Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Vindictive glare far too cost effective?

1246789

Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users
    balanced...

    Not only is it sometimes invisible its damage is very hard to dodge (near impossible) and very high damage. But ok if people feel its ok no worries.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Posts: 1,355Registered Users

    I didn't knew about vindictive glare until I saw a video of Heir Of Carthage commentating a casual tournament. Skaven and Greenskins seem like quite the powerhouse in small funds. I sort of enjoy seeing those little sneaky stabbin goblins utterly destroying Legendary Lords.

    If anyone is going to make an argument about balance they ought to have a consistent definition that holds true stating the exact nature of what balance is. If you say, but it's too cheap, or, no one else gets that value, or, but according to the lore. These are merely self referencing statements. To take the idea of balance literally, say, symmetrically, the game would be rather dull.

    Perhaps now you're pressured to bring a lord on foot against Greenskins and risk facing off against Grimgor. I rarely see greenskins being played, now they got an incredible tool see some large funds play and players want to nerf it? I suppose meat is back on the menu.

    If you'll excuse me, I have a vindictive date with Lady Alarielle.

    Grimgor is a joke no matter what sort of lord you bring. And the fact that you almost never see GS played could just as easily be boiled down to the fact that they're 1/15 factions and the trashy way waaagh works means 9/10 times you play GS you are going to face off against some sort of cancerous kiting gimmicks from your opponent, meaning that there's even less incentive to play them.

    Trying to obfuscate the clear, gross overperformance of the spell by saying it's all subjective does nothing to change the fact that an 8 WoM spell can eradicate plenty of lords/heroes with little to no effort or even counterplay. Seriously, compare it to other spells that do massive amounts of damage in a quick burst most of them are either horribly expensive, easy to dodge, or require some insane positioning on the part of the caster to achieve those results, and it's often a combination of those factors, Vindictive Glare has none of those restrictions.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users
    its not only that, with grimgor you need a mage also so they costs add up, where as azagh or warzagh provide you a lord who has waghhh and is reasnable price so you can spend more gold on troops powered by waghhh.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    Wyvern2 said:

    I didn't knew about vindictive glare until I saw a video of Heir Of Carthage commentating a casual tournament. Skaven and Greenskins seem like quite the powerhouse in small funds. I sort of enjoy seeing those little sneaky stabbin goblins utterly destroying Legendary Lords.

    If anyone is going to make an argument about balance they ought to have a consistent definition that holds true stating the exact nature of what balance is. If you say, but it's too cheap, or, no one else gets that value, or, but according to the lore. These are merely self referencing statements. To take the idea of balance literally, say, symmetrically, the game would be rather dull.

    Perhaps now you're pressured to bring a lord on foot against Greenskins and risk facing off against Grimgor. I rarely see greenskins being played, now they got an incredible tool see some large funds play and players want to nerf it? I suppose meat is back on the menu.

    If you'll excuse me, I have a vindictive date with Lady Alarielle.

    Grimgor is a joke no matter what sort of lord you bring. And the fact that you almost never see GS played could just as easily be boiled down to the fact that they're 1/15 factions and the trashy way waaagh works means 9/10 times you play GS you are going to face off against some sort of cancerous kiting gimmicks from your opponent, meaning that there's even less incentive to play them.

    Trying to obfuscate the clear, gross overperformance of the spell by saying it's all subjective does nothing to change the fact that an 8 WoM spell can eradicate plenty of lords/heroes with little to no effort or even counterplay. Seriously, compare it to other spells that do massive amounts of damage in a quick burst most of them are either horribly expensive, easy to dodge, or require some insane positioning on the part of the caster to achieve those results, and it's often a combination of those factors, Vindictive Glare has none of those restrictions.

    Trying to obfuscate

    What part is obscure, unclear, or unintelligible to you? You're bringing the argument against a standing mechanic. Your definition of performance is based on the performance of spells that do not belong to Greenskins, yet clearly, you cannot directly compare the unique traits of a faction. That is the definition of subjective reasoning is it not? Saying there is no counter-play is an outright lie, you simply want a counter-play that is economically beneficial on your part. You shouldn't isolate the magic from the faction. It's simple, don't bring a large target to the battlefield pumped to 2500 gold cost and they won't have a good use for their investment.





