Talk:Bow

Section 0
Is there any confirmed source for bows firing speed and ranges? All bows at GuildWiki have there stats listed, but where do those come from? I didn't find any reference with google. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 22:26, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Bow information is comparable to Hanhsoo's FAQ (of GWonline.net and GameFAQs fame). --Rustjive 22:45, 26 October 2005 (EST)
 * I took the liberty of editing sub pages for all the main bow types are flight speed was still as per the old data. If someone wants to finish up with all the strange types of bow's that's be great.--Apocrypha 18:33, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

I removed "Edit: Axe/Sword speed is actually one swing per 1.33 seconds, hammer is one swing per 1.75 seconds.", since that's exactly what is in the table. However, what is "Flight Time" for axes, swords & hammers supposed to mean? And what about the "melee/seconds/'/x" line? 134.130.183.83 18:25, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * The table is linked from this template: Template:Weapon_properties (further talk there) The melee line, and the weapon flight times for axe/hammer/sword, make no sense to me at all either. Nectarine 18:55, 2 November 2005 (EST)

k, so I moved the table over from the template, removed the nonsensical melee line, and put NA in the flight time for the axe/sword/hammer lines. So... Since this page could be best used for comparisons of all the bows. How can we improve this table? Nectarine 22:22, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * Compared to the |Projectile link that was in the template, the values vary somewhat. --Fyren 22:57, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * That's rather odd. The original editor of the template was Ollj (spelling?). I just copied and pasted this table. They also vary from the prima guide. Not sure which was published first, the guildwars guru article is dated february. The prima guide has the ranges as approximately double to that listed in the guildwars guru article. And they list the 'bubble' as the approximate spellcasting range, as 88 feet. Note the prima guid also has a typo in the ranges table (has longbow as 167 feet, and flatbow as 67 feet)... So what do we use? Nectarine 23:18, 2 November 2005 (EST)

Do we have a backup source that's sure that the horned bow types have 10% armor penetration? I've heard that before, but recall that there were big debates about that on other forums. --JoDiamonds 06:23, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Someone posted research they did with a horn bow and it was consistently higher damage than the other bows. --Karlos 07:00, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * It's on the Horn Bow talk page Nectarine 14:01, 3 November 2005 (EST)

I just had a look at range, the ranges there are the same as in the prima guide, and radically different to these. I say we change these ones to match that. And we might as well go with their recharge times too. These ones are definitely inaccurate. The flight times would need to be verified experimentally. Which seems rather tricky. Also, perhaps this page should be renamed Bow Comparison or something? There is a catagory called Bows. Nectarine 14:15, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * The category is for item articles. The Prima guide isn't really a good source of info, from what I've gathered from player opinion of it.  But, Ensign's info is from the beta days and so is very old.  Perhaps we should just remove the info till someone tests or finds a more recent source.  --Fyren 14:27, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * I'm curious as to how anyone could come up with figures on these to begin with. Is there some way to know the distance in feet to something? If we remove this data, we should also remove the range and refire rate information from all the bows. They are the same as this table. And what about the range page? is that meaningful? It doesn't seem to be noted where that info came from. Nectarine 15:07, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Or maybe we can just direct people to this link, was the first thing in the list after googling "guildwars bow range". No mention of distances in feet at all. Just multiples of the aggro range. Nectarine 15:15, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Skills that have the same word (nearby, adjacent, etc.) can have varying ranges, so the range page is kind of useless. If you go to the glossary in the online manual, there are numbers listed for some of them.  I suppose the data might have come from there.  (Maybe it's in the real manual, too.  I don't have one.)  I think the only mention of measurement in game is Well of Power's description.  Multiples of aggro range sounds much better to me.  As for the forum post, I'd rather have the data in the article.  Not to belittle the poster's research, if he did the work, but it's not hard to test.  Maybe verify it ourselves.  --Fyren 17:09, 3 November 2005 (EST)

Half Moon bows seem to be missing from the tables. I have 2 and would like to see the type added to the discussion. What types of testing should I do to get the needed data or is this in progress?
 * They are in there. Look on the Tyrian chart.  You probably overlooked it.[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:00, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Is there actually any source for req 7 bows, or is it a copy-paste from the sword section? Never saw or heard of any req7 max damage bow since beta. Caths 15:21, 19 November 2006 (CST)

