I agree with borithan (except the part about guns falling out of use in the napoleonic wars (typo?).

I also think that longbows would have been devestating on the early 18th century battlefield, but as stated they did not exist anymore - neither the skilled strong archers nor the yew longbows needed. And even if they had managed to create such a unit it would have been loath to use it as a casualty there would be nigh-unreplacable compared to the standard line infantryman. Later in the same century rifles with short reload times and eventually true repeaters were introduced that would have outshone any longbowman unit easily. These rifles, essentially the comparison of DH's Hunting Rifle, were accurate to several hundred meters range, could (and can) penetrate modern body armor, could fire 3-5 shots in DH round of 5 seconds. No matter how skilled an archer is, a rifleman can always work a bolt on a rifle quicker than pull out an arrow, nock it, draw, point and loose.

However in DH such a rifle has only SINGLE SHOT mode. Is that realistic? Of course not, but I, not unlike many others here believe it was a balance decision by design rather than lack of firearm knowledge (but may be that as well). Other examples could be the semi-auto Stub Automatic with RoF 3 while in RL SA handguns can fire 4-5 rounds per SECOND, or at least 1 round per second accurately, which would mean it should have RoF 5 minimum.

Autoguns, if anything like it's RL counterpart, can easily fire 5 times the listed RoF fire of 10.

So if you really want realistic "fire rate" for bows in this game then you should also make them for all firearms or you will simply unbalance bows. In fact I think bows, with their in game rate of fire of 1 per 5 seconds is not that far from what an average trained user could do in RL, so if they had nerfed it has much as they nerfed guns it would have RLD 4 instead of RLD 1/2.

yup, typo. I meant to say armour was no longer used because guns were so widespread (which were near impossible to effectively armour against) and bows had fallen out of fashion, and so there was no point.

Regarding hypothetical Napoleonic archers: Yes, they would have been difficult to replace when lost, but they wouldn't have been as vulnerable as other infantry of their time, at least to gunfire. Archers would tend to operate in a looser formation than musketeers and so would have been less punished by cannon fire and gunfire. Of course they would probably be more vulnerable to cavalry so... yeah.

And yes, if guns have the RoF they have at the moment bows do not deserve semi-auto fire. If guns were upgraded then it might be ok for bows, in the right hands, to get a very slight increase in RoF.

 Sure, whatever.

Bottom line, this is house rules, if you aren't suggesting something to make the rules more playable, then kindly stop replying,because if you don't like them, then you don't have to use them. That would be the nice thing about house rules.

You are perfectly entitled to play things however you like, of course. I was just pointing out that your changes were based on incorrect assumptions about military history and technology. Now if you play Dark Heresy as a heroic game the heroic myths of longbowmen (ie felling fully armoured French knights with ease, Robin Hood etc) would suit it fine, and so a boost to bows and crossbows could be totally justified, especially if you were wanting to encourage players to use them.

 I'm gonna have to disagree with you, because when I say muskets that's what I was referencing 1rst and second generation firearms, circa say the 1500's. Not the 1700's era firearms, with several advantages such as better firing mechanisms, metallurgy, rifling.

You seem to have misunderstood my time-frame. Also that commet was more pointed to people who seem to want nothing more than to argue, and not be very helpful. 

The point I think some of us are trying to make is that a lot of the stats you have don't come across as "in line" with the setting or existing rules.  Arrows being generally inferior to modern weapons, when upgrading them to be cooler in 40k it seems like you'd want to keep them in line with the existing weapon systems.  As Borithan says though, if you're going for a Robin Hood/Fantastical feel, beef them up.

The other problem is anytime someone has so far tried to suggest an alternatives with rationale for said alternative you jump on them with your perception of the superiority of the bow or its equivalent to modern arms.

Argument aside, I'll resummarize.  Personally I'd stick to much simpler systems and look to not advance the bow or special ammo for the bow to that of the super high tech weapons.  Primarily this would be through special ammo, and the adding of a few specia abilities that you can unlock by purchasing a talent.

