Mechanics that you want

[arvilino]

False. It's dependent on the majority of nearby enemies being archers, which can happen any time there are multiple enemy archers in close proximity to each other. In some situations, you get a tactical advantage; in others, you don't. In most, you get the option of avoiding taking a counter on the player phase, exactly what you described as such a huge boon in the archer chapters.

In all of this, we must again recall the previous issue that counterattacks are ridiculously overpowered. That must be addressed somehow, and however it is addressed would decrease the relevance of enemy phase counterattacks when using any type of thrown weapon.

Pegasus Knights will have almost no reason to ever use Javelins again.

[Othin]

While I didn't specifically state that I meant the enemies that are nearby as opposed to all the enemies on the map, that is what I meant. And there are very few times throughout the series where it would be a good idea to go into EP with a javelin or a hand axe equipped if they were locked to 2 range. Please provide some, since they aren't overly rare. Either way, the majority of nearby enemies being archers sounds dull to me, and probably most people. Having no fear of being countered on PP isn't fun.

To your second point, counter attacks are only overpowered when your units are overpowered. Besides, FE12 handles both of these issues well. They decreased the might of Javelins and Hand Axes significantly, and made Enemy Phase combat a lot less important.

Again, it can be any situation where the number of enemy archers alive in an area is more than the number of melee enemies in an area. This can be any situation where two or more enemy archers are in a group and they outlive most of the other enemies. And in a game where Javelins and Hand Axes lose their ability to counter range 1-2, enemy Archers will be more more difficult to counter and deal with on the enemy phase, so they will more likely outlive the other enemies and put you in this situation, even if the situation isn't so common in the existing games. I have found this to be the case in Berwick Saga, and it is also appearing to be the case so far in my no Javelin/Hand Axe playthrough of FE8. Another thing I have found is that in those situations, enemy Archers make more threatening enemies due to their longevity, and therefore have a reason to have better distribution than they do in other existing games.

As I said, I haven't played much of FE12. From the sound of it, on Lunatic, the lack of power makes the weapons almost useless. On other modes, do the weapons remain effective while still having their usability changed substantially by the lack of power? It sounds like a difficult balance to make between the two extremes, and I would not want to rely on the hope of that balance in future games as opposed to more creative ways of addressing the matter.

Pegasus Knights will have almost no reason to ever use Javelins again.

Perhaps. If so, who cares? Strategies change as mechanics change. That's a good thing. Fliers aren't exactly low on good strategies they can use.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Othin

[Snowy_One]

Also take a look at it from a balance point of view.

Warriors (in the American releases I've played at least) upon promotion gain access to bows. Bows are meant to be the 2-range specialization weapon, the idea seeming to be that you can make a warrior good at long range or short range combat, but not both at the same time. On paper it sounds awesome, access to killer bows, longbows, and brave bows at least. However, be honest, how many times have YOU trained up bows on a unit who did not start out with them? I'm willing to wager only a few of you have. However, you didn't give up on 2-range combat either and, instead, picked throwing weapons.

Now, consider what would happen if throwing weapons became 2-range exclusive. Bows become the outright dominater for 2-range combat (unless you are a magic unit). Units who have them will have a desire to train them. After all, stronger ranged combat than with throwing weapons and specialized weapons. Units who cannot use bows still have a use for throwing weapons (paladins, soldiers, generals, swordfighters if the new swords stick, and so forth) as they are the only way for them to attack without taking a counter and/or counter at 2 range is to use these weapons (just giving some enemies these weapons would make them far more useful). Just inferior to bows. Magic suddenly becomes more valuable as well as it is the ONLY way to counter at both 1 and 2 range now (unless crossbows return).

A MT nerf isn't a bad way to go either, but remember, units who overkill STR won't be impeded all that much by the MT loss, units who didn't overkill it can potentially end up finding it useless, which means the weapon is either a gamebreaker or useless depending on its user. It's a delicate balance either way.

[dondon151]

However, be honest, how many times have YOU trained up bows on a unit who did not start out with them?