Arc Size
I thought Arc size directly affects flight time, in which case it's odd to see both the 0.75 sec flight time and the 0.65 sec flight time as having the "same" arc size. Or maybe the arc size was just approximated (maybe because the ppl who originally put it together can't come up with more than 3 divisions)? -PanSola 07:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just copied the arc size from the mentioned article. However when comparing bows, it is something that we should definitly mention. --Xeeron 07:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you guys check this? I was just in a party where people (who actually have rangers) were having this debate that the smaller the arc size the more accurate your bow will be. i.e. They said that a Flatbow has little chance of hitting a moving target and a Recurve has a high chance. When thinking about it, that makes sense. It would compensate for the 10% armor penetration. --Karlos 17:16, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure that it's correct, the accuracy for a Flatbow on a moving target is worse. It might be a bit hard to test though, perhaps you could fire upon the Master of Healing (who seems to kite) with the different bows but I think it's pretty much accepted anyway. --Xasxas256 17:32, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I've updated this page with more accurate values (calculated with some 60FPS frapsing). The values listed are from measurements we did in the second beta weekend, and all the bows were tweaked after that time.  I'm surprised it's flaoted around for that long. If people are happy with the new values supplied, I'll roll them out to the specific bow pages--Pharalon 21:55, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Factions
Here's the bow types I've found so far during the Factions preview. -- Gordon Ecker 13:03, 26 March 2006 (CST)
 * Amber Bow
 * Bramble Longbow
 * Bramble Recurve Bow
 * Jade Longbow
 * Naga Longbow
 * Naga Short Bow
 * Plagueborn Bow
 * Platinum Bow
 * Found Bramble Longbow, Bramble Short Bow, Naga Longbow, Platinum Bow and Plagueborn Bow here . -- Gordon Ecker 11:06, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Bow Classes
Added accuracies according to the following in-game description

''There are a number of different types of bows available for use, each varying slightly in range, attack speed, and accuracy. The longbow offers a fair attack speed, a long range, and fair accuracy. The shortbow has a good attack speed, poor range, and good accuracy. The flatbow provides a good attack speed, a good range, and poor accuracy. The recurve bow has a fair attack speed, a fair range, and good accuracy. The hornbow provides a poor attack speed, a fair range, and fair accuracy, but has armor penetration.''

-- Tablet of Wisdom (Bows), Linnok Courtyard


 * Accuracy is directly reflected by arc size and flight time. The Tablet use a very vague description. -PanSola 10:03, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * "Flight time and arc size directly affects the accuracy" is just as vague, perhaps moreso to a beginner. How do they affect accuracy?  I know right off that something with 'good' accuracy hits more often than something with 'fair' accuracy, but I may not know that a 'small' arc is better than a 'normal' one for accuracy. 'Good' and 'poor' are qualitative measurements that everyone can compare immediately.  Just because something is qualitative and not quantitative doesn't mean it's a 'bad' measurement. -Tometheus 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't say it's "bad". I merely think it's completely redundent.  Though you brought up a very good point: I actually can't tell right off which one is better, "good" or "fair".  I always have to look at arc size and flight time to deduce it. -PanSola 14:58, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * You do very well for a non-native English speaker :) I would have never known until you mentioned that and I looked at your user page.  (By now, my Chinese is terrible.  I haven't used it since college.)  The ranking system for evaluations is usually given as Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Terrible.  (Of course, extremes will often be left off, as in the game.)  --Tometheus 17:18, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * "usually" is the key. It's especially confusing for me because "fair" in the context of looks tend to be stronger than "good".  A "fair maiden" is presumably more pleasing to look at than a "good looking girl".  There might be other instances where Fair gets ranked higher than Good, and thus I generally avoid using both of them in the same ranking system.  I'd rather spend a paragraph discussing how arc size adn refire rate affects accuracy than use both terms on the same scale. -PanSola 17:22, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, it gets more confusing in that context, because 'fair' in a 'fair maiden' actually refers to 'blonde' or light skinned. (See definition #9 ) (which in turn was because that was considered better than 'dark', but anyways.) (And since 'good maiden' usually implied an ethical evaluation rather than a physical evaluation, you couldn't really use that at the time.)  --Tometheus 17:31, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Range
Which values are correct, the ones here or the ones in Range? -- Gordon Ecker 03:42, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The values currently on Range is calculated using slightly more scientific methods. - 03:50, 29 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I just did some testing, not 100% scientific but I did use a ruler. I had a large compass with an aggro bubble of 1.0cm.  I used the auto-target feature where I attacked out of range and my character automatically moved to firing range, on a flat surface with a stationary target.  A longbow had a range of 1.5cm, a recurve bow 1.2cm, and a shortbow slightly *less* than 1.0cm (which makes sense because using a shortbow causes aggros before the shot actually fires).  --Doodle01 22:23, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

