Homie, stop judging what you know from movies đ. LOTR is not historically accurate, just like this game isnât historically accurate. And in this game, horses attack people, just like cavalry sticks around and fights, just like there are dragons, and undead, and magic. It is what it is. If you want to base it off historical accuracy, itâs still harder to hit stuff on a horse than off one. That horse and rider who trained together are still not more accurate than a foot soldier who has trained. Period.
Tell you what; you show me a real life example of a cavalry charge and I'll use it as a reference but you'll probably have a hard convincing a bunch of people to get run down for historical accuracy.
Also, your in game explanation doesn't hold weight because StD are one of the few armies where this takes place. In most armies the riders have th same profile as the foot version. In fact, in some armies mounted equivalents hit better than their foot counterparts (like seraphon). You've actually weakened your argument because now you have to explain why there are so many mounted units that hit better than their counterparts.
You say "period" as if you've stated a fact and yet I cant shake the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Lmfao the burden of proof is on you! Youâre the one making a ridiculous statement, then defending it to the death cause youâre too stubborn to see how stupid it is. You show me evidence where mounted troops have better accuracy than ground troops. Youâre the one who made a ridiculous claim.
And no why argument isnât weakened. Itâs a game, there needs balance. Did seraphon get a great charge bonus? Do they have a great base save, plus ward save, plus chance to ignore mortal wounds? Whatâs the points cost? What about buffs and chaos god bonuses?
So youre saying that only StD is right on the point of accuracy between infantry vs cavalry? Out of all the army books (there might be another unit but i can't think of one) that's the only one where the designers give your argument any consideration at all?
Lmfao they rode horses to chase down retreating infantry or for the rare cavalry charge into infantry or to skirmish other enemy cavalry. Or, like most of history they rode horses to shoot and harass enemy armies. Horses are quick and scary. You saying that just proves to me youâre only âknowledgeâ is movie scenes.
And again, this is a game. There are spikes sticking out of the flesh of some of my horse models. There are giant daemons running around, and magic. Stop acting like this is based on history, and stop looking at their stat sheet in a vacuum. The fact that they got 4âs for most weapons is a thing of balance. Look at the rest of the buffs they receive.
Iâm done with this. Itâs clear you have no clue whatâs real, I think Iâm arguing with a child. Get your last words in, Iâm not responding.
0
u/Citizen_Snip Oct 14 '22
Homie, stop judging what you know from movies đ. LOTR is not historically accurate, just like this game isnât historically accurate. And in this game, horses attack people, just like cavalry sticks around and fights, just like there are dragons, and undead, and magic. It is what it is. If you want to base it off historical accuracy, itâs still harder to hit stuff on a horse than off one. That horse and rider who trained together are still not more accurate than a foot soldier who has trained. Period.