Well, this is a loaded question. No one uses bows on warriors because they start out with a terrible bow rank. Unchanged Hand Axes have 1 more MT than Iron Bows; removing their 1-range is not going to affect weapon preferences.

If you consider a unit like Geitz, who starts with a B rank in both axes and bows, then the circumstances are very different. Geitz can't ORKO all wyverns from range with a Hand Axe; so he'd rather use bows (unless EP is an important consideration). He certainly does poorly against enemy sword users and would rather use bows against them. Against promoted enemies that he can't double, Brave Bow or Killer Bow is a superior option to any axe.

This clearly is not a problem of Hand Axes and Javelins having 1-range. The problem is that in order to provide incentive for players to use bows, they must provide better 2-range than what is already available. If you consider newly promoted warriors, E bows is really far away from using any bows that are significantly superior to a Hand Axe. If you consider shitty earlygame archers, having low str, low spd, and being restricted to low-MT Iron Bows does not make them any more desirable for use than fighters @ Hand Axe or magic users. Notice that in all FE games, the distinction between a good bow user and a bad bow user hinges a lot on what weapons they can use (e.g. Klein, Igrene, Geitz, Innes, Shinon) and what other quirks they possess (e.g. Shin, Rath, Astrid).

Locking Hand Axes to 2-range does not make them relatively worse compared to bows in the niche that bows fall in. You are basically making them the equivalent of E rank bows that many classes can use. That does not address either of the circumstances I outlined in the paragraph above; units who gain E rank bows on promotion still do not have an incentive to use an Iron Bow over a Hand Axe (if a Hand Axe is only a stronger Iron Bow), and shitty earlygame archers are still much weaker than fighters @ Hand Axe. It does not make bows better because it does not enable them to do anything that Hand Axes cannot do (that didn't exist before).

If you cut down Hand Axe MT, that does change something. Now Iron Bows are at least both 2 MT stronger and 20 hit more accurate. Hand Axes retain their niche as all-purpose 1-2 range weapons and bows become better relative to them because they outdamage Hand Axes to an even greater extent from 2-range.

[arvilino]

Thinking about it, while Archers may get a buff sort of from this change. Wouldn't the change be a much bigger advantage to mages than anything else? Since this change would ensure a magic user in range can always attack any physical weapon user on the player phase without ever taking a counter attack.

[CrashGordon94]

I really like my 1-2 throwing weapons, I really don't want them to be taken away ever.

[Thor Odinson]

And if most mages eat a counter or two except from fellow magi, they're likely dead. Most of them are squishy as hell so it's not like they're gonna stand there and decimate an army if the enemies are any competent. I don't see the problem with magic being the best 1-2 range by itself.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Snowy_One]

Well, this is a loaded question. No one uses bows on warriors because they start out with a terrible bow rank. Unchanged Hand Axes have 1 more MT than Iron Bows; removing their 1-range is not going to affect weapon preferences.

Yet people train up the ranks on other secondary weapons. Axes, staves, even lances and swords depending on the game. Yet I cannot think of a single instance of a single game where someone picked up bows upon a promotion and people decided to train it. I'll grant that I haven't played the newer games since my local store doesn't have them, but I suspect that if they were worth training, you would have said so (as it would have been the easiest and most effective out on this question). So there is clearly a problem.

If you consider a unit like Geitz, who starts with a B rank in both axes and bows, then the circumstances are very different. Geitz can't ORKO all wyverns from range with a Hand Axe; so he'd rather use bows (unless EP is an important consideration). He certainly does poorly against enemy sword users and would rather use bows against them. Against promoted enemies that he can't double, Brave Bow or Killer Bow is a superior option to any axe.

So basically when there is not enough enemies around for the EP to be important, Geitz *might* use a bow if his speed isn't high and if he has a unique bow because he starts off with a high enough rank. Does this mean that, when there are no enemy wyverns around and/or he can double/using the brave doesn't help, he will use the handaxe? Doesn't that strike you as a very limited window of 'bows are better than hand axes'? Especially since bows are locked to 2+ range while axe and lance weapons are not?

