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.

You can look around and try and find a bow anywhere near 160lbs. I haven't seen anything half that weight. A recurve bow increases weight throughout the pull, a compound bow has that gap where it gets like 20-30% less and you can hold it longer. I've shot some compound bows ages ago and they were probably only 50#. 160lbs is nearly 4 45# plates. Most people can't lift that in any shape other than bench press or squat. A significant portion of that draw is your triceps and back and upper shoulder.

http://www.huntersfriend.com/bow-review-400-fps-bow/400-fps-compound-bow.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100722232851AANmiUG

http://www.keystone-sports.com/sizing_guide.html

http://www.huntersfriend.com/traditional-bows-archery/traditional-bow-selection-guide.htm

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1681711

DukeRustfield wrote:
You can look around and try and find a bow anywhere near 160lbs. I haven't seen anything half that weight. A recurve bow increases weight throughout the pull, a compound bow has that gap where it gets like 20-30% less and you can hold it longer. I've shot some compound bows ages ago and they were probably only 50#. 160lbs is nearly 4 45# plates. Most people can't lift that in any shape other than bench press or squat. A significant portion of that draw is your triceps and back and upper shoulder.

http://www.huntersfriend.com/bow-review-400-fps-bow/400-fps-compound-bow.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100722232851AANmiUG

http://www.keystone-sports.com/sizing_guide.html

http://www.huntersfriend.com/traditional-bows-archery/traditional-bow-selection-guide.htm

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1681711

I don't disagree with all that. And yet, they recovered a bow from a sunken ship with an estimated 160 pound pull.
It's so far outside of normal, something is very wrong with our understanding of ancient bows, and how they were used.
Or for some reason, the exact replica they made to scale and components came out stupidly stronger for some unknown reason.

-Matt

Like I said, that might have been the wood ossifying. It could have been a prank. It could have been some siege bow they tied to the deck and pulled back with a winch. It could have been made by the suckiest bow maker in the world.

I was also think-joking about this earlier. You're right in that we are continually stunned by how advanced our modern athletes have become. But it doesn't generally work backwards. Modern athletes have super diets and tech (tracks, shoes, braces) and high altitude training, and...despite them being clear 3 months later, performance enhancing drugs can have very long-term effects.

Bah, left this open. My joke was, maybe all those medieval guys were dying at 35-45 because their muscles were simply ripping their bodies apart. But I'm guessing near-starving, bread-eating peasants weren't cranking out bow shots that could pierce armored cars.

Highest paid sportsman of all time was a Charioteer in Rome, unbelievable performances in races.

Not on topic, but then most of the discussion seems not to be...

I am obviously biased, but I wouldn't like BS shooting to get much stronger, especially since the new HE book cranked up their shooting again.

Shooting is supposed to be about thinning numbers a bit, maybe turning back an opponent if they are faint hearted / you are awesome. It is not supposed to destroy an entire army. Extending the range a bit for elevation would be fine, but they need to keep the - at long range.

All over Europe there are castles & battlefields where the majority of the types of battles modeled in WHFB took place. Hills / Castles on hills / fortifications on mountains played a massive part in these, where the extra shooting range of the bowmen with elevation (and the greatly reduced range of those trying to shoot back) played a massive part.

I would suggest that shooters who are higher than their target get an extra 6" and shooters lower than their target can only shoot in close range.

As for War machines, I would like to see them be slightly less powerful against monsters (because I like monsters...) and quite a bit less powerful against units. I would do this by replacing 10 with 0 on the artillery die and making them max Multiple wounds (D3).

I had to awaken the dad from his promordial retirement and get his take on this. (And that was news on fireworks, which makes sense. When we broke off the sticks they'd go crazy.)

