Mordheim Musings: Short Bows for Beastmen

Today's installment of Mordheim Musings, a spur-of-the-moment heading which has become a semi-regular column on here, deals with a question that's been on my mind for quite a while, but that I haven't collected my thoughts on until now: should Beastmen Raiders have the option of equipping ungors with shortbows? If you've read my other articles (or, let's be honest, any article of this type), I'm sure you know where this is headed, but humour me. This turned out to be a bit deeper than I had first assumed.

But First, Some Context

The Beastmen Raiders warband saw its debut in Town Cryer #7, way back in 1999. I know this, not because I was in any way involved in Mordheim or Warhammer then, but because I obsessively pored through and indexed the issues of Town Cryer over my summer holiday. That's not strictly necessary information, but it is relatively interesting to note that the warband then was not quite in its final form. It would be revised many issues and several years later, appearing in its final form in the final Town Cryer, #29 (2003). The warband is heavily focused on melee combat, and in fact has no shooting options besides spells. This isn't a big deal, thanks to the beasts' high speed and Toughness, but I can't think of another warband off the top of my head that entirely lacks shooting. Some are certainly better at it than others, and not every one has access to Shooting skills, but most at the very least have one ranged option.

"Why is that a problem?", you might ask, and you could be forgiven for wondering. To tell the truth, it isn't really. There doesn't seem to be any general negative sentiment about them online, anyway. I've seen several posts by new players asking whether they're a good choice for a first warband but other than praising their strong close combat attributes, one comment appears frequently among the posts I've read: 

They don't have any shooting, so be prepared. 

When playing beastmen, it seems that BS stands for something else entirely, and with a cruel maximum of BS6, a player is risking wasting up to three advance rolls in a characteristic that's absolutely worthless. On the flipside, with everything the warband already has going for it, adding in any significant shooting risks turning them into a major powerhouse. Not to mention that ranged weapons largely don't work thematically with the beasts. I've never seen a gor with any sort of ranged weapon, and while throwing axes or javelins might be appropriate, they offer a significant advantage to a high Strength, fast-moving character. In fact, in spite of this post's title, I don't think that any beastman hero should be given a shooting option. Ungors, on the other hand, are a different matter.

An Ungor's Purpose

Mechanically speaking, the ungors occupy an awkward position in the Beastmen Raiders roster. The list as a whole has notable parallels to a variety of other official warbands, but for the sake of argument, the Witch Hunters serve as a good point of comparison. The Chieftain is a combat-oriented leader, like the Witch Hunter Captain, and has the option to be accompanied by up to three heroes who are in many ways, lesser versions of himself (though the centigor is notable unique), plus a spellcaster (comparable to the warrior-priest).

In terms of henchmen, gors occupy a similar niche to flagellants as elite but limited warriors, and both warbands can field up to five warhounds. Ignoring the minotaur, it stands to reason that the ungors are the budget henchman choice, a cheaper alternative to the elites. While it may seem like a strange comparison, this sort of warband pattern is repeated (with some remixing) frequently throughout the official warbands. 

And from a pure characteristic standpoint, ungors fill this role admirably. For 25 gold crowns, you get a standard henchman statline, albeit exchanging a point of Leadership for a point of Movement (a pretty solid trade, seeing as Movement can't be improved by advances). So what's the issue with ungors? They seem pretty good just judging by the profile, and have a fair cost. 

Based on my "research", there are two main problems with ungor in their current state. Both are significant for different reasons, but the first one I'll discuss is their special rule "Lowest of the Low", which forces them to re-roll "The Lad's Got Talent!" advances, utterly excluding them from becoming heroes. This means that, no matter how much experience they earn, ungors can never acquire skills, improve their Wounds, or increase any other characteristic more than once. Furthermore, their Serious Injuries are much less forgiving, meaning that the more experienced an ungor becomes, the more of a liability it is, being difficult and expensive to properly replace. While a rule like this might seem innocent enough, it hobbles a henchman's potential to a significant degree over time, and definitely merits a discount from the standard 25 gc. 