Give the explosive arrows similar stats to the grenade launcher with reduced range but with the reliable property.  Give your tearing arrows non-primitive, tearing, maybe 2 pen, 1d10+strength, maybe a +1 or 2 to damage, and make them much less expensive and more easy to obtain.  Consider creating 'special abilities' for the bows accessible primarily through specialized training (put rapid shot, fire behind cover, and whatever other special bow abilities you want under the special ability) to show that anyone in skilled in primitive weapons can fire the bow, but to do cool things with it you have to do an extra ability representing the extra training with it.  I'd give your AP arrows AP3 like manstopper bullets, non-primitive, and 1d10+strength.  Consider even creating arrows with the toxic quality, giving them a boost to non-primitive, standard base damage, but the toxic quality (I'd not give them bonus damage or pen as the other toxic weapons in the game don't have those traits either for game balance purposes). 

If you want a super arrow that does something messed up to someone give it that special ability only and not bunch of other abilities (like high pen, tearing, etc.)- so regular damage plus something like "upon inflicting damage, the arrow head triggers a charge and expands inside the body sending sharp barbs out through the soft tissues, making movement painful.  Victims must make a toughness/willpower check each turn or suffer a -x to all agility based rolls and their movement is reduced by -x due to the crippling pain.  Removal of the device requires an extended medicae check over the course of x turns, with penalties and bonuses of the situation applying to all rolls."  Make them priced reasonably high for the tech involved, but not cost prohibitively high.  Exotic shots are 20 for 1, and bolts are 16 for 1, I'd say somwehre around there would feel right depending on the abilities the arrow head had.  Make their availability similar, so somehwere around the rare level I'd say.

Firm up the 'silent' portion of them and give a penalty to notice them being fired, especially if fired from a concealed position or in the middle of a gunfight. 

To me, giving them things like that would increase their battlefield flexibility, give them some tactical potential, but not create a weapon that is (IMHO) unreasonably equal to or superior to weapons developed 20-40k years in the future.  Your Weapon Specialization (Bow Weapons) talent can cost around 1-300xp depending on class, which isnt' all that much in the grand scheme of xp.  Make sure the cost of the specialty ammo things are within regular reach so that players are interested in spending the time to seek them out.

TL;DR: Summary 2.0: IMHO they should be toned down, made simpler, more attainable, and more specialized in order to make it attractive to players and to help it blend with the existing system.

TempestSatori said:

"The initial role of the musket was as a specialist armour piercing weapon; it therefore coexisted with the arquebus over the period c. 1550 – c. 1650. For example, from 1636 the complement of the Spanish infantry company, in Flanders, was 200 men, 11 officers, 30 musketeers, 60 arqubusiers, 65 pikemen with body armour, 34 pikemen without armour. The musketeers received double pay.[11]"

From Wikipedia (but I have seen this in several other sources). As you can see we are not just talking about the 1700s flintlock musket, or the early 19th century rifles. The heavy spanish musket used with a fork stand had the range and penetration of the later flintlock musket, but had disadvantages in firing mechanism and weight.

That said, I wrote a reply to you accusation of "people wanting to argue" but it was unfortunately lost. But in short expect critique when you post house rules and accept that people may not always agree with you. And the historical discussion aside, several here has commented on the (lack of) balance aspect of these rules and suggested to tone it down. My own suggestion is to boost damage for normal bows and crossbows since they are underpowered, either a set one like 1d10+3 or use 1d10+bow's SB. That makes them as effective against primitive armor as normal guns are against non-primitive armors.

The Longbow and COmposite bow in IH already have Pen IIRC, so there you go. And as said Rapid Reload+one homemade talent could allow 2 arrows per round.

Now you can choose to ignore us and use whatever rules you like. I do hope your players are happy about them though.

I've been thinking about the quickfire trait. Giving a semi-auto fire rate doesn't feel right given how much the wielder will need to move to load and fire the second arrow. Maybe change it to:

Quickfire: This weapon can make two half action attacks in a turn, each with a -10 penalty. However the character wielding it must have enough time in his turn to reload it between the attack, through either reducing the reload time to a reaction/free action and/or increasing the duration of his turn.

I'm going to claim rule of cool for quickfire, not attempt to justify it.

I'd suggest that you don't attempt to change the weapons themselves, except for adding SB to bow damage and this quickfire trait. Instead focus on adding pieces of tech or sorcery into the arrows to make them useful. Think RT Explorers or Throne Agents, characters who can afford to openly use an unusual weapon and afford unusual ammo for it, not acolytes who need to blend in and have limited funds.