The Dad wrote:I have not launched an arrow lately. But an arrow is a projectile and would be classified according to the means used to stabilize it in flight. Projectiles are stabilized by spin, fin, or drag. A spinning bullet is an example of spin stabilization. A feathered (fletched) arrow is fin stabilized. Rockets as in fireworks are usually drag-stabilized by having a stick attached, the stick being several times the length of the rocket tube. It appears to me that an arrow is stabilized by a combination of fin and drag stabilization.

I would think that the shortest distance covered by the arrow would be when launched straight up. The aerodynamic drag would slow the arrow to zero speed and then it would fall back to earth. If launched straight down into a deep well it would drop until it reached a maximum speed determined by the aerodynamic drag and continue at that speed until the bottom of the well was reached. If shooting up- or down-hill the pull of gravity will be reduced and the arrow will drop less on its way to the target. If the target is on level ground and far away, the archer would aim high above it. In addition, if the target is uphill or downhill, the arrow would fly too high (because of the reduced effect of gravity), perhaps going above the target. So I would guess that the arrow will travel a little farther when launched either up or down hill.

I agree the defender in the castle has the advantage, not only from the protection of the fortress but also from the slight boost in speed imparted by gravity to the arrow. This will result in a flatter trajectory and greater striking energy for the arrow shot downward. But the effect would be small, perhaps unnoticeable.

So if you are shooting an arrow at a deer either uphill or downhill, aim a little lower. But at a range of about 30 to 35 yards, it will not make much difference.

Niteware wrote:
Highest paid sportsman of all time was a Charioteer in Rome, unbelievable performances in races.

Not on topic, but then most of the discussion seems not to be...

I am obviously biased, but I wouldn't like BS shooting to get much stronger, especially since the new HE book cranked up their shooting again.

Shooting is supposed to be about thinning numbers a bit, maybe turning back an opponent if they are faint hearted / you are awesome. It is not supposed to destroy an entire army. Extending the range a bit for elevation would be fine, but they need to keep the - at long range.

I agree that we need to be very careful of making shooting so powerful that people can take whole armies of ranged troops (because gunline is boring to play, and boring to play against), but the problem here is that right now in many armies shooting is too expensive to do even that. There needs to be a balance so that shooting plays an important supporting role (clearing a rank of troops to aid a particularly crucial combat, clearing chaff and targeting specific enemy units vulnerable to shooting) without being so effective that they can wipe whole troop blocks from the board.

The problem is that right now, with the dominance of very large infantry blocks, the first job just doesn't make sense. Instead of knocking a rank off the enemy with missile troops, you're better off leaving the missile troops home and just adding another two or more ranks to your combat troops and claiming the advantage that way. And the second task also doesn't really exist, with the reduced importance of flanking we aren't seeing fast flanking units that once would have been a prime target for missile troops.

As such, I think either making shooting more effective (via making it +1 at short range, or no mod at long range, or both, or having hills give a bonus, or whatever) would drag ranged combat back towards the balanced position it needs to have. But, as you rightly point out, the new High Elf book has given the ranged troops a considerable boost. Just reworking ranged troops to make them better in each army book revision will also do the job, though that method will take a long time (especially for Empire and Daemon players who just got a new book).

Why I like the bonus from hills is that it won't boost a whole army. Some shooting gets a little better, but you can't run a gunline and think you'll have enough hills to get the bonus for everyone.

Likewise, having hills give the bonus means that shooters are more inclined to clump up on them, which isn't really what you want to do with your shooters.

Math/Physicis aside, +1 to hit for being on a hill makes BS shooting better, but doesn't make me think a gunline will dominate.

-Matt

True. I think +1 to Hit on a Hill is a cool idea.
The "problem" that BS5+ troops don't perform any better is non-existent as far as I'm concerned, because that's already the case for BS6+ models vd. BS5. That, and other ranged penalties are so common anyway.
If I've got a block of Sisters of Avelorn on a hill and they have +1 to Hit, I'd consider shooting through my opponent's fodder into the unit they're trying to protect. Even with a -2, they'd still be hitting on 3's.