The second major flaw in the ungor builds off the first, and I've seen it cited as the reason why they aren't generally taken in a warband in the first place. For 25 gc (not to mention the investment in equipment, a minimum of 3 gc extra), an ungor is a pricey liability with limited uses. Compare this to the Beastmen Raiders' other henchmen choices, the gor and the warhound, and the ungor loses even more appeal. A gor, at 35 gc, is fairly priced for its profile and comes with no hampering special rules. While the low Leadership isn't ideal, gors are fast, tough, and have a solid WS of 4, more than worth the investment. The warhound, at the other end, is extremely cheap at 15 gc, doesn't require equipment, and boasts high speed, WS, and Strength. While they can't gain experience, their profiles are already so strong that advances are hardly necessary, and 15 gc is a much easier pill to swallow than 25+. 

On top of all of this, a warband of Beastmen Raiders has a maximum size of 15 warriors. For a warband that hasn't lost their chieftain, that means that after five heroes, five gors (because you likely want all five), and a minotaur, you have four spaces to work with. Warhounds seem like a more reliable choice to fill those slots based on their stronger stats and ability to fill the specific niche of fast, powerful combatants. Assuming the chieftain is dead, that only frees up one more slot, and it's hard to find a reason to fill that with an ungor over a warhound. 

But for anyone who isn't convinced that ungors under-perform (ungor-perform, if you will), take for a counterexample the informer, from the Black Dwarfs warband out of Border Town Burning. Sure, it isn't technically official, and was written several years later, but I can't imagine too many people outside of absolute purists taking offense to the comparison. Similarly to the ungor, the informer has an average set of characteristics, and also has a special rule, "Drudgery" that is functionally identical to "Lowest of the Low". What they also have is a price tag of 15 gc. 

Yes, fifteen. 10 less than the ungor. 

And while this might be written off as a case of power creep and different ideas of balance, I think it highlights an idea that may not have been considered as much in the early days of Mordheim: becoming a hero means something. There is a clear division between henchman and hero, and a clearly-defined progression from one to the other. Being barred from ever achieving their full potential may not be crippling to a henchman in the middle of a fight, but it's an ever-present bugbear in a campaign that makes that henchman feel bad to run unless there's some leeway given. 

Do I think that discounting the ungor is appropriate though? Not exactly. At least, not to the same degree as the informer. If one were to consider a discount, I would maybe argue for knocking 5 gc off the price, since Movement could be seen as more broadly applicable than Leadership. I think it's a risky proposition, however, to give a warband two henchman options at the 15 gc "bargain" slot. While it can work thematically in certain warbands (see goblins and squigs), I don't think that beastmen are one of them. I don't think the solution to the ungor's plight is to make them cheaper, but to diversify their application and give them a clear niche.

Short Bows Come Up Short

To be frank, short bows are bad weapons. Adding the short bow to almost any warband's roster shouldn't be seen as giving them an advantage, but more as an awkward and cumbersome option that misleads new players and confuses veterans. Maybe that's harsh, but hear me out.

The short bow has a range of 16" and Strength 3. That's all you really need to know about the weapon, as it follows all the standard rules for shooting: firing at half range or less while stationary incurs no penalties, moving and/or long range incur a -1 penalty each, and cover might further reduce the chances of hitting. Assuming a BS3 firer, under ideal circumstances there's a 50/50 chance of hitting what you're aiming at, but under typical circumstances (pick two of: you've moved, the target is at long range, there's cover), that becomes a 1/6 chance. Not much in Mordheim has a Toughness score of less than 3, so you're looking at a 50/50 to wound too, but against anything tougher than your average mercenary those odds shrink quickly. Best-case realistic scenario, you have a 25% chance of scoring a wound at all. Not terrible, but even then you have to be at most 8" from the enemy, which is a very important number in that it is within the charge range of anything with longer legs than a dwarf. 

Almost anything is better than this. Bows and longbows increase their short range to 12" and 15" respectively; crossbows have longer range and higher Strength; handguns have longer range, higher Strength, and armour-piercing capabilities; pistols and crossbow pistols can be used in close combat; throwing weapons can move and fire without penalty; repeating crossbows and long rifles have their own exotic strengths... even the lowly sling has a longer range than the short bow, and can fire twice at short range! One of the few things short bows have going for them is their cost, coming in at a very economical 5 gc, but even here they aren't the best, as slings cost 2 gc! There are only a few times when a short bow is a practical choice: your archer is better in close combat than at a range, you want your archer to die, or there is no other option. Much like the ungor, it may not seem terrible on paper, but weighed against the other available options the short bow is clearly inferior. 