The Tech Broadheads are a good example of this. I'd just suggest a few tweaks:

 - Change the penetration to +2

 - Remove the Int test to remove it. If you have one stuck in you and nobody with medicae, you can't get it out without ripping bits of your flesh.

 - Allow removing without a test, but that will deal 1d5 damage. This is an arrowhead designed to be difficult to remove.

 - Simple fail on the Medicae test will do nothing. 4+ DOF and the arrow is removed with 1d5 damage.

 - A strength test (not sure about difficulty) to snap the arrow shaft and remove the penalties, unless the character is using the limb with the arrowhead, then the penalties are -10. Also it will make the medicae test harder.

Change the lore from it being commissioned for a guard regiment (if the guardsmen don't want to use issued lasguns, they will be shot with issued lasguns till the survivors change their mind) to being commissioned by someone with lots of money.

Note that your Diamantine Bodkins got complained about but my power field arrows, despite doing more damage, did not. Either everyone missed them, or the problem came down to how you justified it:

 - The power field arrows use established 40k tech to apply a damage and penetration increase to the weapon, with the increase being calculated by looking at the stats of other things with power fields.

 - The Bodkins use an unnamed substance to penetrate armour through their physical characteristics and, despite arrows having less force behind them (human strength vs chemical propulsion), worse flight characteristics (larger size means more air resistance to slow them down), you claim that they will have much better penetration.

Ok a combat round is 5 seconds, note that semi-auto is a full round action, a lot of ancient armies required an archer to fire 3 arrows in 6 seconds, so yes a semi-auto of 2 on bows that aren't longbows is fine, and perfectly realistic. Also Legolas could regularly fire that many or more arrows in less time while on the move.

Wikipedia claims that an AK-47 has a ROF of 600 rounds per minute. With 5 second rounds you get 12 rounds per minute, meaning that it would be able to put out 50 rounds in a turn (change to 3 second rounds, like many other games use, and that goes down to 30). The highest number of rounds an in-game weapon can fire in a single turn it 20, this being a heavy weapon with a ROF of -/-/10 and the storm quality (from Lure of the Expanse)

Clearly this is another gameplay abstraction.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, because when I say muskets that's what I was referencing 1rst and second generation firearms, circa say the 1500's

Dark Heresy does give rules for early generation firearms, the musket and the flintlock. Compared to bows and crossbows, they suck.

Pistols: The flintlock does +2 damage compared to the hand bow, but has tripple the reload time along with the inaccurate and unreliable traits.

But the reload time and inaccurate trait remain. Personally I'd prefer the hand bow since its quicker reload time will make up for the decreased damage.

Basic weapons: The musket gets +2 damage again. But it is more expensive than the crossbow and bow, while having a longer reload (5 round for musker, 2 for crossbow, half for the bow) and has the primitive and unreliable traits.

The quicker reload does make up for the less damage. But the bow can be brought down to a free action reload with rapid reload, meaning that you now have the option of using a half-action aim on every turn.

Then consider how likely each one it to jam. Again, the primitive firearms lose.

Bottom line, this is house rules, if you aren't suggesting something to make the rules more playable, then kindly stop replying,because if you don't like them, then you don't have to use them. That would be the nice thing about house rules.

You brought these house rules and their questionable justifications here for discussion. They are being discussed.

Do you have any good reason for wanting people to stop ?

"Because they disagree with me" is not a good reason.

Conceptually, I think the idea of making a unique, high-tech bow for your players to choose from amongst the other 40k weaponry isn't a bad idea.  The problem is that you're presenting weird anecdotes from hundreds of years ago as rational as to why a society with the kind of tech like 40k would still use bows.

Not to mention a few mechanics no one has discussed:  This person, firing 3 arrows on SA in a combat round, how much ammunition for that are they going to be carrying?  How much can they shove in a quiver?   Seems like they'll run out pretty quickly, and it's not easy to have a few extra quivers as spare.

Also, a major bonus for arrows is that being wounded by one is an incredibly traumatizing experience, as you now have a shaft sticking out that does just about as much damage coming out as it does going in.

