DeletedUser
Guest
So far, I have not seen the bolt used offensively, only by a defensive player who can not muster the forces to attack properly. I deleted the part about you not responding because you posted while I was typing. So what if you can counter the new spell with existing ones? that makes far more sense to me that you should be able to counter it then not. If you are saying that the bolt can not be countered then that destroys many of your arguments
I'm getting tired of repeating myself. So for the last time.
This vote is about two options. One is to keep the bolt. The other is to remove the bolt and replace it with a spell that can be completely nullified. That is our choice. My choice is to keep a spell that can do something instead of replacing it with one which can not.
My arguement was never that the bolt can be completely countered. My arguement all along has been that people are way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way, did I say way yet, overestimating the power of the bolt. It can destroy 1 level of 1 building. Nothing else can be destroyed if a player is around to cast city protection. There are however remedies to the repeated bolting which was what was being used to push this idea along.
Still though a bolt gets in one shot before it can be countered. The proposed crippling spell gets no shots becase it can immediately be countered making it completely useless.
To repeat again, this vote is on whether to keep the bolt, a mildly offensive spell (yes, I have had it destroy levels of my wall and had foolish people follow that up with an attack), and replace it with a spell that can be completely countered and thus totally ineffective.