My comment earlier about misleading new players and confusing veterans was a bit of hyperbole, but I believe there's still some truth in it. A new player looking at the short bow might be drawn in by its low cost, thinking that 16" of range is plenty for a game like Mordheim, and the savings are worth it. As discussed above, however, while they might be better than nothing in terms of ranged weapons, most factions with the option to take short bows can also take regular bows. For any warband intending to get serious about shooting, the bow is the way to go. A veteran, however, looking at a short bow among a plethora of other ranged options, might ask themselves why it was included at all. Unless a warband has a henchman option that obviously fills the niche of expendable archer, one might wonder what its purpose is at all. I'd go so far as to say that any warband (at least the official ones) can have the shortbow added as an option for any henchman that already has at least one other ranged option, and not see any meaningful shift in balance. It's such an underwhelming weapon that I can't imagine a situation in which it's game-breaking.

Let's look back at those practical situations I mentioned though, and imagine the short bow as an option for ungors. Not all beastmen, just ungors. Ungors are pretty mediocre in close combat, but can, importantly, be given spears, clubs, and/or shields to supplement this. An ungor with a club could pose enough of a threat in close combat to make enemies think twice about getting too close, and a short bow added into the mix makes it even better. However, with a 10" charge range, do you really need to be stopping 8" away to shoot? I'm not so sure.

Ignoring the second "practical" situation (since we obviously don't want the ungors dying), given no other option for shooting, the short bow becomes appealing, especially considering the interplay between it and other beastmen. that 10" threat range isn't unique to ungors, of course, it's the minimum in the warband! A minotaur can charge up to 12", warhounds up to 14", and a centigor up to 16". Add in a 16" threat radius for short bows, and beastmen suddenly become even scarier from an area control perspective. 

More importantly, however, the short bow lends a new definition to the ungor's role. Instead of a mediocre melee fighter, ungors now have the option of using their impressive movement to claim high ground and cover, controlling it with missile fire while the rest of the warband advances or flanks. Furthermore, their Ld of 6 is less of an issue, since they're ideally staying out of the fight anyway. Suddenly, the 25 gc price tag might not seem so bad. Maybe 30 gc for an ungor with a short bow is actually a bargain, and not a ripoff. Maybe, but I'm still in favour of the 20 gc ungor if that's the way you want to play it.

What You See (Should Be) What You Get

The simplest point for ungors having shortbows, in my mind, is that the models exist. Not to say that everything that has a model should be in Mordheim, but the ungors are a particularly important case. 

In 1999, when the first beastmen warband appeared, the rules for beastmen were collected in a book titled Realm of Chaos. In this book, ungor had the following options: hand weapon, spear, shield. These are very much in line with the warband's options (albeit that, while you could technically equip an ungor with a sword in WHFB, in Mordheim they aren't allowed). The next beastmen army book would come in 2003, Beasts of Chaos, which was largely the same story. At the time, ungors seem not to have had their own kit, but to have been created by putting a different head with smaller horns onto a gor. 

The Mordheim warbands, therefore, are reflective of their time. It makes sense for the Mordheim beastmen to follow the WHFB kits closely, both to help sell Mordheim to WHFB players, and to allow it to act as a gateway into the larger game. Since the next major beastmen updates didn't come until their 7th edition codex in 2010 (long after the days of GW supporting Mordheim in any major way), it also makes sense why the warband wouldn't be updated, and it's also a fair argument that the new models shouldn't have any effect on the old rules for the preservation of Mordheim as an artefact. 

While I acknowledge the validity of this line of reasoning, I respectfully disagree with it.

Ignoring the question of official GW support, Mordheim is still remarkably vibrant today, 20 years down the line. The official rules were written for an entirely different set of models, and while for some factions that might cause a significant upset, the addition of bows to the ungor kit is roughly the only significant change to the representative models for the Beatmen Raiders warband. With the release of Warhammer Underworlds: Beastgrave, yet more amazing, modernized ungor sculpts (with bows!) have entered circulation, and in my opinion it's high time they be legal in Mordheim. 

