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.
Whilst cycle charging affects all units in theory it doesn't matter that much when compared to SEM cycle charging we all know this.
Whilst in TT there was no such thing as cycle charging a monster could attack a unit and kill enough models to prevent the unit attacking back.
HOWEVER.
The unit could still win combat and make the monster flee and even run it down eliminating it from the game.
I.e shaggoth charges in, kills 4 models, no models left alive in Base contact to fight back.
BUT.
The unit wins on combat resolution.
3 ranks 1 standard 1 outnumber.
The unit gets a score of 5 the shaggoth 4.
The unit wins by 1, shaggoth loses conbat, takes a leadership test at -1 penalty (so leadership 7, get lower or equal than that on two dice and it stays fighting, higher than that it runs )
Fails, runs and scores a lower run than the unit. It is wiped out.
This game doesn't have this system and hence the shaggoth can run in and out all day taking barely any damage.
This system was how units of formed models could beat monsters. This game doesn't have this at all. And a units mass is too low to trap the shaggoth in and allow the unit to inflict damage.
Higher mass on formed unit's.
Slower turn speed of SE's
Would do massive amounts to help against the egregious high armour high speed SE's
YEs tho units costed more than monsters in most cases in TT dotn ignore that, gold for gold most units in this game can take on mosnters, im happy to prove it with ease.
People make it out like monsters are dominating the game now, where in reality thats not the case at all, Non monster armies are more than competitive vs those that take monsters.
That's cool lotus, could you go and win the everchosen without using a single monster. And I mean eagles up to saurians.
As you've said non monster armies are more competitive than those with monsters.
Please prove it with ease.
I didnt see anyone win everchosen without using a single cav or infantry or even spam max mosnters in all games did you? what i seen is armies that have some mosnters and other troops in them...why is that wrong for you?
And yes it can be done, armies without single monsters are very much competitive.
Your challenge is dumb also and bies as hell, tell someone to win everchosen using 3 giants to show how OP monsters are? or 3 eagles EACH GAME...because according to you ALL monsters are OP so those should be free wins no?
Lotus, I'm not arguing here about SEMs balance per se, but about how their design encourages exploits.
So does the design of everything in the game.
Missile cav dodging arrows. missile units shooting in combat cav cycle charting Infantry flying and avoiding damage
I dont even see why it encurages explits either, cycle charging is not an exploit and neither is healing, majority of monsters in this game are balanced and people never have issue with them, problem is the unbalanced ones so it has nothing to do with SEM or are people going try ague to me that giants are somehow OP currently?
Those mechanics are also discussed in other threads so i dont get your whataboutism How about you make your own thread about those things? Its not about the exploits is about the mechanics
Nobody is arguing that giants are op are you arguing that HE spearmen are op cause they can fly and avoid damage? (your basically doing that repeatedly despite people told you thats not their argument many times)
anyways im done arguing with you and disposable has usually go nowhere cause you will argue something else or make up fantasy scenarios like chasing scourgerunner with cavs while dodging their shots.
@another505 what I say is that these things are tweakable, and that there is not necessarily any reason why single entities must behave like multimodel units when they are single models.
I can see why it could potentially be attractive to make single entities less binary in a way, but if you just want to nerf monsters and make it easier to kill them there are simpler ways to do it by addressing op units directly and not rebalancing every single single entity in the game.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Most people here never argued that ALL Monsters are overpowered, or in fact, monsters are overpowered at all
They suggest nerfs to ALL monsters, i dont care what they think if they suggest nerfs to ALL monsters it means they are targeting balanced monsters as well as OP ones, why is that hard for you to understand? And majority of monsters currently are BALANCED so there is no need for such extreme suggestion.
Dont tell me if its overpowered or not but why do SEM benefits more from healing chevrons mass animation
They DOnt from healing or chevrons but they pay for mass and animations, why do you ignore the cost?
At same time in most cases they suffer more from vigour loss and most defiantly flanks and rear penalties.
People aren't arguing for nerfs for the non abusive monsters they are arguing for nerfs for the fast, armoured ones.
You are repeatedly dragging giants into it.
Everyone knows they aren't a problem and as such no one but you bring them up first and that is only being done to distract amd confuse the debate deliberately.