14-28 Bow?
In a drop from a Jade Scarab, I recieved a purple Composite Bow of Enchanting, and oddly enough, it's damage is 14-28. Is this just a rare drop, like the +% weapons that don't have anything else, or a glitch? Curious if this has been seen before. Not to mention that the only known damage of Composites is 15-28... There is a picture here. Any thoughts? --Ness Hrin 14:27, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't see what's odd about getting a 14-28, but I'm not much of a PvEer. The min ranges we have are definitely not reliable.  Most weapons don't have ranges listed.  --68.142.14.65 22:11, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not that uncommon. I've probably have gotten quite a few non-max composite bows, but never noticed it. Feel free to edit the Composite Bow page and change the min value. --Ryard 22:34, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I guess it just stuck me as strange. Oh well. --Ness Hrin [[Image:NessHrinIcon.gif]] 14:27, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Bow Stats not the same
To the best of my knowledge there are 5 'types' of bows. Flatbow, Hornbow, Longbow, Recurve, and the Shortbow (as listed on this article page) which apply to each of any bow out there for the range, refire, and flight time. Many on this wiki have differing stats for these stats. Many of these show conflicting information (for example: Horn Bow and Ivory Bow have different stats though they both are a hornbow 'type' and should have the same refire, range, and flight time). I started asking questions on Shadow Bow and Ivory Bow Talk but stopped when I was noticing it all over the wiki. Can someone please list the correct stats for each 'type' of bow and apply them properly? I will gladly remove my questions from Ivory and Shadow bows if the corrections are in place or at least listed as I will gladly change them as needed if no one has the time but they have the info. Thank you.--Vallen Frostweaver 13:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * it is far more likely the differing articles were writen before the bow research, and never updated. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:56, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I assume the problem is that the table here on "Bow" (along with some, but not all of the articles of the single bows) was updated at some point to show the flight times for short bow range, while originally the flight times were for each bow's full range. I noticed something similar at Platinum Longbow not too long ago. Also, many of the bow articles still use the old weapon info template, which lists every single stat, while the new template only states the type of the bow. Listing all the stats on each article shouldn't be neccessary (redundant information, lot's of work to update if a game update changes anything), so we would just need someone to start a bow crusade and implement the new template everywhere... :) --84-175 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well theire is a problem with the template, some peopleare trying to include the bow type in WeaponInfo and we have BowInfo. Another probleme is that some people want all the info and some just want the type in the box.  We need to do something about that first before changing everything&mdash; ├ A  ratak  ┤  14:33, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll see what I can manage tomorrow or the next day to fix this up. Know of any currently using the new template so I can use that as a basis for making changes?--Vallen Frostweaver 14:38, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Nevermind. I've figured it out how to use the new template on the newer models and add the to the old ones to appear and function the same without loss of data.  Only problem that remains is that it now has 2 'Linked Attribute(s)' listed for the old template using bows.  I can't update the old templates without losing the pictures so I figured it was better to do this for now.  The info will all be correct but the line needs an update from 'Linked Attribute(s)' to something like 'Bow Type' but that is beyond me to create a new template.--Vallen Frostweaver 09:13, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I just check some of your edit and you seem to not even use the new template. Please see the Template:BowInfo or Template:WeaponInfo&mdash; ├ A ratak  ┤  09:57, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Accuracy
I notice that Short and Recursive bows are said to have 'good' accuracy from the Master on the battle isles. Is 'Accuracy' a separate characteristic of each of the 5 types of bows, or is it really derived from the Arc and Flight times of the bows where high arc and high flight times increases chances of a miss? I understand other factors affect accuracy, such as moving targets and target defensive skills and shooter offense skills.