  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users

    Wyvern2 said:

    I didn't knew about vindictive glare until I saw a video of Heir Of Carthage commentating a casual tournament. Skaven and Greenskins seem like quite the powerhouse in small funds. I sort of enjoy seeing those little sneaky stabbin goblins utterly destroying Legendary Lords.

    If anyone is going to make an argument about balance they ought to have a consistent definition that holds true stating the exact nature of what balance is. If you say, but it's too cheap, or, no one else gets that value, or, but according to the lore. These are merely self referencing statements. To take the idea of balance literally, say, symmetrically, the game would be rather dull.

    Perhaps now you're pressured to bring a lord on foot against Greenskins and risk facing off against Grimgor. I rarely see greenskins being played, now they got an incredible tool see some large funds play and players want to nerf it? I suppose meat is back on the menu.

    If you'll excuse me, I have a vindictive date with Lady Alarielle.

    Grimgor is a joke no matter what sort of lord you bring. And the fact that you almost never see GS played could just as easily be boiled down to the fact that they're 1/15 factions and the trashy way waaagh works means 9/10 times you play GS you are going to face off against some sort of cancerous kiting gimmicks from your opponent, meaning that there's even less incentive to play them.

    Trying to obfuscate the clear, gross overperformance of the spell by saying it's all subjective does nothing to change the fact that an 8 WoM spell can eradicate plenty of lords/heroes with little to no effort or even counterplay. Seriously, compare it to other spells that do massive amounts of damage in a quick burst most of them are either horribly expensive, easy to dodge, or require some insane positioning on the part of the caster to achieve those results, and it's often a combination of those factors, Vindictive Glare has none of those restrictions.

    Trying to obfuscate

    What part is obscure, unclear, or unintelligible to you? You're bringing the argument against a standing mechanic. Your definition of performance is based on the performance of spells that do not belong to Greenskins, yet clearly, you cannot directly compare the unique traits of a faction. That is the definition of subjective reasoning is it not? Saying there is no counter-play is an outright lie, you simply want a counter-play that is economically beneficial on your part. You shouldn't isolate the magic from the faction. It's simple, don't bring a large target to the battlefield pumped to 2500 gold cost and they won't have a good use for their investment.





    Cannot same logic be applied to GS player saying the spell should be the way it is because of flying characters.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,693Registered Users

    Wyvern2 said:

    I didn't knew about vindictive glare until I saw a video of Heir Of Carthage commentating a casual tournament. Skaven and Greenskins seem like quite the powerhouse in small funds. I sort of enjoy seeing those little sneaky stabbin goblins utterly destroying Legendary Lords.

    If anyone is going to make an argument about balance they ought to have a consistent definition that holds true stating the exact nature of what balance is. If you say, but it's too cheap, or, no one else gets that value, or, but according to the lore. These are merely self referencing statements. To take the idea of balance literally, say, symmetrically, the game would be rather dull.

    Perhaps now you're pressured to bring a lord on foot against Greenskins and risk facing off against Grimgor. I rarely see greenskins being played, now they got an incredible tool see some large funds play and players want to nerf it? I suppose meat is back on the menu.

    If you'll excuse me, I have a vindictive date with Lady Alarielle.

    Grimgor is a joke no matter what sort of lord you bring. And the fact that you almost never see GS played could just as easily be boiled down to the fact that they're 1/15 factions and the trashy way waaagh works means 9/10 times you play GS you are going to face off against some sort of cancerous kiting gimmicks from your opponent, meaning that there's even less incentive to play them.

    Trying to obfuscate the clear, gross overperformance of the spell by saying it's all subjective does nothing to change the fact that an 8 WoM spell can eradicate plenty of lords/heroes with little to no effort or even counterplay. Seriously, compare it to other spells that do massive amounts of damage in a quick burst most of them are either horribly expensive, easy to dodge, or require some insane positioning on the part of the caster to achieve those results, and it's often a combination of those factors, Vindictive Glare has none of those restrictions.

    Trying to obfuscate

    What part is obscure, unclear, or unintelligible to you? You're bringing the argument against a standing mechanic. Your definition of performance is based on the performance of spells that do not belong to Greenskins, yet clearly, you cannot directly compare the unique traits of a faction. That is the definition of subjective reasoning is it not? Saying there is no counter-play is an outright lie, you simply want a counter-play that is economically beneficial on your part. You shouldn't isolate the magic from the faction. It's simple, don't bring a large target to the battlefield pumped to 2500 gold cost and they won't have a good use for their investment.