This clearly is not a problem of Hand Axes and Javelins having 1-range. The problem is that in order to provide incentive for players to use bows, they must provide better 2-range than what is already available. If you consider newly promoted warriors, E bows is really far

away from using any bows that are significantly superior to a Hand Axe. If you consider shitty earlygame archers, having low str, low spd, and being restricted to low-MT Iron Bows does not make them any more desirable for use than fighters @ Hand Axe or magic users. Notice that in all FE games, the distinction between a good bow user and a bad bow user hinges a lot on what weapons they can use (e.g. Klein, Igrene, Geitz, Innes, Shinon) and what other quirks they possess (e.g. Shin, Rath, Astrid).

Notice that most of those bow users are either very strong or have some access to 1-range weapons (in some of their cases, 1-2 range weapons). I'm also willing to make a wager that all of those bow-only users would leap up the tier lists if, instead of using bows, they used lances/axes.

Face it. Throwing weapons are OPed, plain and simple, and a large part of that is their ability to counter at 1 range.

Locking Hand Axes to 2-range does not make them relatively worse compared to bows in the niche that bows fall in. You are basically making them the equivalent of E rank bows that many classes can use. That does not address either of the circumstances I outlined in the paragraph above; units who gain E rank bows on promotion still do not have an incentive to use an Iron Bow over a Hand Axe (if a Hand Axe is only a stronger Iron Bow), and shitty earlygame archers are still much weaker than fighters @ Hand Axe. It does not make bows better because it does not enable them to do anything that Hand Axes cannot do (that didn't exist before).

In your own words, having access to bows means you can use weapons like the brave bow and killer bow. I would expect access to lesser-competed weapons of such caliber to be high. Even a first-timer would be capable of understanding that, even if the handle beats the iron bow (what about the javelin? Hand axe may be getting most attention, but it is hardly the only throwing weapon), the higher levels of the bow weapon will probably be stronger and/or offer better options at 2-range. I figured it out in five seconds of meeting Neimi in FF8 (my first FF) and one of my friends who isn't even into strategy games figured out that, even if throwing weapons are stronger, bows offer more options. Unfortunately, that lead to him making the decision to train Rolf and he gave up around chapter 14 due to lack of interest, but he figured it out and he doesn't even play FE.

If you cut down Hand Axe MT, that does change something. Now Iron Bows are at least both 2 MT stronger and 20 hit more accurate. Hand Axes retain their niche as all-purpose 1-2 range weapons and bows become better relative to them because they outdamage Hand Axes to an even greater extent from 2-range.

I never disagreed with cutting down throwing weapon MT. However, like I said, it doesn't hurt STR-overkillers but hurts other units who don't have as much. Also, be honest, given the choice, you would still pick the throwing weapon every time unless A) you got a bonus against the foe, or B) you felt secure you wouldn't need to counter in melee combat.

[Snowy_One]

Accidental double post.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Snowy_One

[Aethereal]

Notice that most of those bow users are either very strong or have some access to 1-range weapons (in some of their cases, 1-2 range weapons). I'm also willing to make a wager that all of those bow-only users would leap up the tier lists if, instead of using bows, they used lances/axes.

Face it. Throwing weapons are OPed, plain and simple, and a large part of that is their ability to counter at 1 range.

You're undervaluing what good 2 range chip means when enemies are powerful. If bows were always the best 2 range option, and hand axes/javelins had reduced MT, the 1 range wouldn't matter. Ideally, you'd use hand axes and javelins, to weaken more enemies than with bows, and bows to do significantly more damage to enemies from 2 range. Imagine a scenario where you have 2 enemies that are very powerful, and you can choose between doing 10x2 damage once, or 4x2 damage three times (One of the enemies twice) or something to that effect. All of a sudden, the choice is very important. If you can give both their niche, you have much much more interesting gameplay.

