much the person trained, practised and the metaphorical size of their testicles so that they didn't crap their pants when the actual battle started and lots of sharp and pointy things were coming towards them.

The main issue here is that a lot of those poses are way too heroic. The thing is - you want to keep yourself as condensed as possible, so the enemy has to attack the bulk of you which you are good at protecting - just like you don't just strike forward with a sword if you have a shield but move the shield with it, to protect your hand from being cut off by a skillful riposte. They look good because the model is dynamic and exaggerated pose fits exaggerated proportions (heroic scale), but most of them would just get them killed in real combat.

The only case where I can imagine those "heroic" poses to work is with polearms and pollhammers/poleaxes because, aside from stabbing with the pointy stick, you had a bajillion ways to swing it at various distances (yes, a spear was usable even in close quarters). The latter (polehammers, pollaxes, bec de corbins) required quite some swing and made for heroic smash scenes on the battlefields - with proper leverage it let you smash a human skull or shatter shoulders easily, crushing and chopping those poor bastards caught beneath the steel head and they were surprisingly fast in skilled hands despite their size.

Long story short, the static models from GW are more realistic than the dynamic ones.

 Klerych wrote:
The main issue here is that a lot of those poses are way too heroic.

Most the actual model poses aren't during combat though, they tend to look like when the model is advancing.

But anyway, I was talking specifically about weapons that would have been swung because that particular marauder is armed with a shield and hammer.

But either way I still imagine what worked in a real battle with real pointy weapons and real people actually trying to kill you varied massively, evidenced by how much weapons themselves varied massively from one culture to the next and one period to the next. I think we can get too bogged down theorising stuff when no one has fought in such a battle for centuries.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Plus the most iconic bow of all time, the English Longbow, was fired from a stationary position most of the time. Archers would put their arrows in the ground next to them. Quivers were for transport, not when actively shooting.

Im an even bigger fan of the old eastern composite bows.


Just like the portal gun, do not expose them to water, even partially, because they would melt.

Also, you can't actually carry a quiver on your back, all the arrows would fall out. When they were making Lord of the rings, Orlando bloom had to have his arrows glued in place, because they'd fall out when he moved.

Yup.

Of course, most quivers were strictly for transportation and not for use during battle, and as such had drawstrings to keep the arrows in place.

Quivers meant for use in battle would usually be worn on the hip.