Is there any good measure of 'accuracy'? Ignoring foe defensive skills, will you always hit at short range against a stationary foe? How more likely is a recursive bow to hit a laterally moving running target then will a flat bow?

- OYE


 * I don't know what the Master says specifically, but accuracy would come from the flight time or arc height, both of which basically represent the same thing. There hasn't been any definitive test to try to quantize accuracy, although I'd imagine the test would try to measure "the length away from the player at which a laterally moving foe is unable to dodge the arrow" or something of that sort.

I tend to find myself almost(?) never missing with a shortbow (I can't think of a time I missed with a shortbow due to accuracy), while with a flatbow it give the enemy plenty of time to move if I'm trying to hit them from the maximum distance away. --Ryard 18:21, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Is there any data on Half Moon bows? They are not in the table and I have two.
 * Half moons are just a kind of Short Bow, as far as I've read. - OYE

Accuracy would basically be the flight speed one would think, which is essentially the arc height. I don't see why two bows that have the same time to hit at a given range would have varying accuracies - if a target is moving they will either both hit or both miss. As well, the recurve bow, being the fastest has the lowest miss rate on moving targets. The illusion that Shortbows are accurate is because they are ONLY used at short range; using a Horn or Long bow at this range should have the exact same success. In my mind Flatbow should be poor, the three 0.59 second bows should be medium, and the Recuve bow should be good - rewarding the shortbow for its horrible range by labeling it accurate seems foolish. Can we please put it to "medium", as to my knowledge the only thing affecting the miss rate on moving foes is arrow speed? Actually, looking through the history I see someone got the information on accuracy from the Tablet of Wisdom on bows, so it is an ingame source; this doesn't mean anything for its practical value though. I'm uncomfortable with it being presented this way in that I don't see any such effect in game; perhaps since we have measured range and measured the speed (despite the Tablet of Wisdom providing these details) we should empirically measure the accuracy, scrap presenting it, or leave the note explaining the source, since it implies an effect that may or may not exist in game (and instead of using the term "medium" we could stick with the Tablet's description of "fair". It's obviously been a bone of contention, as it has been in the table and removed by PanSola, and yet here it is again.  Rather than revert, I'd like to clear it up as to whether it belongs.  --Epinephrine 16:40, 11 December 2006 (CST)
 * You make a good point. I have made changes that should be appropriate.  The only contrary information is the notes you mention on the tablet of wisdom.  It can be added as a note if it still gets changed afterward for clarification as you suggest.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  18:28, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Observation: when I approach a peaceful mob and shoot a flat bow, they are aggro'd when I shoot and charge towards me while the arrow is still in the air, and the arrow usually misses. The 2nd shot usually hits even though they are still moving. I conclude that accuracy is not just a function of whether they are moving, its more a function in changes in movement after I shoot; that is I automatically 'lead' a moving foe and will tend to hit it unless it changes velocity (such as stopping) after I shot.Oye 22:58, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * All the arrow does is land at a target foes location at the time of shot. If the foe is moving, the game will calculate the *guessed* location of where the foe will be when it lands. This is why when you move left then move right an arrow will have a good chance to miss. If the arrow is being speed up by a skill like read the wind, it takes less time to arrive at the target thus it increases the chance of hitting a target. That annoying glitch with the mobs running at you when you shoot an arrow is really annoying, it happens with the elite siege attack as well, so i only use that on ranged units. Oh and also i think the hit boxes for when the arrow lands at a target are larger then the person this is only though observation though. Xeon 23:12, 18 December 2006 (CST)

The column "Accuracy" can be taken off. Not only is it exactly the same as Flight Time, but with "good" and "poor" etc instead of useful numerical data, it's also, strictly speaking, wrong. Something that doesn't hit a lot isn't neccesarily less accurate. Accuracy is the ability hit where you mean to strike, and, in GWs anyway, you always hit you mean to hit- the only reason you don't hit the target is that it moved away. Dictionary.com says "condition or quality of being true". It's nothing about whether you hit what you want to hit. A very slow moving projectile is accurate as long as it hit where it's supposed to hit (A catapult, a Motar Shot), and a very fast moving shot is not neccesaily more accuarate (a flintlock). Yes, in the context of the game, you hit more often if its flight time is less, but if you REAALLY think that should be placed onto the table, it should be "chance to hit" "likeliness of hitting" "likeliness of being dodged" or rather "Flight Time". Accuracy is whether it hits where it's supposed to. If you play a dice game, accuracy is the percentile chance of hitting where it's supposed to hit. Armor lowers the accuracy because armor is considered locations that aren't aimed for, and evasion decreases "accuracy" purely for mathematical purposes. Shot is accurate if it hits where it aims for, not whether it is dodged or not, jeez. That's why "stray" isn't "miss". It's "fail to hit" in the game. --Silk Weaker 09:27, 25 December 2006 (CST)