And to your wager: I really really doubt Klein or Shin would be as good or as useful as they are if they were a cav/soldier respectively. And if you nerved Jav's damage, I'm positive they wouldn't be. A big appeal in FE6, where some enemies are very powerful, is good 2 range chip. I think that cavs are generally better than nomads, but a nomad is such a nice addition when there are promoted enemies that are 2/3RKO'd and pack a punch. The problem is that bows need to be distinctly the best 2 range option (At least over hand axes/javs) and that enemies need to be strong enough that chip is valued.

I never disagreed with cutting down throwing weapon MT. However, like I said, it doesn't hurt STR-overkillers but hurts other units who don't have as much. Also, be honest, given the choice, you would still pick the throwing weapon every time unless A) you got a bonus against the foe, or B) you felt secure you wouldn't need to counter in melee combat.

I think this is a case of us, or at least you, being too used to weak enemies. If it were nearly impossible to 1RKO with a hand axe (With the exceptions of like... magic users, or something) and possible to 1RKO with a bow, bows would be a lot more useful, and hand axes would still have their niche.

[Snowy_One]

You're undervaluing what good 2 range chip means when enemies are powerful. If bows were always the best 2 range option, and hand axes/javelins had reduced MT, the 1 range wouldn't matter. Ideally, you'd use hand axes and javelins, to weaken more enemies than with bows, and bows to do significantly more damage to enemies from 2 range. Imagine a scenario where you have 2 enemies that are very powerful, and you can choose between doing 10x2 damage once, or 4x2 damage three times (One of the enemies twice) or something to that effect. All of a sudden, the choice is very important. If you can give both their niche, you have much much more interesting gameplay.

Except that is not what would happen.

First off, as I pointed out, units with high STR wouldn't be impeded all that much by the lower MT of the weapon. You technically don't even need the STR, just a good +attack support and you are set to go. If you lack that, you're stuck with the very real possibility of not dealing any significant amount of damage to quite a lot. Warriors/berserkers have high HP, lance-users tend to have decently high HP and DEF, and a general is right-out.

Also, without some degree of context, your example is kind of meaningless. I mean, can I kill one of the enemies with the 10X2, am I in danger? Will I be able to counter or not? Why are they powerful in the first place? I can't make a choice as to which option is better until I know why.

Besides, I can see this unfolding one of two ways. Either option one (which seems to be the bow) is better or option two (the throwing weapon). It doesn't even really matter which is better. If option one is better, it is only better in that narrow range where a enemy can be killed by the bow in one round and can't be killed off by having the throwing weapon user attack enemy 1, counter both and kill 1, then finish off 2 (between 16-20 HP in your example). Unless that consistently happens in-game, I will guarantee that people will pick the throwing weapon. If option two is better... well... then it's clear throwing weapons haven't been nerfed enough and are still beating bows at their own game.

And to your wager: I really really doubt Klein or Shin would be as good or as useful as they are if they were a cav/soldier respectively.

I didn't say 'change their class' or something, just swapping out their 'archer/sniper/whatever class for some fictional class identical to their original class in every way except that they can only use the axe/lance throwing weapons.

And if you nerved Jav's damage, I'm positive they wouldn't be. A big appeal in FE6, where some enemies are very powerful, is good 2 range chip. I think that cavs are generally better than nomads, but a nomad is such a nice addition when there are promoted enemies that are 2/3RKO'd and pack a punch. The problem is that bows need to be distinctly the best 2 range option (At least over hand axes/javs) and that enemies need to be strong enough that chip is valued.

I agree, which is why I'm suggesting we limit throwing weapons to 2 range. Doing so removes their one key advantage (that they can counter at 1 range) which I am sure results in a lot of praise. It removes the chance for high-STR units to abuse their way through the game with the weapons, and it gives some actual incentive to train up bows for units who don't start with them since, as you mentioned, they have more flexibility (and a viable high-end damager in the silver bows unlike the throwing weapons which usually only have non-buyable ones).

I think this is a case of us, or at least you, being too used to weak enemies. If it were nearly impossible to 1RKO with a hand axe (With the exceptions of like... magic users, or something) and possible to 1RKO with a bow, bows would be a lot more useful, and hand axes would still have their niche.