Just wanted to throw this out there: I've read about tribes in the Amazon (probably) that use huge bows to shoot game out of the canopy. They lie down, hold the bow in the arch of their feet and pull with both hands. I'd imagine their bows are quite a bit bigger than the norm?

Arrows fly in parabolic arches (when not subject to drag, so very slightly off). This means hat the hugher you are, relative to your target, the further you can shoot. The vectoral displacement is even greater, making it harder to hit. Conversely, when shooting up hill, the distance you can sjoot is greatly reduced, although the vectoral displacement is only slightly reduced, meaning that tarhetting is similar to hitting something on a level.

That is why I would go for range increase and reduction for shooting from / at hills. The fact tuat accuracy is harder from a height at long distance leads me ti believe that an additiin to bs is not a good way to model this.

If the "solution" to BS shooting is hills, you are screwed at pre-deployment if you roll no viable terrain for you to use. Or precious little. That's really lame for your army to be either good or not based on terrain.

I think extra range is better. You can get one extra round of shooting which is worth more then +1BS


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
If the "solution" to BS shooting is hills, you are screwed at pre-deployment if you roll no viable terrain for you to use. Or precious little. That's really lame for your army to be either good or not based on terrain.

Terrain is just an addition. If you want to rely on it, then there are higher chance you gone get one cliff then chances of lvl 4 wizard geting one particular spell that he want's from his lore. Just 52%. Not 66,6%.

A lvl 4 gets +4 to cast and dispel. Likewise if they miscast and lose a spell level, they have one more to give. They are much better than a <4. And none of this has anything to do with BS shooting and terrain.

DukeRustfield wrote:
If the "solution" to BS shooting is hills, you are screwed at pre-deployment if you roll no viable terrain for you to use. Or precious little. That's really lame for your army to be either good or not based on terrain.

That's exactly the point. We don't want an army of shooters.
-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Arrows fly in parabolic arches (when not subject to drag, so very slightly off). This means hat the hugher you are, relative to your target, the further you can shoot. The vectoral displacement is even greater, making it harder to hit. Conversely, when shooting up hill, the distance you can sjoot is greatly reduced, although the vectoral displacement is only slightly reduced, meaning that tarhetting is similar to hitting something on a level.

That is why I would go for range increase and reduction for shooting from / at hills. The fact tuat accuracy is harder from a height at long distance leads me ti believe that an additiin to bs is not a good way to model this.

The true flight of an arrow is actually not much of a parabolic curve. Initial drag is huge, and drag drops off during flight. Between this and the significant relative acceleration on the downward path makes the flight an interesting curve.

As for in game effect, +1 to hit some of the time seems like a good idea. +1 to hit all of the time is too good. +6" of range on a bow isn't a big deal, but +6" of range on a chameleon skink is too much of a bonus.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Why I like the bonus from hills is that it won't boost a whole army. Some shooting gets a little better, but you can't run a gunline and think you'll have enough hills to get the bonus for everyone.

That's a really good point - it's a helpful bonus but limited to a single unit (or at most two units across an army). Helps justify including a unit of ranged troops, without risking it being taken army wide.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

That's exactly the point. We don't want an army of shooters.
-Matt

Why? How is that better or worse than an army of melee units? In a perfect game of exact same dice rolls and the same army and same deployment, Army X which used all its points in shooters should have a 50:50 chance against Army Y which put all it's points in melee. Or as close as possible (which isn't very close). They already penalize shooters by making them sucky at CC for cost. If shooting phase simply didn't exist, you would never buy archers, because they are lousy compared to generic swordsmen or whatever. But the question is, is their lousiness compensated for what they do in the shooting phase on average. I don't think some extra hill rules are going to make that true. But it shouldn't be the goal to make all CC or all Shooter or any combination inherently better or worse. Players should be able to field what they choose to field. If you don't like it, don't field it. If you don't like playing against it, that's rough, but there's lots of stuff you might not like fighting.