All this said, you should concentrate more on presenting this as a specialized weapon, one that kills silently and in specialized situations, rather than something to be seen alongside of stubbers and lasguns in an underhive.

Conceptually, I think the idea of making a unique, high-tech bow for your players to choose from amongst the other 40k weaponry isn't a bad idea.

Thing is, there isn't much you can do to improve the design of a bow (beyond making it more durable) without changing it into something that isn't a bow. You are still going to be limited by the strength of muscles (or bionics) in the person using it and the flight characteristics of an arrow.

Though if you are talking about a bow wielded by someone with Space Marine or Ork strength, and have a bow that can handle it, the bow can still be reasonably powerful

The problem is that you're presenting weird anecdotes from hundreds of years ago as rational as to why a society with the kind of tech like 40k would still use bows.

That is only a problem if you are trying to claim that using a bow is a good idea. I don't. Instead I start with a rich eccentric for whom using a bow is more important than having an effective weapon, but he won't argue with ways to make his bow better.

Not to mention a few mechanics no one has discussed: This person, firing 3 arrows on SA in a combat round, how much ammunition for that are they going to be carrying? How much can they shove in a quiver? Seems like they'll run out pretty quickly, and it's not easy to have a few extra quivers as spare.

It was only two arrows. Though you do have a point here, even using a bow we are talking about 0.2kg per arrow if you use the clip weighs 10% of the weapon rule. That is some heavy ammo.

If this comes up in any of my games, as long as the player has the carry capacity for those arrows, I won't ask about how he carries them.

Also, a major bonus for arrows is that being wounded by one is an incredibly traumatizing experience, as you now have a shaft sticking out that does just about as much damage coming out as it does going in.

What should the threshold be for the arrow getting stuck in someone ?

I'm not one to say that a wound must mean an armour breach, it could have just been an impact that really knocked the target around while still bouncing off his armour.

There will some arrows that don't get stuck. For example exploding arrows will explode, meaning there isn't any large part of the arrow left to be stuck inside the target.

All this said, you should concentrate more on presenting this as a specialized weapon, one that kills silently and in specialized situations, rather than something to be seen alongside of stubbers and lasguns in an underhive.

As a weapon with a potential free action reload, being able to chose the best ammo for the task (instead of just loading up with a general purpose ammo) is quite possible. We just need to come up with some interesting arrows.

So what kind of specialised arrows can you think up ?

Since a strong arrow will be reusable, and daemonic weapons are very durable, daemon arrows are a possibility. Unlike a daemon bullet, which will probably only get used once and will be very suspicious if the character tries to use it a second time.

Nasty thought: Target has a power weapon and deflect shot. You have a daemon arrow. You shoot the target with the daemon arrow, they parry and break it, daemon gets loose

Bilateralrope said:

Nasty thought: Target has a power weapon and deflect shot. You have a daemon arrow. You shoot the target with the daemon arrow, they parry and break it, daemon gets loose

Daemon weapons are specifically immune to being destroyed by the Power Field quality. Consequently, parrying a daemon-possessed arrow, throwing knife or other thrown projectile with a power weapon cannot accidentally destroy the projectile.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Bilateralrope said:

Nasty thought: Target has a power weapon and deflect shot. You have a daemon arrow. You shoot the target with the daemon arrow, they parry and break it, daemon gets loose

 

Daemon weapons are specifically immune to being destroyed by the Power Field quality. Consequently, parrying a daemon-possessed arrow, throwing knife or other thrown projectile with a power weapon cannot accidentally destroy the projectile.

Deathwatch Relic weapon... hhmmm...

Alex

Bilateralrope said:

I imagined a specialized crit table for arrows dealing with the shafts.  After all, you don't have to go around digging bullets out of your hide when you take a few wounds, do you?  But then, that depends on the feel you're going for; badasses ripping arrows out of their arms to continue fighting, versus leaving it in because it's at least plugging the hole it made.

As for specialized arrows, I would definitely prefer to stay away from technobabble-tipped arrowheads that magically not just pierce, but fully penetrate armor despite having no where near the kinetic force to do so.  This is a specialized weapon, one I imagine an eccentric deathcult assassin might use for specific situations, rather than machine-gunning arrows out like a Legolas ripoff.

