Balance Update 2.1 & 2.2

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • McBaine wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    McBaine wrote:

    My problems with Peasant Levy as they are now (without looking at background or personal liking as much as I can):
    • They have really low Dis, therefore are easy to panic and easy to break if no fealty knights are close
    • They have a hard time keeping up with the knights to keep the better Dis and March rate
    • Even if they keep up, they can't really support the knights and might make things more difficult, due to dying very easily.
    • They can't act alone as a tarpit, because they lack the survivability and Dis.
    • There are just better options to take
    These are my problems with Levy.
    1. Can be helped with when the anvil is in special (i talk about peasant anvil and not tarpit)
    2. Can be helped with the anvil is in special (banner option and more space for rules)
    3. Can be helped with when the anvil is in special (heavy armor in core? never=
    4. well as tarpit they work imo and that they need a ld buff for that is fine. Most tarpit need that
    5. yep they are not viable

    You seem keen on making them an anvil. I do not necessarily agree that is the way to go. They have to be good at something, but it doesn't need to be as anvil.

    With moving them to special you propose some kind of better equipment, stats and rules. I see the following problems with that:
    1. We are left with only 3 core choices, two of which are 0-4. (Not a problem for me, but it limits choice and that is never good in my opinion).
    2. If they are in special (and "better" stat/equipment wise), they will become more expensive, therefore competing with the other special entries
    3. If they are in special (and "better" stat/equipment wise), they will muddy the waters, because there are already Forlorns who can do what you want the peasants to do (being an anvil).

    perosnaly (and that is really only my opinion)
    Core
    1. realms (elite jack of all trades. hammer)
    2. aspirants (flanker, anti wm, anti panic)
    3. new knight unit (massing knights, breaking knights, can work as anvil vs certain enemies)
    4. tarpit peasants (tarpit and only tarpit.)
    5. yeomen(can be special but then core 20%)


    Special:
    1. Questing reworked (grinding unit. A mix of current grails and questors)
    2. Grails reworked (elite msu unit/ hammer/ monstrous unit profile but still cavalry base aka vampire knights/wdg knights)
    3. new knight unit bodyguard (anvil, secure the middle)
    4. Pegasus light (anti chaff, anti bowmen, anti wm)
    5. Pegasus heavy ( flanker, hammer)
    6. new knight unit questors (special deplyoment, speciliased in one task, to be decided. Most people want the old hedge knights back)
    7. Brigands (anti chaff, chaff, anti wm)
    8. Crossbows (flank secure, anti cavalry, LOW range support)
    9. Longbows (anti chaff, support, anti bowlines)
    10. man at arms (anvil)
    11. forlorn (elite anvil, and jack of all trade)
    12. Green knight (anvil, blocker, terror check, flanker)
    13. Black Knight (anti tarpit, wizzard conclave, support, gets stronger if he gets dmg. something like WDG giant)
    14. Scorpion as now (anti cowboy, anti flier)
    15. Trebuchet (anti infantry, remove big hit => killing monster is the job of knights)
    Chars
    1. Damsel (mage)
    2. Duke (leader and bsb)
    3. Paladin (bsb and fighter)
    4. Saint (elite fighter)
    5. "Bard" (unit support/ castellan will become an upgrade for each peasant unit // see OK)


    That are 23 choices.
    We still lack
    1. Chariots
    2. monster
    3. Monstrous infantry
    4. Heavy range mass shooting
    5. small monsters
    6. Blackpoweder
    7. Heavy WM

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Klexe ().