    People just need to stop this nonsense. There is no spell or ability in this game that is allowed to be spammed simultaneously to add up to 4000 damage in one alpha strike, period. The closest right now is probably Glady prey + a volley from 4x Waywatchers, that can kill Tyrion at 3675 HP from some 160 meters and Stalk, but that requires a minimm investment of 4400+1213, and the Glady cannot stalk and needs to get within 100 meters for the Prey (and yes, the debuff from Prey + hawkish precision is needed to achieve that much damage). I am one of those that thinks this combination should be nerfed too, while others don't.

    This kind of alpha strike, 2x shamans for a total of 456 gold and 16 WoM can acheive alone, also from stalk and from as much as 250 meters. Sure, they can only do it once or twice, but that's enough to win the game so that doesn't matter much when you pay less than 500 gold for it.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Posts: 1,355Registered Users
    edited January 9
    Sure you can't compare spells tit for tat between factions/lores. But there's slight overperformance(a clear example being flesh to stone vs new glittering robe), and then gross overperformance, and this is clearly a case of the latter.

    The spell costs 8 WoM and can be brought on a hero that costs less than 300. Even if it nukes a dirt cheap horse mounted caster it earns the shamans value back many times over at minimal sacrifice. You seem to think that a low risk, low skill, massive reward spell is balanced because it's unique to the greenskins.

    In that case, I want arrow of kurnous to wipe out 50-90% of a cavalry formation. Wood Elves struggle against cavalry, and if you don't think it's balanced, the ability is unique to WE, so just don't bring expensive cavalry. Boom, fair.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    Wyvern2 said:

    Sure you can't compare spells tit for tat between factions/lores. But there's slight overperformance(a clear example being flesh to stone vs new glittering robe), and then gross overperformance, and this is clearly a case of the latter.

    The spell costs 8 WoM and can be brought on a hero that costs less than 300. Even if it nukes a dirt cheap horse mounted caster it earns the shamans value back many times over at minimal sacrifice. You seem to think that a low risk, low skill, massive reward spell is balanced because it's unique to the greenskins.

    In that case, I want arrow of kurnous to wipe out 50-90% of a cavalry formation. Wood Elves struggle against cavalry, and if you don't think it's balanced, the ability is unique to WE, so just don't bring expensive cavalry. Boom, fair.

    Who would you say performs better in the current meta, Greenskins or Wood Elves?
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users

    Wyvern2 said:

    Sure you can't compare spells tit for tat between factions/lores. But there's slight overperformance(a clear example being flesh to stone vs new glittering robe), and then gross overperformance, and this is clearly a case of the latter.

    The spell costs 8 WoM and can be brought on a hero that costs less than 300. Even if it nukes a dirt cheap horse mounted caster it earns the shamans value back many times over at minimal sacrifice. You seem to think that a low risk, low skill, massive reward spell is balanced because it's unique to the greenskins.

    In that case, I want arrow of kurnous to wipe out 50-90% of a cavalry formation. Wood Elves struggle against cavalry, and if you don't think it's balanced, the ability is unique to WE, so just don't bring expensive cavalry. Boom, fair.

    Who would you say performs better in the current meta, Greenskins or Wood Elves?
    I would be greatly surprised if GS do not perform better than WE in quick battles.
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,365Registered Users

    Wyvern2 said:

    Sure you can't compare spells tit for tat between factions/lores. But there's slight overperformance(a clear example being flesh to stone vs new glittering robe), and then gross overperformance, and this is clearly a case of the latter.

    The spell costs 8 WoM and can be brought on a hero that costs less than 300. Even if it nukes a dirt cheap horse mounted caster it earns the shamans value back many times over at minimal sacrifice. You seem to think that a low risk, low skill, massive reward spell is balanced because it's unique to the greenskins.

    In that case, I want arrow of kurnous to wipe out 50-90% of a cavalry formation. Wood Elves struggle against cavalry, and if you don't think it's balanced, the ability is unique to WE, so just don't bring expensive cavalry. Boom, fair.

    Who would you say performs better in the current meta, Greenskins or Wood Elves?
    I would be greatly surprised if GS do not perform better than WE in quick battles.
    Huge dodge here, he said current meta not quick battles.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users
    OrkLads said:

    Wyvern2 said:

    Sure you can't compare spells tit for tat between factions/lores. But there's slight overperformance(a clear example being flesh to stone vs new glittering robe), and then gross overperformance, and this is clearly a case of the latter.