DukeRustfield wrote:
If the "solution" to BS shooting is hills, you are screwed at pre-deployment if you roll no viable terrain for you to use. Or precious little. That's really lame for your army to be either good or not based on terrain.

It isn't the one and only solution to all issues with ranged troops and terrain. It is a rule that will give a moderate boost to some ranged troops and probably just as importantly bring some meaning back to at least one piece of terrain.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Players should be able to field what they choose to field. If you don't like it, don't field it. If you don't like playing against it, that's rough, but there's lots of stuff you might not like fighting.

There's a difference between facing a list that's going to offer me a tough fight and one that's going to try and prevent me from playing the game.
Example: I took my Skaven to a 1000pt tournament. I had Clanrats, Slaves, Gutter Runners and Rat Ogres. I went up against a Warriors army that had Khornate Warriors, Trolls, and a Chariot. I had ways to counter each part of his list, but not enough to tackle more than one at a time. It was a brutal game where I lost almost everything and took next to nothing. But I got to try. I struggled and plotted and rolled and hoped. And lost. But it was okay.

In a 2000pt tournament, I faced a Dwarf gunline, with an Anvil, tons of Thunderers, Grudge Throwers, Cannons, and a unit of Hammerers. His sole goal throughout the game was to keep me from getting into combat with anything that mattered. Worse, he deliberately played painfully slow. He ran down the clock on Turn 3; so our Victory Points were almost purely from magic and shooting, which he was better at.
I know it's an extreme case, but it doesn't change the fact that an all-shooting army is boring and frustrating to play against.
If I bring a nice, friendly, weird list to the table, and you bring a no-nonsense, go-for-the-throat list and destroy me in four turns, that's (mostly) okay. Just let me play. You can foil me in every combat, counter me at every move. Just let me participate in the game. Otherwise, why am I here?

Shooting should not win the day all on its own. That's just terrible design as far as I'm concerned.

Shooting is "playing the game." So is magic. So is everything else that you see a phase header for in the BRB. Unlike army compositions, you are not limited to 25% shooting or 25% close combat or any such thing. If you rely on nothing but magic you can do that. If you have zero wizards you can say you're being prevented from playing the game cuz the enemy won't stop dropping Final Transmutation on you, but that's your choice when you made your army.

Likewise an all archer army that's hit belly-first with nothing but ogres can say they've been prevented from playing their game.

I mean it's not fair to assume that just cuz I make an army with 90% bloodletters that anything that prevents me from walking up and grinding the enemy to oblivion is somehow not giving me a chance. Sometimes you're going to face armies you can't beat.

Your turn 3 slow player is something you should have brought up with the TO.

Shooting should not win the day all on its own. That's just terrible design as far as I'm concerned.

A model is a model. Just because it is active in one phase does not make it inherently better or worse game design. You could rattling gun and warp lightning cannon and a zillion other things and have melee armies crying into their shields. That's party of what's cool about it.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Shooting is "playing the game." So is magic. So is everything else that you see a phase header for in the BRB.

Basically your argument there boils down to "It is in the game and therefore it's fine". It's basically the non-statement of game design.

Just because it appears you hadn't noticed, but this is the Proposed Rules forum - it's here to talk about ideas that might make the game more fun, and maybe even bring in some more tactical depth.

And that means when something that's no fun and involves no tactical depth behind one player leaving his units standing still and the other player advancing his as fast as he can... is a bad idea.

In case you hadn't noticed, he didn't propose a rule. He said the current game is broken in that it is possible for him to face armies that can beat him.

Basically, I'm arguing that all units should be valid. He's arguing that all units must be equal. That's a very large difference. Because there's nothing in the world stopping you from spending all your points on swarms and losing horribly. Then you can come here and post that swarms need a buff (and maybe they do). Or whatever unit that beat him, cavalry(?) need to be nerfed cuz they are ruining fun.