Remember the Boyd example I provided though. Boyd managed 37 ATT with a 2 MT weapon which the SM needed a silver blade to match and Oscar was left in the dust since he wasn't attack-focused. While Boyd may not be the best example of consistency (he caps STR and then can get a full ATT boost from supports) he IS a good example of a way the system can be abused. Namely, that units with lots of strength don't really care about the weapon MT unless they fight a really tough enemy, they can just muscle their way through, while units who don't rely on sheer force are left looking at pitiful damage amounts (Oscar had 26-7 IIRC) that they might as well just throw away.

Besides, if you're talking about niches, it's not like throwing weapons suddenly lose their niche. Only one class comes to mind that has consistently gained bows upon promotion, the warrior. Otherwise you have the sniper and nomad/paladin using bows. For every other class in the game, they have to rely on throwing weapons for range. Throwing weapons keep their niche as their only ranged option for the majority of classes, don't overshadow bows (which offer a lot more flexibility and the 'can't counter' downside now applies to every 2-range user who isn't a mage), and can't be abused easily by high-STR people while remaining useful to the weaker teammembers.

Seriously, I'm not seeing a downside to making them 2-ranged only except that they lose the option to be 1-ranged weapons, which doesn't concern me as that was what was making them way too OPed in the first place. Especially since then the MT nerf doesn't have to be down to 2 MT which means that they can still deal noticeable amounts of ranged damage, even kill, while bows gain distinct superiority over them. You nerf their MT too much, then it doesn't even matter if they can counter at 1-range or not because the amount of damage dealt is simply too small to be of value.

[dondon151]

Seriously, I'm not seeing a downside to making them 2-ranged only except that they lose the option to be 1-ranged weapons,

Then you must be blind or illiterate. Making Hand Axes locked to 2-range does not make them worse relative to bows.

You know, I don't know why I waste paragraphs on you when you don't even try to understand the argument.

[Aethereal]

Not replying to everything because you're ignoring the point.

I didn't say 'change their class' or something, just swapping out their 'archer/sniper/whatever class for some fictional class identical to their original class in every way except that they can only use the axe/lance throwing weapons.

The difference between a nomad and a cavalier is what? Less movement penalty for terrain and weapons. Literally, that is all. I wasn't talking about stats or growths or whatever. If you'd like to rephrase "cav/soldier" to "traded bows for javelins" my point is exactly the same. My comparison gives Shin and Klein more benefits than yours, and my point still stands. Bow users are useful when you need good chip against enemies that don't suck. EDIT: And when bows are clearly better than Javs/hand axes. This is not always the case, but it is for Shin and Klein, who have good weapon ranks(Or in Shin's case: His weapon rank can be salvaged)

Besides, if you're talking about niches, it's not like throwing weapons suddenly lose their niche. Only one class comes to mind that has consistently gained bows upon promotion, the warrior. Otherwise you have the sniper and nomad/paladin using bows. For every other class in the game, they have to rely on throwing weapons for range. Throwing weapons keep their niche as their only ranged option for the majority of classes, don't overshadow bows (which offer a lot more flexibility and the 'can't counter' downside now applies to every 2-range user who isn't a mage), and can't be abused easily by high-STR people while remaining useful to the weaker teammembers.

Apparently the word niche for you and I mean different things, or you just don't care about bow users. Hand Axes become bows in your world, cool. So, let's take a hypothetical scenario that doesn't revolve around 20/18 stats. Fighter A and Archer A have identical stats. This is unfair to the fighter, as they have almost always had better stats than archers, but I'm throwing the archer a bone. They also have E rank weapons, as early-joining characters almost always do! Hand Axes are locked to 2 range. Why do you ever ever bring the archer instead of the fighter?

Try that again with the same two units, but hand axes have 4 less MT than bows, and retain their 1-2 range. Now imagine enemies aren't terrible, and chip can be important! Which do you choose to bring? See, the answer isn't quite as obvious, because they both do something that the other cannot (counter at 1-2 range weakly vs strong 2 range chip) and the choice can change depending on different factors. This is a niche. Bows being obsolete unless you're handed Killers/Braves/Silvers or have to suffer through a large portion of the game with mediocre bow users is the problem we already face, and would like to see fixed. This scenario does not change with your suggestion. At all.