  • Klexe wrote:

    perosnaly (and that is really only my opinion)Core
    1. realms (elite jack of all trades. hammer)
    2. aspirants (flanker, anti wm, anti panic)
    3. new knight unit (massing knights, breaking knights, can work as anvil vs certain enemies) What do you mean with breaking knights? Can the other knight units not break? And if they break others, but can also act as an anvil, aren't they not specialised enough? Would their task be both?
    4. tarpit peasants (tarpit and only tarpit.) So, more or less as they are now? Maybe with higher Discipline?
    5. yeomen(can be special but then core 20%)


    Special:
    1. Questing reworked (grinding unit. A mix of current grails and questors)
    2. Grails reworked (elite msu unit/ hammer/ monstrous unit profile but still cavalry base aka vampire knights/wdg knights) What is MSU in your view? 3-6 models, but with 2 HP?
    3. new knight unit bodyguard (anvil, secure the middle)
    4. Pegasus light (anti chaff, anti bowmen, anti wm)
    5. Pegasus heavy ( flanker, hammer)
    6. new knight unit questors (special deplyoment, speciliased in one task, to be decided. Most people want the old hedge knights back)
    7. Brigands (anti chaff, chaff, anti wm) These are already seldom used by your data, so what would you change?
    8. Crossbows (flank secure, anti cavalry, LOW range support)
    9. Longbows (anti chaff, support, anti bowlines) I don't think anyone will take them in Special. If you make them better, they will just cost too much and other special choices will be prefered, even if we get 20% core.
    10. man at arms (anvil) These are more or less reskinned Forlorn then?
    11. Green knight (anvil, blocker, terror check, flanker)
    12. Black Knight (anti tarpit, wizzard conclave, support, gets stronger if he gets dmg. something like WDG giant)
    13. Scorpion as now (anti cowboy, anti flier)
    14. Trebuchet (anti infantry, remove big hit => killing monster is the job of knights) I agree with removing the big hit and the task
    Chars
    1. Damsel (mage)
    2. Duke (leader and bsb)
    3. Paladin (bsb and fighter)
    4. Saint (elite fighter)
    5. "Bard" (unit support/ castellan will become an upgrade for each peasant unit // see OK)


    That are 22 choices.
    We still lack
    1. Chariots
    2. monster
    3. Monstrous infantry
    4. Heavy range mass shooting
    5. small monsters
    6. Blackpoweder
    7. Heavy WM

    Again, removing the archers from core seems like a bad idea to me. Brigands aren't taken often, so why would someone want the regular Bowmen that eat up points from special? If we get 20% core, to me, that is just a chance to get better than necessary tax troops. I won't waste this gift of extra points on lame units that should be core anyway. Instead, I rather go full cavalry.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."
  • New

    McBaine wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    perosnaly (and that is really only my opinion)Core
    1. realms (elite jack of all trades. hammer)
    2. aspirants (flanker, anti wm, anti panic)
    3. new knight unit (massing knights, breaking knights, can work as anvil vs certain enemies) What do you mean with breaking knights? Can the other knight units not break? And if they break others, but can also act as an anvil, aren't they not specialised enough? Would their task be both? It means they are cheap. This allows for more ranks = they break enemies easier (realms and aspirants can do that too but they are more expensive) and they can act as "anvil" just through armor and ranks
    4. tarpit peasants (tarpit and only tarpit.) So, more or less as they are now? Maybe with higher Discipline? Profile as now minues armor and shield. No reason for them having it as tarpit imo (real rabble / perhaps 6+ at best)
    5. yeomen(can be special but then core 20%)


