NPE is certainly a bigger issue in "casual games", so Seraphon is likely to cause a bigger upset at this stage than at the "hyper competitive level", but does that make the complains less valid? I dont think the game should be balanced around the "hyper competitive level", at the end of the day this is the minority of games that are being played anyways. I also dont see why the competitive meta should consist of only 5-7 armies - The amount of "viable" armies could be much stronger if the top offenders were brought in line. This wouldnt ruin the competitive scene at all. It would make it more diverse. I also dont think playing at the "hyper competitive level" has to equate to fighting against super obnoxious rules. I might misunderstand your point all together though. Im not saying this is the best take on "fixing" Seraphon - Honestly only touching Skinks is the tip of the iceberg - But it was stated prior to my post that halving the max unit size of Skinks would do nothing at all, which isnt true hence my comment. Shooting in itself is not an issue at all. The issue started to appear (IMO) when shooting became a stand-alone option for a number of armies, not something that was complementary to the primary army. I used to look for ranged units in some of my combat armies so I had an answer to buffing heroes that would sit behind screens. These days you build entire armies purely to shoot the opponent off the table, simply because they are that effective and often better than melee options. A shooting army isnt a bad concept, but there are shooting armies out there who have no apparent drawbacks. Shooting armies should be super squishy and once you catch them, they are in deep trouble. In the case of Skinks, they can hit you harder (if equippd "right") once you *catch* them.