The problem is that bows need to be distinctly the best 2 range option (At least over hand axes/javs) and that enemies need to be strong enough that chip is valued.

You quoted the above, then ignored it. Read it again. Then ask yourself: What is the better 2 range option: A hand axe or an iron bow? Then ask: What if the hand axe could only attack at 2 range, then what would be better? Then ask: What if the Hand Axe hit significantly weaker, then what would be better?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Aethereal

[CrashGordon94]

Seriously, I'm not seeing a downside to making them 2-ranged only except that they lose the option to be 1-ranged weapons, which doesn't concern me as that was what was making them way too OPed in the first place.

It concerns me because I like using them at both ranges!

Oh, and it's not a solutions, as everyone's pointing out.

[Othin]

Then you must be blind or illiterate. Making Hand Axes locked to 2-range does not make them worse relative to bows.

You know, I don't know why I waste paragraphs on you when you don't even try to understand the argument.

You've done nothing to support that conclusion except point out that Hand Axes have more Mt than Iron Bows. Iron Bows are not the only bows, Hand Axes are not the only thrown weapons, and Mt is not the only stat.

[Snowy_One]

The difference between a nomad and a cavalier is what? Less movement penalty for terrain and weapons. Literally, that is all. I wasn't talking about stats or growths or whatever. If you'd like to rephrase "cav/soldier" to "traded bows for javelins" my point is exactly the same. My comparison gives Shin and Klein more benefits than yours, and my point still stands. Bow users are useful when you need good chip against enemies that don't suck. EDIT: And when bows are clearly better than Javs/hand axes. This is not always the case, but it is for Shin and Klein, who have good weapon ranks(Or in Shin's case: His weapon rank can be salvaged)

When you need a good chip against a enemy, any 2-range weapon, be it a bow, thrown weapon, or magic, will be useful. However, that chip damage only has more 'value' when you are fighting no more than 1-2 enemies at a time who can't attack at close range. When they do, the advantage of bows goes away. Besides, did you even pay attention? Bows will only be 'better' when the enemy HP falls into that narrow range where their target deals more than a attack/counter would to the point of not killing the enemy, but at the same time not enough to make it so that failing to chip also results in the enemy surviving.

Let's go back to that 4X2 (potentially three times) vs. 10X2 (once) bit you talked about. Let's acknowledge that this is 'chip' damage so both enemies have at least 21 HP. Since it is 'chip damage' we need to assume a second (third?) person there capable of melee attacking. The simple fact is that a enemy needs a lot of HP for the extra chip damage to be worth it since the other person is going to attack for a 1RKO unless your enemy has something like 29 HP (as opposed to the 20 you suggested). Let's face it, a MT nerf, though part of the solution, is not the solution in of itself.

Apparently the word niche for you and I mean different things, or you just don't care about bow users. Hand Axes become bows in your world, cool. So, let's take a hypothetical scenario that doesn't revolve around 20/18 stats. Fighter A and Archer A have identical stats. This is unfair to the fighter, as they have almost always had better stats than archers, but I'm throwing the archer a bone. They also have E rank weapons, as early-joining characters almost always do! Hand Axes are locked to 2 range. Why do you ever ever bring the archer instead of the fighter?

Try that again with the same two units, but hand axes have 4 less MT than bows, and retain their 1-2 range. Now imagine enemies aren't terrible, and chip can be important! Which do you choose to bring? See, the answer isn't quite as obvious, because they both do something that the other cannot (counter at 1-2 range weakly vs strong 2 range chip) and the choice can change depending on different factors. This is a niche. Bows being obsolete unless you're handed Killers/Braves/Silvers or have to suffer through a large portion of the game with mediocre bow users is the problem we already face, and would like to see fixed. This scenario does not change with your suggestion. At all.