The whole concept of all comers lists is to deal with everything. Skaven easily have units that could have put the enemy in the exact same situation if he had been lucky enough to bring them.

The only proposed rule I'm hearing isn't regarding BS and warmachines, it's that stuff beats other stuff.

A gunline isn't going to work against everyone. In fact, it will fail horribly vs. a number of lists. But that goes for just about everything that is one-trick.

DukeRustfield wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, he didn't propose a rule. He said the current game is broken in that it is possible for him to face armies that can beat him.

Basically, I'm arguing that all units should be valid. He's arguing that all units must be equal. That's a very large difference. Because there's nothing in the world stopping you from spending all your points on swarms and losing horribly. Then you can come here and post that swarms need a buff (and maybe they do). Or whatever unit that beat him, cavalry(?) need to be nerfed cuz they are ruining fun.

The whole concept of all comers lists is to deal with everything. Skaven easily have units that could have put the enemy in the exact same situation if he had been lucky enough to bring them.

The only proposed rule I'm hearing isn't regarding BS and warmachines, it's that stuff beats other stuff.

A gunline isn't going to work against everyone. In fact, it will fail horribly vs. a number of lists. But that goes for just about everything that is one-trick.

No, he said some builds are very boring to play against.
We want to make BS shooting a little bit better, but without making a pure gun-line viable as a take all comers list. I'd say that giving high/dark elves a blanket +1 to hit would allow them to make a pure gunline that would do very well against 12 out of 13 armies (with 13th being skaven). I'd call that type of list, "The Hobby Killer".
Lists like that should be in Fantasy... that's what 40K is for.

-Matt

He said some builds are boring FOR HIM to play against. One of which had lots of shooting one of which had...lots of cc. So let's nerf everything that isn't all comers?

It's nice you gave it a name. But when the number of threads crying about steadfast, stars, megaspells exceed the number of threads crying about gunlines, that's when you can worry. None of those things have zomg killed the hobby and his horse.

If movement suddenly becomes more important, and thus fast movers, the game won't break. Nor if cc does. Nor magic. Nor shooting. MC came out of nowhere in 8th and got buffed up to its eyeballs. The hobby didn't die. 40K isn't about phases, it's about a meta and general casualness. They got plenty of power swords and fists and chainsaws and such.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Shooting is "playing the game."

I should clarify: the real problem is that, on its own, missile troops will never win a fight. So some people try to build lists where they re-direct, block, and stall me from coming to grips with their shooting. Which is totally, absolutely, 100% fine, until that's the beginning and end of what your army does, and it stands a decent chance of success.

DukeRustfield wrote:
He said the current game is broken in that it is possible for him to face armies that can beat him.

Either a mistake or an outright lie. Case and point:

Warpsolution wrote:
It was a brutal game where I lost almost everything and took next to nothing...But it was okay.

Obviously I'm okay with losing. If I'm facing off against an army, and despite all of my movement/shooting/magic/close combat shenanigans, I still get crushed in one or more of those phases, that's fine. It's when my opponent's one and only plan is to shut down one or more of my phases entirely. If you bring some anti-magic, or some re-directors, or whatever, that's great. But if you bring enough to take all the wind out of my sails, that's not cool.
A Bloodletter horde is okay. I shoot/magic/stall them for a few turns, we get into combat, they roll dice, I roll dice, and somebody wins. But an army like 7th Edition Wood Elves, that stands a decent chance of dancing around me the whole game, is not okay. Because now, the only dice I'm rolling are for Armour and Panic. I don't get to participate.
Do you see what I mean?
I don't think magic or shooting should be able to kill an army's worth of points before combat happens.
Another one of those 1000pt games was versus some High Elves. Lvl3 wizard, Banner of Sorcerery, Phoenix Guard and Sea Guard. And the whole time, he was dropping comets and chain lightnings and hiding behind a mess of impassible terrain, the two blocks side by side, with one flank against more impassible and the other flank and their rear against the other table edge. In the end, all I could do was charge into his units head on with severely depleted blocks of Clanrats and Slaves. I ended up winning the game, but it didn't feel like I'd won. I felt frustrated.

