New aos edition comes out in june – page 3 – forum – dakkadakka electricity word search answers

#

I’ll give GW credit where credit’s due. I don’t have the new stuff in front of me but the cinematic spell effects seem cool as hell. The night haunts are awesome. The daughters of khaine also awesome. The nurgle book for the most part despite not being able to really hang with the busted stuff is awesome. They have done a great many positive things that I think are awesome (and why they continue to make me give a crap about if they succeed or not)

There are a bunch of opinions, and my own opinion is just one of many. But the one objective quasi-fact that we have is that there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of community stories where the AOS scene is dead or nearly dead, and dozens upon dozens upon dozens of stories where the fantasy scene is still quite alive with other games. In 2015… that just wasn’t the reality. Fantasy gaming was fairly strong (sales were crap because of a bunch of reasons, but the game was being played everywhere through 2nd hand miniatures and 3rd party manufacturers)

AOS I’m sure is making a profit over whfb for a ton of reasons (discussed in other threads) but they are a far cry from dominating the market in the fantasy wargaming department and based on their desired stated intent of wanting to do so again they must look at why so many fantasy players won’t touch AOS and will stick with their competitors.

So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .

Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn’t game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.

Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren’t even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.

Really, think about it; you’re a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don’t you think that after the battle you’d want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?

So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .

Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn’t game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.

Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren’t even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.

Really, think about it; you’re a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don’t you think that after the battle you’d want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?

So why do you think that not being able to shoot into a combat is a good thing. I think that’s wrong from a historical, cinematic, and gameplay perspective. This was a tactic used all the time. Pin an enemy down, and rain projectiles on top or to the side of them. That was the only way to effectively handle some heavily armored kinds of warriors too. .

Citation needed? One would think that killing your own men would be result in a drop of morale, and as such be a bad idea. This isn’t game of thrones, not every general was Bolton, and Age of Empires is a poor demonstration of classical tactics.

Unless the arrow head is made of a stronger material, its not going to be a killing shot. What it will do though is reduce mobility due to the sheer kinetic impact of the arrows, allowing the melee units to beat the enemy more easily. Not to mention the effect on morale, as the constant deluge of projectiles would get on the nerves of most targets. Crossbows weren’t even that effective, unless at close range, with a steel bolt, and if it were a particularly powerful bow. It will probably dent it, at least. That has also been tested. What they could pierce is mail and gambeson, which is considered light armor.

Really, think about it; you’re a knight and you got shot in the back by your own archers. Don’t you think that after the battle you’d want to beat the gak out of the idiot who scratched your nice, expensive suit of steel armor and could have gotten you killed by distracting you?