    The spell costs 8 WoM and can be brought on a hero that costs less than 300. Even if it nukes a dirt cheap horse mounted caster it earns the shamans value back many times over at minimal sacrifice. You seem to think that a low risk, low skill, massive reward spell is balanced because it's unique to the greenskins.

    In that case, I want arrow of kurnous to wipe out 50-90% of a cavalry formation. Wood Elves struggle against cavalry, and if you don't think it's balanced, the ability is unique to WE, so just don't bring expensive cavalry. Boom, fair.

    Who would you say performs better in the current meta, Greenskins or Wood Elves?
    I would be greatly surprised if GS do not perform better than WE in quick battles.
    Huge dodge here, he said current meta not quick battles.
    Same thing but, GS seem to do better than WE in recent tourney also so yeah where exactly do WE overperfom vs GS?
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,148Registered Users
    in all honestly, what matchups are super unfair for GS currently?
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    in all honestly, what matchups are super unfair for GS currently?

    VC and...?
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Posts: 1,356Registered Users
    edited January 9


    VC and...?

    Despite VC have advantage as all undead factions vs GS. It is not super unfair(and i would say on smaller map GS start to have advantage). Far from Beastmen or Skaven situation vs VC.
  • ystyst Posts: 6,050Registered Users
    Lulz funny af, all a sudden now a random unknown faction is same grade as elves because of a gaze.

    And then we have the stupid comparison of a goblin to some other mages. A night goblin is a night goblin. They r weak, low ld, pathetic stats, and thy r a night goblin. Period. A fimir with what 37% missile resist is a fimir. Period. They dont have mount and they dont have other alternative to casting lil wagh. Pretty stupid to add up all that and blame it on a gaze.

    Gaze cant do what a melkoth, fireball, leech does. And none of others can do what a gaze can, simple as that. Frikking no brainer stuffs to have to listen to ppl talking anout their large low armor getting rekt by something frikking been told and explained that does just that and nothing else. They dont do anything inf, cav or whatever. The one and only purpose is to deal with large low armor.

    Some ppl need serious spoon feeding in this game tbh
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users

    This feels to me like just another re-run of the same problem that has been in the game from day 1 - that lords and heroes on big, powerful, mobile monsters are (mostly) vastly better than lords on light mounts or on foot, and that tools that are effective counters to the Malekiths and Blood Dragon Lords of the meta (which can otherwise bully factions like GS pretty mercilessly) end up being brutally OP vs targets with less armour and smaller HP pools. Tabletop had rules that made small characters much harder to actually target than big monsters, and I think Total War could dearly use something similar.

    Key point here.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 3,227Registered Users
    Yeah, I agree as well with Pip's reasoning. If missiles would do less damage to smaller targets, but large amounts against big targets, then it would be very different indeed.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Posts: 915Registered Users
    I think its alright that its relatively spammable and does damage to large targets, IMO it just needs to be tuned down a bit. It should chunk large lords, thats fine. Should it do enough damage to 1-2 shot a caster tho? Probably not. 3-4 shot a caster? Maybe.

    IMO right now the spell outperforms a luminarc for like what? 400 ish gold? Thats ridiculous. Also, anyone who says its equivalent to net + 2 sisters or glady + WW is crazy. Both of those cost 3k+, this guy costs half of the typical elven mage.

    Finally, maybe if GS actually had decent missiles that didn't slowly float through the air like balloons, they could actually hit some of the targets harassing them. Also if we saw a bit more specialization of their missile line (The whole damn thing is iterations of the same mainline archer), they may be able to fend off some of the units giving them trouble without relying on a spell.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users

    Yeah, I agree as well with Pip's reasoning. If missiles would do less damage to smaller targets, but large amounts against big targets, then it would be very different indeed.

    This I find sensible. The counterplay becomes distinct in the sense that GS pose a threat against large targets and one may consider altering their strategy rather than face the impending doom of lord sniping. Which ironically is a typical tactic against Greenskins.

    These Shamans in a way incentivize factions to play the infantry game which is what Greenskins prefer. I suppose then it's an effective detterent against air threats. So, perhaps we should assume that Vindictive Glare is the counterplay to counterplaying Greenskin leadership.