 * Bump....--Silk Weaker 06:44, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * For shame, buming an article. Tsk tsk.  But I'm glad you did as I missed that you had placed a reply here. ;)  Anyway, you are correct that accuracy is not a factor in GW but as most people when using a bow assume accuracy is part of the equation if only because it has been in almost any game in the past (Zelda or it's ilk being separate).  I have no problem with the exclusion of accuracy ratings of the bows but only if a small note is left in the bow article somewhere stating that accuracy is not relevant in GW, etc. for those that go looking for it.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:42, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I would be ok with this as well, I'll see what I can do as to still make the info noticible for someone who is looking for it. Good idea. Turk Nagona 19:45, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * A little late I suppose, but I fixed it the best I could. Turk Nagona 13:23, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Choosing Bows
I have these thoughts about choosing a bow:

The Flat bow is superior for aggroing and drawing PvE mobs to you. It has long range and its high arc lets you shoot over a hill making it more likely you will in fact aggro the foe. It doesn't matter that you will likely miss with this single shot you take with this bow (foes move while the arrow is in the air). I put a flat bow in all my characters F1 weapon slot. You can in fact draw mobs with a party of Henchmen (without the warriors charging in), but you have to manuever a little bit before you move to take your shot to be sure you are well in front of the warriors: I target 'C' the foe, click the ground in the other direction, wait for the hench warriors to move 'ahead' of me (which is further away from the foe), then hit the space bar to move towards the foe and take the shot. While moving, I'll hit 'C' again to insure I've got the closest foe, and reangle the camera such that after I take the single shot I click the ground behind me and start moving away, taking the henchies with me. Then switch to primary weapon and perhaps use a prep skill waiting for the ONE mob charging at me. This take a single shot at long range form of aggroing is vastly superior to the technique of moving slower and slower to the target; you easily get more than one mob that way and Henchies always screw it up. I've never tested it but wonder if a flat bow's high arc will sometimes miss because it hits an over hang such as a Bridge; but even if so you fail to aggro and only have to reset and take another shot.

Short Bows rule the battlefield. Once a battle commences, range is a trivial issue: the vast majority of targets are already in your aggro cirlce and within range of the short bow. If you shoot at someone outside your range it just means you move a little closer before shooting. Thus, during a battle you want fast attack rate.

Recursive Bows may also rule the battle field but I have no way to know if its faster arrows will hit more often to compensate for its slower attack rate. Since most targets during a PvE battle are stationary I doubt arrow speed matters. Recursive bows have an advantage when combined with interrupts as long as you are waiting to shoot based on what the foe is doing.

Horm Bows have 10% armor penetration but I doubt that compensates for its slowing attack rate, but I'm interested in seeing some data to the contrary. I suppose it may be better against very high armor foes (AL 100+).

Long Bows don't seem to have any redeeming characteristics, except that its a little more likely to hit a foe at long range in flat terrain than is a Flat bow, but you only take that one single shot per combat; I'd rather have the Flat bow which will aggro more often in hilly terrain. Even against stationary foes I suspect that the slow Flat bow arrows will hit as often as the quicker long bow arrows.

- OYE


 * If you're using Read the Wind, there's no bow better than a Flatbow. Read with a Flatbow basically means Longbow range, Shortbow speed, and better-than-Recurve arc, flight, and accuracy. Arshay Duskbrow 05:10, 13 December 2006 (CST)


 * Perhaps the notion of 'more accurate' is meaningless after a while: if you are already 100% accurate you gain nothing by increasing accuracy. If so and RtW's 'twice as fast' means you don't miss with a flat bow then you are right.  But if you still may miss you should go with the short bow (once the battle is engaged), since its real rare to take a shot at extra long range after melee has started.Oye 23:03, 18 December 2006 (CST)