Because by using bows later on, you gain access to more unique weapons with unique capabilities. Silver bows (which can be bought instead of tomahawks/spears which usually cannot), killer, brave, and so-forth. Heck, if chip-damage is really so great as you believe, I would expect a bow user to shoot up in the tiers simply because Silver bows deal more damage than spears and can be bought/replaced easily (not to mention possibly forged).

You quoted the above, then ignored it. Read it again. Then ask yourself: What is the better 2 range option: A hand axe or an iron bow? Then ask: What if the hand axe could only attack at 2 range, then what would be better? Then ask: What if the Hand Axe hit significantly weaker, then what would be better?

A handaxe because it can counter at 2 range. A javelin has the same MT as a iron bow, but can counter at 2 range. A handaxe has 1 MT on a bow which gives it a 2 HP range where it is 'better' at 2 range. While that can matter, the much bigger factor is that they can also counter at 1 range as well for picking them over the bow. TBH, the only MT change here I would make is nerfing the Handaxe by 1 MT so it's equal to the other weapons here.

And yes I am ignoring the follow-up question, and here is why. The hand axe/javelin is the only throwing weapon buyable for most of the game. In fact, the only 'short' I can find in the American FE shops is the short bow in FE7. You lower the MT too much and you hurt your melee weapon users ability to deal damage at 2-range. While I am not against lowering their MT, lowering it too much makes it so that they are dependent on forges/drops to deal any significant 2-range damage.

By restricting it to 2-range, iron bows and basic throwing weapons become largely identical. Assuming you don't have a short axe/spear, there is little reason to use the throwing weapon over the bow if you are just starting out and training up your bow skills can lead to better bows later on that are both stronger than what you have and can do things that throwing weapons cannot. Units who lack large amounts of STR aren't punished too badly, but still have a use for the weapons, while snipers, between now having their weapon not so dominated by other weapons in other classes and gaining 3 range on promotion, are now a lot better off in comparison to other units.

[Colonel M]

So instead of giving Bow users a niche with their good 2 range option, you would rather ignore it completely and give Hand Axes only 2 range with the same Mt as Iron Bow (or more).

Snowy, you really are fucking retarded. Now the Bow user, AGAIN, has no purpose as opposed to just a decrease in Mt and stronger enemies.

[Snowy_One]

So instead of giving Bow users a niche with their good 2 range option, you would rather ignore it completely and give Hand Axes only 2 range with the same Mt as Iron Bow (or more).

Snowy, you really are fucking retarded. Now the Bow user, AGAIN, has no purpose as opposed to just a decrease in Mt and stronger enemies.

Yes. I would. That way melee units have a viable 2-range option that amounts to more than them just slapping their enemy. People who use bows eventually gain access to better bows that can be replaced (A steel bow beats a iron bow and only requires a D-rank) instead of relying on weapon drops/chests. Throwing weapons keep a niche as the only 2-range option for most units while those few units who can wield bows are incentivised to raise their weapon rank. Even if they start at E-rank, they can only get stronger 2-range weapons if they level their bow skills and now, unlike before, throwing weapons no longer have a big advantage on bows.

As for the bow user, his purpose remains exactly the same as it was if we decreases mt, exactly the same if we kept 1-2 range, and exactly the same if we made any change what so ever that didn't introduce 1-2 range bow weapons. Namely 2-range melee damage specialists. Their higher MT on the later weapons means that, against the stronger foes, they will deal more damage (6 more than a javelin with a steel bow) while at the same time melee units aren't completely shut out, just no longer dominating the range department due to handaxes being the best counter weapon.

[Refa]

And if most mages eat a counter or two except from fellow magi, they're likely dead. Most of them are squishy as hell so it's not like they're gonna stand there and decimate an army if the enemies are any competent. I don't see the problem with magic being the best 1-2 range by itself.

It would make throne bosses a nonentity to anyone who's not LTCing it.