So:

High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) arrows: the tip is made of a solidified explosive that flattens on impact, spreading the area of detonation.  While not useful for penetration, it can be used to make an exit, and the reverberation effect when used on armor stuns / fatigues those inside. 

Bolt Arrows: using a modified bolt shell, this arrow propels itself (once fired) and explodes on contact, granting the benefits of bolter ammunition without having to actually acquire a boltgun.

Incendiary Arrows: These arrows are rigged with a promethium capsule and deploy with minimal penetration but maximum dispersal, setting its target ablaze.

Chain arrows: requiring special handling, the shaft of this arrow is lined with the jagged, sawing metal teeth of a chainblade; once it impacts, it will begin sawing and burrow into its target.

Some of this is nonsense, but might be fun to get the ball rolling on different kinds of arrows.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

True.

Could the daemon reduce the durability of the weapon if it really wanted to get free ?

For example, a slaanesh daemon being fired at an Eldar.

If that isn't enough, and you have a character heretical enough, have the arrow covered in enough explosives that it will be destroyed when the go off. That will free the daemon.

I imagined a specialized crit table for arrows dealing with the shafts.

An entire new crit table is going to be a lot of work.

Though, now that I've taken a look at the Purgatus again, I think that dealing 1 wound for it to get stuck is enough, as that is consistent with official weapons. As for the effect:

 - -10 on any test that involves moving the body part.

 - Removing the arrow is a full action that deals 1d5+1 wounds, ignoring armour and TB.

 - After the battle is over it can be removed with a medicae test if the character has sufficient tools (a medikit should be sufficient). Failure does nothing, failure by 3+DOS causes the arrow to come out, dealing 1d5+1 damage that is reduced by TB.

 - Strength test to snap off the shaft. This removes the penalties, but increases the penalty of the medicae test to remove by one step. Leaving it in will risk a fatal infection (see the section on amputated limbs for details on the infection).

As for specialized arrows, I would definitely prefer to stay away from technobabble-tipped arrowheads that magically not just pierce, but fully penetrate armor despite having no where near the kinetic force to do so.

What about arrows that penetrate through other means ?

Such as a power field, the main portion of its penetration and damage being the power field disrupting the matter around it, not the kinetic energy and momentum behind the arrow.

Some of this is nonsense, but might be fun to get the ball rolling on different kinds of arrows.
As long as the nonsense is consistent with 40k, it should be good. The only one of your arrows I have a problem with is the bolter arrow, because it is rocket propelled, not propelled by the bow. Some stat suggestions for your other arrows (unless otherwise stated, all arrows can take the effect of the mono upgrade for melee weapons):

 - HESH: No idea where to start.

 - Incendiary: If target takes one wound, target makes an AG test to avoid catching fire. If these are recovered from a target, these arrows become regular arrows until reloaded with a new incendiary cartage (maybe 30 seconds per arrow).

 - Chain: Comparing the sword and chainsword on the RT GM screen, I see that chain weapons get +2 damage, +2 pen, lose primitive, gain tearing. So the same effect applies. Since the shaft is lined with chain teeth (these would stop spinning quickly due to limited fuel), trying to pull it out or snap the shaft will take damage equal to a mono-sword (including the SB of the person attempting it). These may not be combined with the mono upgrade.

Organgrinder rounds (Into The Storm) might be adaptable into an arrowhead. They would have to snap off their own shaft to dig in deeper. These may not be combined with the mono upgrade.

 - Poison dipped arrowheads. These arrows have been soaked in poison and gain the toxic trait. These may be combined with chain arrows, in which case the toxic trait also applies to the person trying to remove it.

Trodamus said:

Actually, standard proceedure IS to dig out the bullet(s) in you. Preferably with the help of a skilled physician with hospital resources available, but there have been certain action movies where the hero either has to remove the bullet(s) himself or with the help of a friend. Nasy business indeed. Failing to remove bullets can certainly cause an infection and be fatal several days after the fact, even if the bullets miss any vital organs.

Guys, hate to break it to you but bullets are actually quite dangerous, not just arrows. I would think it much easier for a less skilled doctor to remove a barbed arrow from a wound than to have to poke into a bullet hole to get out the smaller bullet. And I don't see why the arrow would stick more easily in a person than a bullet would penetrate and become lodged inside.