 * Vampiric flatbow is pretty much required of a ranger in GvG.
 * Not really, but what better to speed up kill on NPCs? Otherwise Recruves are the way to go, with maybe shortbow for spreading (I don't), and longbow for range.--Silk Weaker 00:44, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Height Advantage
I believe height advantage increases the damage of the bow. Do this experiment. Set marksman to 12. Take a clean (but customized) Flatbow to Isle of the Nameless. Maximum damage should be = (28 * 1.2 * 0.5) = 16.8. Get on top of the stairs and start firing away at the 100 AL target. You will eventually see hits of 19 and 18. Now go stand right next to the target. You should never see a hit higher than 17. I'm not sure if the higher you are, the better the damage, or if just having height gives you a flat bonus, but it is definently there.

Can I add this to the page now? We need to find out what the damage bonus is first I guess. Calcs show that this kind of damage would be reached with a +4 damage bonus. The bonus may be different at different heights though.-- Windjammer 19:38, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * I did some testing with a clean bow on the Isle of the nameless today. I used those stairs to the east of the closest 60 AL dummy, since a Flatbow can reach it from anywhere on those stairs and they go up pretty high.  Starting close to the bottom, I fired at the dummy.  With a customized Flatbow, my max normal damage should be 33, crits 48.  This is what I observed (more on this in a bit).  I went up one flight of stairs and begin plucking away again.  From here I was seeing max damage of around 37 and 38.  Crits, however, stayed unchanged at 48.  This was odd since any damage bonus should in some way increase crits, I thought.  I went all the way to the top of the stairs and around to the wall south of the dummys.  I stood at the furthest point from the dummies I could and began firing.  From here, my damage was getting as high as 50!  I'm guessing 50's were crits, which was odd since crits were not changed at the lower stair levels, while my max damage was however.  Further, these 50's happened quite a lot, often 3 or 4 in a row.  I would also often see 49's, 48's, and others.  It seems I'm getting some big bonus damage from height, but that doesn't effect crits, or somthing.  Maybe adds damage that doesn't stack with crits?--[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|12px]] Windjammer 00:50, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Try it with a Candy Cane bow for consistent damage per shot and try the different heights again? Regrettably I think they are all shortbows though so that may not work.  Maybe a flatbow with low damage from Presearing may help narrow the numbers a little (I think it's like 2-5 for a starter bow?).  On another test you might even want to try it with constant use of Arcing Shot (waiting for recharge) or with Broad Head Arrow skills just to see if a higher arc allows for extra damage too.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:09, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * I've been talking with Fyren about it on the damage page. He has a candy cane bow, but I think the range limitation made it unable to be used in the test.  I think he also had an idea about doing somthing with an assassin, but I can't remeber what.  A starter Flatbow is a good idea.  That would allow me to see if it is flat damage bonus or some kind of scale.  I beleive it may be a non-stacking damage rating bonus.  That would explain why crits are not increased by it, as they are already damage rating bonus.--[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|12px]] Windjammer 13:53, 11 January 2007 (CST)

GOTY weaps
Nevermore bow ought to be added to the list shouldnt it (seeing as the Ithas bow is there). - BeXoR   08:03, 28 January 2007 (CST)

"Skills from this attribute can only be performed when equipping a bow" ???
Read the Wind and Favorable Winds require the equipping of a bow? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:12, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * . -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll take that as a "No" to my question. Based on that, I further revised the sentence, since the requirement of wielding a bow is really restricted to Bow Attacks.  It just so happens that currently all attack skills in the Marksmanship attribute are Bow Attacks. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:47, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Type of bow?


How long has this been around? Or am I just blind? --   23:32, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Only recently. Check the Thursday May 24th update. --Kale Ironfist 23:50, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, I missed it in the miscellaneous section. Thanks. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    00:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd like to see a one-handed Recurve Bow :P -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:14, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd like to see somebody firing two one-handed bows at once. Dual Weilding for Rangers! --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    00:17, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I don;t want to revert but...
I don't like all of the changes he made to the article, some notes were changed that were fine the way they was and the note about GW not calculating accuracy like other games is useless. Revert? Silver Sunlight 14:28, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's technically more accurate than the previous one. --Kale Ironfist 23:40, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Don't revert, just correct the parts that are wrong. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   10:33, 14 June 2007 (CDT)