    Special:
    1. Questing reworked (grinding unit. A mix of current grails and questors)
    2. Grails reworked (elite msu unit/ hammer/ monstrous unit profile but still cavalry base aka vampire knights/wdg knights) What is MSU in your view? 3-6 models, but with 2 HP? Vampire knights, wdg knights profile. So yes 2hp and 3-5models
    3. new knight unit bodyguard (anvil, secure the middle)
    4. Pegasus light (anti chaff, anti bowmen, anti wm)
    5. Pegasus heavy ( flanker, hammer)
    6. new knight unit questors (special deplyoment, speciliased in one task, to be decided. Most people want the old hedge knights back)
    7. Brigands (anti chaff, chaff, anti wm) These are already seldom used by your data, so what would you change? quite frankly change nothing. This is a points issue mostly. external "experts" revoked the points reduction we got because they had a "feeling"
    8. Crossbows (flank secure, anti cavalry, LOW range support)
    9. Longbows (anti chaff, support, anti bowlines) I don't think anyone will take them in Special. If you make them better, they will just cost too much and other special choices will be prefered, even if we get 20% core. They are not taken in core. They need a huge buff. like +8 range and beeing better. This is imo not possible in core. In special? yeah i think it is. If they have a good task at supporting knights i think they will be taken. 10min size 38 range 3+ longbows with unwieldy, stakes. They would be way better at removing chaff (1,66 wounds avg vs eagles, 5+ light cav etc // current 15guys which are very hard to move and get in position would do the same but need to be in line formation and range. If people still prefer other choices for anti chaff? Well that is a point issue. But overall in special we have WAY more options like better equipment, armor, profile, rules or different types of range arrows. The thing is. The current status quo didnt work since 3 years. We need to change something drastically.
    10. man at arms (anvil) These are more or less reskinned Forlorn then? No. They are cheap body anvil. 4+ As parry with access to banner. Just think about current peasants with +1ld,+1ws,+1 as and banner for tripple march. Add a special rule if engaged with knights. Forlorn knights should still exist as the "more elite" version i fogot them
    11. Green knight (anvil, blocker, terror check, flanker)
    12. Black Knight (anti tarpit, wizzard conclave, support, gets stronger if he gets dmg. something like WDG giant)
    13. Scorpion as now (anti cowboy, anti flier)
    14. Trebuchet (anti infantry, remove big hit => killing monster is the job of knights) I agree with removing the big hit and the task
    Chars
    1. Damsel (mage)
    2. Duke (leader and bsb)
    3. Paladin (bsb and fighter)
    4. Saint (elite fighter)
    5. "Bard" (unit support/ castellan will become an upgrade for each peasant unit // see OK)


    That are 22 choices.
    We still lack
    1. Chariots
    2. monster
    3. Monstrous infantry
    4. Heavy range mass shooting
    5. small monsters
    6. Blackpoweder
    7. Heavy WM

    Again, removing the archers from core seems like a bad idea to me. Brigands aren't taken often, so why would someone want the regular Bowmen that eat up points from special? If we get 20% core, to me, that is just a chance to get better than necessary tax troops. I won't waste this gift of extra points on lame units that should be core anyway. Instead, I rather go full cavalry.
    Feel free to add new ideas for archers. Quite frankly i havent seen any better idea then moving them to special. They need rules to support knights and they wont get them in core

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    Feel free to add new ideas for archers. Quite frankly i havent seen any better idea then moving them to special. They need rules to support knights and they wont get them in core
    I have no new ideas for archers, I think they are fine. I don't need them to have more special rules.

    Klexe wrote:

    They are not taken in core. They need a huge buff. like +8 range and beeing better. This is imo not possible in core. In special? yeah i think it is. If they have a good task at supporting knights i think they will be taken. 10min size 38 range 3+ longbows with unwieldy, stakes. They would be way better at removing chaff (1,66 wounds avg vs eagles, 5+ light cav etc // current 15guys which are very hard to move and get in position would do the same but need to be in line formation and range. If people still prefer other choices for anti chaff? Well that is a point issue. But overall in special we have WAY more options like better equipment, armor, profile, rules or different types of range arrows. The thing is. The current status quo didnt work since 3 years. We need to change something drastically.
    I take them in core. Others do as well.
    Source: You

    Klexe wrote:

    We got overall 48 bowmen = 3x170 + 18x8ppm = 654 points
    = 3% pick rate lul
    A 3% pick rate isn't huge, but it shows this unit is taken. Meanwhile, the 10 min size 3+ hitting Brigands aren't taken.
    Source: You

    Klexe wrote:

    ZERO Brigands (trololol at the "experts" who reverted the buff for them... stats dont lie)
    Yeah, stats don't lie. Therefore your proposal to move the Bowmen to special and letting them hit better and buff them seems not to be the big solution you think it is. The Brigands are more mobile and can scout (and so have a better reach than 30" by being nearer to their intended targets). How can they not already support the knights like you want the special Bowmen to do? Still they are not taken. So, if there is a good solution, making Bowmen special isn't it in my opinion.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."
  • New

    with dread elf range getting reduced to like 18" but stats still at R3, 5+ saves - I don't see KoE longbows getting 38" range.
    This isn't the only changes in other books that would multiply the effect of 38" longbows.
    The general trend of restricting special deployment in most books means 38" longbows would be strong.

    oh, and I'm pretty sure 38" longbows would come at the cost of hedge knights.
  • New

    McBaine wrote:

    I take them in core. Others do as well.
    Source: You
    not picked enough! Cheaper is almost not possible in fear of spamming/chafflike abilities

    McBaine wrote:

    Yeah, stats don't lie. Therefore your proposal to move the Bowmen to special and letting them hit better and buff them seems not to be the big solution you think it is. The Brigands are more mobile and can scout (and so have a better reach than 30" by being nearer to their intended targets). How can they not already support the knights like you want the special Bowmen to do? Still they are not taken. So, if there is a good solution, making Bowmen special isn't it in my opinion.
    Imo this is still a big difference because my unit proposal is way different then brigands
    They have
    • +8 Range
    • Stakes
    • armor
    • ld


    They loose
    • skirmish
    • quick to fire
    • scout
    So they will cost the same or even cheaper but bringing way more to the table! 38" shooting is huge (this is not tested)

    I truly belive 38" range will fix them!

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    with dread elf range getting reduced to like 18" but stats still at R3, 5+ saves - I don't see KoE longbows getting 38" range.
    This isn't the only changes in other books that would multiply the effect of 38" longbows.
    The general trend of restricting special deployment in most books means 38" longbows would be strong.

    oh, and I'm pretty sure 38" longbows would come at the cost of hedge knights.
    When we (I?) first had the idea old RT was quite fondly of it. It suits KoE because they would also be unwieldy (aka static), it makes historic sense (duh yeomen, longbowmen, Britian etc...)


    DE gain 18" to differntiate them next to HBE and SE


    Exactly 38" longbows would be strong! They can almost snipe ballistas turn 1! march 10 = you are in range

    They would FORCE enemy bowline to move forward = into the zone of cavalry!

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • New

    30" Longbow already takes into account the maximum effective range of the "english" Longbow. :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    When we (I?) first had the idea old RT was quite fondly of it. It suits KoE because they would also be unwieldy (aka static), it makes historic sense (duh yeomen, longbowmen, Britian etc...)
    ok,

    Klexe wrote:

    DE gain 18" to differntiate them next to HBE and SE
    ok ...well, I think it's more to reduce avoidance armies for DE since they are supposed to be the offensive close combat elves.

    Klexe wrote:

    Exactly 38" longbows would be strong! They can almost snipe ballistas turn 1! march 10 = you are in range
    ok

    Klexe wrote:

    They would FORCE enemy bowline to move forward = into the zone of cavalry!
    lol, this type of design assumptions doesn't usually work out once playtested.
    Like when they gave quick to fire to sylvan elves expecting players to move forward to get within short range instead of avoidance play. ...players just backed up which increased avoidance play.

    My guess at what would happen with 38" longbows would be a Rock/paper/scissors effect. Tough armies that shrug off S3, Ap 0 shots would just charge up while armies like elves(R3, low model count) would go castle up and go for a tie.
    I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying it's very difficult to force an opponent to march into range of certain death. Especially in a competitive setting.
  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    Imo this is still a big difference because my unit proposal is way different then brigands
    They have


    +8 Range

    Stakes

    armor

    ld


    They loose


    skirmish

    quick to fire

    scout
    So they will cost the same or even cheaper but bringing way more to the table! 38" shooting is huge (this is not tested)

    I truly belive 38" range will fix them!
    They are not so different. Sure, these two units have slightly different rules, but they can accomplish the same task. Therefore 1 of these is obsolete in Special.