    Though Skaven would need such a type of mechanic as well as a horde tactic so to speak for, I hope, obvious reasons. I think this may then be the introduction of a refreshing yet dirty stinking stabbin kill kill meta.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,724Registered Users
    cant they just increase the spread, so not all hit from max range unless its a big target but at close range all will hit regardless of size.
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 2,021Registered Users
    edited January 9

    cant they just increase the spread, so not all hit from max range unless its a big target but at close range all will hit regardless of size.

    They have been fiddling with the spread, homing, penetration etc. of these spells since WH1 patch 1. In pretty much every patch they have either been over-the-top or very seldom used.

    A core problem is just that the range of targets is super wide. If you say you want this spell to be good vs big monsters, then you're talking about a class of units whose speed varies from around 40 to over 100; whose hitboxes vary from very large (dragons, arachnaroks) to surprisingly small (e.g. warsphinxes, harder to hit with direct-fire projectiles than the smaller Tomb King mounts). And at the same time in the class of units you don't want these spells to be so good against, you have a lot of models with speeds around 30, with no realistic ability to dodge or strafe.

    Add to that the complications of projectile behaviour at different ranges, on different surfaces (e.g. bumpy ground vs flat ground), from different elevations etc. and it doesn't seem surprising to me that it could be very difficult to get a consistently good performance against big monsters without also getting a consistently good performance against smaller targets. And at the end of the day if the spell doesn't achieve at least some baseline consistency, no-one is going to take it.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users
    edited January 9
    This game really needs small, large (cav sized) and monstrous categories - for WH3 at least.

    That way spells like this can be good against large single entities, but not OP vs horse mages.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,693Registered Users
    I think it's fine that it is difficult to dodge and thereby gives reliable damage vs fast targets, what it needs imo is just less damage per cast.

    It's fine that it has good damage per wom too, but it shouldn't be too overtuned either given how hard it is to avoid and has very long range, but a bit better than SL for sure since the Shaman is immobile.

    I think by having overcast add extra ap damage to every missile instead of doubling number of projectiles as well as number of bvl bonuses adds flexibility to the spell but avoids the broken alpha strike.

    A counter doesn't need to instakill stuff to be efficient. If it does its broken. If it's a reliable way to deal cost efficient damage its a counter.
  • ystyst Posts: 6,050Registered Users
    Pretty certain its here to stay and CA got it perfectly where they wanted the spell to be. The only thing left to tweak is playing around with the dmg output. How much should it do, how much bonus to be given due to fact they r such an extremely specialised spell. If i remembers correctly they r one of the few with anti large dmg properties.

    They have near nil affect on anything else, its something like killing what 2-3 slaves or zombies, maybe what 2 horses? I would test if ive access to pc right now. So basically they have to be ultra good on what they r meant to be. Much like tempest where u can only target air, hence u can easily wiped like 4 grp of harpies in a cast. They will and should outperform any magic missile and single target obviously, when its not as multi purpose where u can use those on cavs, monsters and characters.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Posts: 825Registered Users
    edited January 9
    There is no way a cost 230 vanguard stalk unit should deal a 2k alpha strike to low health characters from range 250 at the grand cost of 8 WOM. That's just nuts. Edit, and adding mad cap shrooms makes it a cost 384 vanguard stalk unit that can deal a 4k alpha strike in a few seconds at a cost of 16 WOM.

    I cannot see any gameplay-based defense for it, and having read this entire topic start to finish, it appears nobody else can either, people defending it included. The effect is both too binary and too toxic, it is not consistent with other balance decisions, it is not consistent with other spells, and the effect to cost ratio would appear to be completely messed up.

    Frankly, it looks like an oversight to me. But this is really something that we'd ultimately need a comment from @CA_Duck to tell for sure.

    Also, what the frak are people on about when Greenies bring long range stealth spellcaster snipers and this is suddenly just about the MP meta? You people wouldn't bat an eye if CA gave us pacifist Khornates or vegan vampires, would you?
    Post edited by MonochromaticSpider on
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,365Registered Users

    There is no way a cost 230 vanguard stalk unit should deal a 2k alpha strike to low health characters from range 250 at the grand cost of 8 WOM. That's just nuts.

    I cannot see any gameplay-based defense for it, and having read this entire topic start to finish, it appears nobody else can either, people defending it included. The effect is both too binary and too toxic, it is not consistent with other balance decisions, it is not consistent with other spells, and the effect to cost ratio would appear to be completely messed up.