Potential Problem

As I mentioned earlier, I can't imagine a situation where the short bow breaks the game. There is, however, an issue that might arise from its inclusion in the beastmen armoury, and I'd like to both present it and propose a remedy.

I've danced around it a bit, but maybe there is a perfectly good reason beastmen don't have any shooting options, besides the 1999 Citadel miniatures catalogue. I mentioned area control above; for the record, what I mean by that is the area that an enemy cannot enter without risking being charged or shot at. Beastmen control a frightening amount of area with their base movement alone, and are far and away the fastest official warband, on foot at least. It might have been felt, in designing the warband, that including shooting would be a bit of overkill. You might also feel that way ("Why do they need it when they have so much else going for them?"). 

This is valid, and I suggest a relatively simple solution to those who want to include short bows without seeing herds of ungor wielding them: split the ungor henchman into ungor, who can be taken in any quantity, and ungor raiders, with a 0-5 limit. Give raiders the option for clubs, axes, and short bows, but otherwise have them be functionally identical. This way, there is a hard and fast limit on shooting, but frankly I don't think it's worth the trouble. For one thing, beastmen already have two henchman choices with a 0-5 limit, and adding a third is cumbersome and inelegant. Ungor also still can't become heroes, so there's a clear advantage to taking gors, and warhounds and the minotaur both occupy important niches in the warband that even an ungor with a short bow won't disrupt.

In Conclusion, and the Bigger Picture

At best, adding short bows as an option for ungors gives beastmen players a bit more flexibility, and presents a puzzle when filling out those last few slots in the warband. At worst, the warband is either unchanged (ungors are still bad), or warbands run a horde of sub-standard, fast-moving archers that get mowed down by superior firepower. 

The question of short bows for ungors is pretty innocuous on its own, but I think it adds fuel to a larger discussion on Mordheim as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, Mordheim has been going strong for 20 years, and a dedicated online community and events like Mordheim 2019 keep the game vibrant even today. I'm sure a thousand gaming groups play it by a thousand different sets of house rules, and while it may be the go-to core document, the "Living Rulebook" is hardly alive at all, having remained unchanged for years. 

The bigger question in my mind is, does the game need to evolve, and if so, how? At what point does a tome of house rules stop being enough to go by, making a new edition necessary? And where should this revision come from to give it the best chance of success? I would define success here as "being adopted as the standard by a majority of the community", which would be some feat considering the longevity of the current rule set. 

Of course, I think it would be irresponsible for me to ask these questions without providing my own thoughts, but I've also gone on for a while, so I'll be brief. I'm not sure if the game needs to evolve, but if it did, I think the most important factor would be reflecting the evolution in GW's own product line, broadening options to be more in keeping with the lore of the Old World as it has evolved since 1999. I think that as soon as house rules and errata become so universal that they fundamentally alter the game, it's a good time for a new edition, and I think it's safe to say that Mordheim has reached that point. Not to say that a revision is necessary, or that I think it needs one, but that the ingredients are all there. 

And while I think that an "official" revision from GW would be an intriguing experiment, I don't know how successful it would be post-AoS. part of Mordheim's appeal is its strong rooting in WHFB, and "updating" it to follow the new AoS system would more likely than not alienate current players. Likewise, I don't think GW is likely to revisit their old systems just to workshop a 20-year-old specialist game. The best I would hope for in that department would be an AoS-like reboot à la Necromunda, where veterans stick with the original rules but get access to a range of new kits and sculpts from GW themselves. I won't say that will never happen, but I don't think it's on their radar right now.

For a revision of the rules to have any sort of success, I think it needs to come from the community itself, through asking questions like this and codifying the results. Even then, I don't see a new edition ever dethroning the classic Mordheim, but I could see a community-driven revamp gaining majority appeal. Is that something I would initiate? No. But I'd participate, given the chance, or at the very least watch gleefully from the sidelines as my predictions come to fruition.

I'll leave it there for now. Food for thought.