    I do not believe that Brigands would do a worse job than 38" range Bowmen, in some cases they would probably be better. Brigands actually can snipe ballistas turn 1 without marching and giving up one of their major advatages (their defense advantage from stakes) in doing so. And that is assuming a 38" longbow would be greenlit by RT for a thematically non-range focused army of knights. The chances of KoE getting the longest ranging bows in the game instead of SE or others are quite slim to non-existent.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."
  • New

    I would much prefer current Brigands to 38” unwieldy archers. Why?
    • 38” just means 8 more inches to miss when hitting on 5s
    • Unwieldy means those 5s turns to 7s as soon as fast moving chaff get out if their front arc (remember, each model still measures line of sight individually to see if the target is in its front arc)
    • Archers have stakes(wall) but brigands carry their hard target wherever they go... and march 8-10. Archers cannot carry their stakes with them
    • Brigands can reposition without suffering any to hit penalties, and will more than likely always be wounding their intended target on 4s. Rarely ok 5s and even less 6s. Archers... the same except they’ll have to hit on 5s and 6s first... and probably 7s with unwieldy
    That’s just off the top of my head
  • New

    Ya brigands straight outshine bowmen in special.

    Also who would ever take shittier peasants? @Klexe when's the last time your list even saw an infantry peasant?
    Remove shields and weapons and these guys are a blank entry. Better to just strike them then. why not make them men at arms in core? It's not like those minor buffs would break something.
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
  • New

    Stygian wrote:

    Ya brigands straight outshine bowmen in special.

    Also who would ever take shittier peasants? @Klexe when's the last time your list even saw an infantry peasant?
    Remove shields and weapons and these guys are a blank entry. Better to just strike them then. why not make them men at arms in core? It's not like those minor buffs would break something.
    I take shittiest peasants possible all the time. More bodies for roadblocks and speed bumps while conserving points for grails, forlorns, questers and characters. People don't target peasants anyway regardless of their eliteness when there are grail units or dukes on the board, might just as well bring enough peasants so they can't avoid them.
    "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

    "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    So the question is: why do people not play more bowmen? They are there to help cavalry by removing chaff. Answer is: They are not good enough
    Or there are other units that are significantly better at doing that role and offers more to the army in the wider scheme of things. Aspriants are the culprit here.

    5 Aspirants are a cheap(ish) throwaway unit that can be chaff / anti-chaff in the first couple of rounds. They can also bring an aditional 10 Strength 5 attacks and 5 strength 4 attacks to any combat, charge a flank to remove spear bonuses, are cheap drops during deployment, are scoring and have the option of avoidance.

    A unit of 15 Bowmen, in contrast are anti-chaff in the first couple of rounds and can then whittle a few wounds off an enemy combat unit - useful but not usually game changing. They are a cheap drop in deployment but can't avoid effectively. They're scoring too but they only march 8", which is the Advance rate of Aspirants but if you move a knight unit nearby you get an extra 2" of moving.

    Bowmen also look stupid in units of 15, and you have to deploy them 8 wide so you get no rank bonus if they do get into combat. Bowmen were great in units of 10 when you could take 3 tiny units, which forces an enemy to deploy slow and laugh when an opponent expended effort to kill them - effort they weren't spending on killing knights.

    But one person was smart enough to use units of 10 bowmen as chaff, with a march move of 10" and Discipline 8 (so long as they're within 6" of a unit of knights) and the team decided that 10 was too small a starting unit size without considering the wider implications. If they were used as chaff, then that could have been solved more intelegently. As chaff they compete with Yeomen, which are too expensive - this was the cause of the archer chaff. The project treated the symptoms.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Nope, nope, nope.