At the end of a game, I want to be able to shake my opponent's hand, laugh at our misfortunes, and have a good day.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Your turn 3 slow player is something you should have brought up with the TO.

I did. His response was essentially " *shrug* That's what you get for playing Skaven and not having any cavalry". The same response as when I asked if we could tone down the terrain a bit. A baker's dozen pieces of impassible does not a happy horde-army make.

Warpsolution wrote:
despite all of my movement/shooting/magic/close combat shenanigans, I still get crushed in one or more of those phases, that's fine. It's when my opponent's one and only plan is to shut down one or more of my phases entirely. If you bring some anti-magic, or some re-directors, or whatever, that's great. But if you bring enough to take all the wind out of my sails, that's not cool.

Those are mutually-exclusive statements. When is a dwarf anti-magicing you fine and shutting down your magic phase not cool? Should they stop throwing dispel dice at some point to make your game more fun? To me it seems like you're taking issue when someone is either too good at it or concentrating on it too much. A double slann army may not shut down your magic phase, but they will dominate magic to a vast degree. If someone wants to build an entire Ethereal army, and you don't bring any magic, you're going to lose. That is a one plan/trick to shut you down--but you can always counter it. Your issue is you can't counter it using whatever army you feel like bringing. Well, yeah.

Your example of the dwarf could have been countered by some of the best ranged weapons in the game, which Skaven possess. You didn't bring them, which is your choice. If he had faced a nurgle flying doc army or hexwraith army or khalida army, he would have lost. And it wouldn't have been because he was out-maneuvered, it's because he took an army that can't compete with them.

One trick armies are fine. It's only when a one trick becomes all-comers. Gunlines aren't remotely all-comers. They suck. That's why this entire thread was created.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
despite all of my movement/shooting/magic/close combat shenanigans, I still get crushed in one or more of those phases, that's fine. It's when my opponent's one and only plan is to shut down one or more of my phases entirely. If you bring some anti-magic, or some re-directors, or whatever, that's great. But if you bring enough to take all the wind out of my sails, that's not cool.

Those are mutually-exclusive statements. When is a dwarf anti-magicing you fine and shutting down your magic phase not cool? Should they stop throwing dispel dice at some point to make your game more fun? To me it seems like you're taking issue when someone is either too good at it or concentrating on it too much. A double slann army may not shut down your magic phase, but they will dominate magic to a vast degree. If someone wants to build an entire Ethereal army, and you don't bring any magic, you're going to lose. That is a one plan/trick to shut you down--but you can always counter it. Your issue is you can't counter it using whatever army you feel like bringing. Well, yeah.

Your example of the dwarf could have been countered by some of the best ranged weapons in the game, which Skaven possess. You didn't bring them, which is your choice. If he had faced a nurgle flying doc army or hexwraith army or khalida army, he would have lost. And it wouldn't have been because he was out-maneuvered, it's because he took an army that can't compete with them.

One trick armies are fine. It's only when a one trick becomes all-comers. Gunlines aren't remotely all-comers. They suck. That's why this entire thread was created.

I'm not sold that gunlines suck. Dark elves do a very effective pure gunline. Lizardmen do a brutal skink swarm. Giving either of those armies a blanket bonus is a bad idea.

-Matt

I don't know DE but everyone says their xbows are golden. Either case, they are both 7th armies. You might see a slight skink pt increase.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Basically, I'm arguing that all units should be valid. He's arguing that all units must be equal. That's a very large difference.

I'm not sure that's what he's saying, and if it were it would only make both of you wrong.

Units shouldn’t all be ‘valid’, or ‘equal’ or any other nonsense. They simply have to have scope to play a specific tactical role, and that role to be more or less equal to their points value.