[arvilino]

Yes. I would. That way melee units have a viable 2-range option that amounts to more than them just slapping their enemy. People who use bows eventually gain access to better bows that can be replaced (A steel bow beats a iron bow and only requires a D-rank) instead of relying on weapon drops/chests. Throwing weapons keep a niche as the only 2-range option for most units while those few units who can wield bows are incentivised to raise their weapon rank. Even if they start at E-rank, they can only get stronger 2-range weapons if they level their bow skills and now, unlike before, throwing weapons no longer have a big advantage on bows.

As for the bow user, his purpose remains exactly the same as it was if we decreases mt, exactly the same if we kept 1-2 range, and exactly the same if we made any change what so ever that didn't introduce 1-2 range bow weapons. Namely 2-range melee damage specialists. Their higher MT on the later weapons means that, against the stronger foes, they will deal more damage (6 more than a javelin with a steel bow) while at the same time melee units aren't completely shut out, just no longer dominating the range department due to handaxes being the best counter weapon.

Just how strong are you suggesting the bows are going to be? That's a bigger damage difference than the Javelin and Steel Bow after the Javelin/Hand Axe nerf in FE12.

[Snowy_One]

Just how strong are you suggesting the bows are going to be? That's a bigger damage difference than the Javelin and Steel Bow after the Javelin/Hand Axe nerf in FE12.

Errr. I was using the FE9 numbers for that (where Steel bows have 9 MT and Javelins have 6) and assuming a double.

[Othin]

So instead of giving Bow users a niche with their good 2 range option, you would rather ignore it completely and give Hand Axes only 2 range with the same Mt as Iron Bow (or more).

Snowy, you really are fucking retarded. Now the Bow user, AGAIN, has no purpose as opposed to just a decrease in Mt and stronger enemies.

Iron Bows are not the only bows, Hand Axes are not the only thrown weapons, and Mt is not the only stat.

You are in no position to be insulting anyone's intelligence right now.

It would make throne bosses a nonentity to anyone who's not LTCing it.

Unless they have other capabilities, such as FE4 enemies' ability to switch weapons when attacked.

Or if the Tactics rank exists.

[Colonel M]

You are in no position to be insulting anyone's intelligence right now.

Oh I have every right when arguing with the Terrific Trio.

Steel Bows are irrelevant to anyone with E Rank and FE12 players don't have access to Tomahawks and Spears (hint: its enemy only). The only viable 1-2 range weapon that has juice behind it isn't available until after Chapter 20 when Hardin drops Gradivus.

And since you three can make retarded ideas, I can too - let's give thrown weapons 20 Wt like they did in FE3. Added bonus - include negative AS parameters like they did in a couple FE games.

Or we just did what FE12 did right. If the only person ORKOing needs insane Str parameters (read: My Unit) I see no flaw to the problem. Once again, the issue with hypothetical Boyd is Max Str isn't achieved until around Endgame, he still has minor Spd issues unlike Swordmasters, he has E Rank in Bows to take no advantage of other bows, and even of he did effective Mt is x2 anyway. Swordmasters problem isn't exactly their low Mt. Their issue was FE9 units were fairly slow. They are just fat enough where, sometimes, Boyd can fail to double them, so he can still miss ORKOes, but not fast enough where their overkill Spd is necessary. Now in FE12, you need a hell of a lot more Swordmasters than Warriors since Spd capped Warriors get doubled and most don't have a sufficient Bow rank to make up for it. Even if they did, there's Horseman. Snipers still have a slightly better Spd padding and access to Longbows.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Colonel M

[The_Purple_Knight]

Oh I have every right when arguing with the Terrific Trio.

Steel Bows are irrelevant to anyone with E Rank and FE12 players don't have access to Tomahawks and Spears (hint: its enemy only). The only viable 1-2 range weapon that has juice behind it isn't available until after Chapter 20 when Harding drops Gradivus. - you can use forges in both games I always use to arena abuse up 100,000 and make a series of very powerful weapons with very obscene names .Even if you dont abuse for cash they give you so much gold forging a few decent ranged weapons isnt a proplem in those games .

[Colonel M]

I don't have room for you in my Terrific Trio, but

- arena abuse is near impossible in Lunatic

- money is a legitimate issue

- limit one forge per chapter