    Fluff comes first, end of discussion. Your accusations are false; the BGT did not begin from GW's lore. It is a ground-up fantasy setting, and the fact that we haven't publically released all the details doesn't mean the BGT haven't spent six (or more? not sure, I don't actually know when the project began, just when I first found it) years working on it.


    "Mechanics first" design is BAD design. It's "oh we need to WIN GAMES so let's copy this thing that everyone else does and justify it with some half-assed backstory later maybe". It feels generic, it feels bland, it's uncreative and it almost never comes up with anything new and cool.


    Whereas when you come up with something neat in the backstory and then figure out how to express that? You end up in places you never thought you would begin.


    Yes, the goal is to have an engaging interesting SET OF SIXTEEN armies to play with; the worst possible way to do that is to start with a wishlist of buffs and just shovel them onto units. Wishlists are typically full of the more powerful, most boring, least engaging power fantasies the creators can imagine. It'd be fun - until the price tag for balancing all the buffs shows up, and then the book will not be fun.
    Lol...

    @Pigtails is right. If the army isn't interesting to play it won't be played. And what makes it interesting is a combination of player needs, wants and desires. You're task as a FAB team is to identify the needs and add just enough of the wants and desires to make the book attractive and interesting.

    So the Mission statement of any army book team 100% should be to create a unique and interesting faction to play. That is the purpose of that team. What that means mechanically on the tabletop is fluid and can be determined by the background.

    I should note here that Background driven design only works if you actually have some background. You might have access to the full background for KoE but we don't. We have a few snippets, that's it. From our perspective there is very little KoE background and we try to stay on track, but that is difficult (to say the least) when you are unable to perceive the track.

    And what happens if BGT come up with a seemingly fantastic background idea that get's signed off but it then turns out to be boring to play on the table how will the team cope with this? Will you release the boring book? Or go back to BGT?

    If you go back to BGT then mechanics are driving the background. If you release the book anyway, you've screwed yourselves over for background driven design. Or to rephrase the question, are the team more interested in Background Driven Design than they are in creating a fun and interesting game for all 16 factions?

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    1) Don't repeat the tripe you just said. Every time someone makes me waste my time shooting down claims that the background is irrelevant, or not really done
    If it's done, release it. If it's not ready to be released, it's not done. Your problem here is that the project's definition of done doesn't match the dictionary definition.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    2) When commenting on rules, identity problems, not solutions.
    It's funny, when we do that we get lots of team members telling us that it's not a problem and to look at how well KoE are performing. When we identify potentual solutions to the issues everyone but the team know exist we get told to identify problems.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    3) If you want to do more than that, apply for a team.
    I haven't done this mainly because I just don't have the time. The other reason is that a lot of KoE community members have been or are part of teams and a lot of the ones that no longer are team members quit because the project didn't listen to their concerns about KoE. Those experiences haven't exactly encouraged me to join.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • New

    Giladis wrote:

    30" Longbow already takes into account the maximum effective range of the "english" Longbow. :)
    Not really when you consider the maximum effective range of a flintlock musket in the game is 24". The Flintlock Musket was effective at a range of up to 100 metres.

    Longbows - as in true English longbows in the medieval period - had a maximum effective range of about 400 yards or over 350 metres. Even allowing for best conditions (skilled archer, etc) and so capping range at 250m, that's well over twice the effective range of a Musket.

    Both weapons relied on volley fire at longer ranges so both would be effective at the top end of those ranges (250m for the longbow).


    If you're saying EoS have have rifles (which they don't or they wouldn't be using spears and swordsmen), the Baker rifle had an effective range of around 200 metres so the ranges are about correct but a longbow should then have Multiple shots 2 in comparison to EoS rifles.

    A longbowman could fire 5 or 6 arrows over the course of a minute where as 4 shots a minute with a musket was considered impressive. A rifle was slower to load than a musket so 2 or 3 shots a minute would be the top end if you load it properly. If you don't load it properly then it's essentually a musket and therefore has a much shorter range.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.