    Frankly, it looks like an oversight to me. But this is really something that we'd ultimately need a comment from @CA_Duck to tell for sure.

    Also, what the frak are people on about when Greenies bring long range stealth spellcaster snipers and this is suddenly just about the MP meta? You people wouldn't bat an eye if CA gave us pacifist Khornates or vegan vampires, would you?

    I guess it's just me, but these alleged "Elite Alpha Strikes" are not something I've encountered. I've even seen it attempted but it is.nowehere close to this unbeatable sniper strat that people are making it out to be.

    As for counterplay, gobbo shamans have 15 armour, 35 speed, 26 MD, 50 LD. They will lose to virtually any unit in the game. Get something on them.

    Like I said earlier, I can see the argument for a minor damage tweak but not much more than that.
  • ystyst Posts: 6,050Registered Users
    The only tweak thats ever make sense is simply scaling the dmg with other spells.
    If say for example, spear does 500 dmg per 5 mana, it will just follow that path, obviously doing additional more dmg per mana, due to anti large in nature.

    Any talks about stalking, cheap mage is absolutely pointless. Hes a night gobbo, period. A fimir can use fire, a dark elf sorc on manticore can use fire, frikking archon can use fire. Mage itself is never an issue, ever. They have been that way since 2016.

    Not a single frikking person paid any attention to them being the only hero with bugged encourage for 3 yrs, until someone puts in a bug report. Now all a sudden hes the gobbo of the hour, right complete bs as if any1s buying that.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Posts: 825Registered Users
    edited January 9
    OrkLads said:

    There is no way a cost 230 vanguard stalk unit should deal a 2k alpha strike to low health characters from range 250 at the grand cost of 8 WOM. That's just nuts.

    I cannot see any gameplay-based defense for it, and having read this entire topic start to finish, it appears nobody else can either, people defending it included. The effect is both too binary and too toxic, it is not consistent with other balance decisions, it is not consistent with other spells, and the effect to cost ratio would appear to be completely messed up.

    Frankly, it looks like an oversight to me. But this is really something that we'd ultimately need a comment from @CA_Duck to tell for sure.

    Also, what the frak are people on about when Greenies bring long range stealth spellcaster snipers and this is suddenly just about the MP meta? You people wouldn't bat an eye if CA gave us pacifist Khornates or vegan vampires, would you?

    I guess it's just me, but these alleged "Elite Alpha Strikes" are not something I've encountered. I've even seen it attempted but it is.nowehere close to this unbeatable sniper strat that people are making it out to be.

    As for counterplay, gobbo shamans have 15 armour, 35 speed, 26 MD, 50 LD. They will lose to virtually any unit in the game. Get something on them.

    Like I said earlier, I can see the argument for a minor damage tweak but not much more than that.
    It's not really counterplay to kill the 400 gold gobbo after it has drilled a 4k damage hole in something nice that costs 3-4 times as much or more.

    Obviously the gobbos can be killed if you can find them, but with vanguard and stalk they don't really stick out much until after they drop a spell on you, unless you get lucky with some cav / dog / bird scouting.

    Also, cheapskate version costs 230 gold for a 2k damage attack, shroomed double overcast version costs 380, and double gobbo costs 460. After testing it I agree that the effectiveness of the glare is a bit overstated in this topic, but what other units in this price range have this kind of punch? What other spells?

    A damage tweak is in order, I reckon. More AP but less projectiles when overcasting. Bigger dent in heavy armour stuff, less crazy effect on low armour stuff. It's still a cheap spell, it is still worth casting if you suspect a good target, but it isn't likely to do crazy things.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 3,227Registered Users
    edited January 9
    I don't think that this rationale of 'a unit has been poor for x amount of time - it needs to be OP now for X amount of time to compensate' make any sense.

  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,365Registered Users
    edited January 9

    I don't think that this rationale of 'a unit has been poor for x amount of time - it needs to be OP now for X amount of time to compensate' make any sense.

    I agree. But the context of it being argued that it is op is predominantly the effect it has on unarmoured flying casters (and mounted casters) who have basically been the dominant caster/lord choice in the meta since this games inception.

    In my mind, steps that are taken to limit the dominance of this type of unit are a strong step in the right direction. Maybe down the line CA will go too far and tools for dealing with this type of unit will need to be weakened but we are a long, long way off from that.

    If we want to talk about overpowered units, let the conversation start with flying casters and then go from there.
Sign In or Register to comment.