A gunline isn't going to work against everyone. In fact, it will fail horribly vs. a number of lists. But that goes for just about everything that is one-trick.

Right now a gunline barely works against anything, outside of a few gunlines in which the troops are good enough to pull double duty as effective melee troops (Dark Elves, Dwarf Quarrellers). And that's a good thing.

The problem is the other way, we've gone much too far the other way to the point where very few armies take meaningful shooting at all. Sure, you see war machines, but decent sized blocks of missile troops are almost non-existent. When seen it’s typically in minimum size, taken as much for the cheap drop as anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
He said some builds are boring FOR HIM to play against. One of which had lots of shooting one of which had...lots of cc. So let's nerf everything that isn't all comers?

No. Let's design a game in which the underlying ruleset encourages diverse armies by providing a number of unique roles that work best when supporting each other. This will mean tactical considerations will become something along the lines of 'well unit X does this job very well and I'd like to take a second unit and use them both to provide hard flanking charges, but that means dropping unit Y, meaning I'd have no unit capable of holding a powerful enemy unit in place for multiple turns...'

If movement suddenly becomes more important, and thus fast movers, the game won't break. Nor if cc does. Nor magic. Nor shooting. MC came out of nowhere in 8th and got buffed up to its eyeballs. The hobby didn't die.

And now you're setting the standard for rules changes to 'okay if it hurts the game as long as it doesn't kill it completely', which is a stupidly low standard. And, given your constant complaints in other threads about how changing the level 6 spells will cripple the rock/paper/scissors match up and let deathstars dominate the game... something of a ridiculous double standard.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't know DE but everyone says their xbows are golden. Either case, they are both 7th armies. You might see a slight skink pt increase.

It's 24" S3 armor piercing with multiple shot 2 and BS4; for 10 points a guy (move and fire).
So basically, for every 5 points, you get a S3 AP shot.
Pair that with a lore of metal wizard lord, who gets an item that makes a bonus power die at all (kills a 6 point model to do so), and gets a bonus spell that makes D3+1 power dice (5+ to cast), and you've got the anti-heavy armor that the shooting lacks.
Then you get the skirmishing BS5 scouts with repeater crossbows for 16 points.
Anyhow, the list shoots the snot out of most things, and have very offensively strong magic. Also gets flying core that doesn't panic anything for the best blockers in the game.

-Matt

Seb, I don't know if you go off meds at some point during the week or not, but if you ever wonder why I stop responding it's because you stop making sense and start attacking random things and go on long rants about how the entire game should be remade from the ground up. You seem to just come up now and then and seem incredibly angry that you still like this game and are on a gaming forum. Just put me on ignore, I'm going to put you on ignore. And it's kinda sad, cuz out of all these useless posts and silliness, I've never ignored anyone. But I just don't think you're trying.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Seb, I don't know if you go off meds at some point during the week or not, but if you ever wonder why I stop responding it's because you stop making sense and start attacking random things and go on long rants about how the entire game should be remade from the ground up.

You don't even read what I type, do you?

I've never said the game needed to be rebuilt from the game up, I quite like the game as it is now and that's because at its core the game has very solid fundamentals. I have explained to you, many times, that changes need to keep in mind those basic fundamentals, and not to screw them up in some failed attempt to fix a minor part of the game. So, for instance, a desire to improve ranged troops would need to keep in mind that ranged troops work as a supporting element, and if they were made so powerful that army could dominate purely with ranged troops you'd see a lot of really boring games.

Somehow you read that as me saying the game needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. I don't know how to help you with that. Maybe just read the actual words that are typed out, maybe? Whatever. Probably best for you to ignore me, and then we can ignore these stupid games of 'DukeRustfield makes an outrageous claim and then I spend a week in a teeth pulling exercise trying to get him to stop playing stupid rhetorical games and accept he said something that wrong'.