Dragons, carnosaurs, saurian, spiders, shaggoths, sphinxes, stegadons are some of the culprits.
Lesser so bastilidons etc.
Not a problem giants etc.
You know this. Stop trying to obfuscate and confuse the debate on purpose
Whilst cycle charging affects all units in theory it doesn't matter that much when compared to SEM cycle charging we all know this.
Whilst in TT there was no such thing as cycle charging a monster could attack a unit and kill enough models to prevent the unit attacking back.
HOWEVER.
The unit could still win combat and make the monster flee and even run it down eliminating it from the game.
I.e shaggoth charges in, kills 4 models, no models left alive in Base contact to fight back.
BUT.
The unit wins on combat resolution.
3 ranks 1 standard 1 outnumber.
The unit gets a score of 5 the shaggoth 4.
The unit wins by 1, shaggoth loses conbat, takes a leadership test at -1 penalty (so leadership 7, get lower or equal than that on two dice and it stays fighting, higher than that it runs )
Fails, runs and scores a lower run than the unit. It is wiped out.
This game doesn't have this system and hence the shaggoth can run in and out all day taking barely any damage.
This system was how units of formed models could beat monsters. This game doesn't have this at all. And a units mass is too low to trap the shaggoth in and allow the unit to inflict damage.
Higher mass on formed unit's.
Slower turn speed of SE's
Would do massive amounts to help against the egregious high armour high speed SE's
YEs tho units costed more than monsters in most cases in TT dotn ignore that, gold for gold most units in this game can take on mosnters, im happy to prove it with ease.
People make it out like monsters are dominating the game now, where in reality thats not the case at all, Non monster armies are more than competitive vs those that take monsters.
That's cool lotus, could you go and win the everchosen without using a single monster. And I mean eagles up to saurians.
As you've said non monster armies are more competitive than those with monsters.
Please prove it with ease.
I didnt see anyone win everchosen without using a single cav or infantry or even spam max mosnters in all games did you? what i seen is armies that have some mosnters and other troops in them...why is that wrong for you?
And yes it can be done, armies without single monsters are very much competitive.
Your challenge is dumb also and bies as hell, tell someone to win everchosen using 3 giants to show how OP monsters are? or 3 eagles EACH GAME...because according to you ALL monsters are OP so those should be free wins no?
I've never said all monsters are OP.
You are the one making the wild claims not me.
So when I call you out on them don't act surprised and whine that I'm making dumb challenges.
Your reaction to this tells us all what you really know to be true.
Fast armoured SEMs are at a huge advantage due to the game mechanics. Keeping them alive and abusing their mechanics is more often than not the win condition.
People aren't arguing for nerfs for the non abusive monsters they are arguing for nerfs for the fast, armoured ones.
You are repeatedly dragging giants into it.
Everyone knows they aren't a problem and as such no one but you bring them up first and that is only being done to distract amd confuse the debate deliberately.
Dragons, carnosaurs, saurian, spiders, shaggoths, sphinxes, stegadons are some of the culprits.
Lesser so bastilidons etc.
Not a problem giants etc.
You know this. Stop trying to obfuscate and confuse the debate on purpose
they not, they are arguing nerfs to ALL monsters you need to read their arguments please.
Whilst cycle charging affects all units in theory it doesn't matter that much when compared to SEM cycle charging we all know this.
Whilst in TT there was no such thing as cycle charging a monster could attack a unit and kill enough models to prevent the unit attacking back.
HOWEVER.
The unit could still win combat and make the monster flee and even run it down eliminating it from the game.
I.e shaggoth charges in, kills 4 models, no models left alive in Base contact to fight back.
BUT.
The unit wins on combat resolution.
3 ranks 1 standard 1 outnumber.
The unit gets a score of 5 the shaggoth 4.
The unit wins by 1, shaggoth loses conbat, takes a leadership test at -1 penalty (so leadership 7, get lower or equal than that on two dice and it stays fighting, higher than that it runs )
Fails, runs and scores a lower run than the unit. It is wiped out.
This game doesn't have this system and hence the shaggoth can run in and out all day taking barely any damage.
This system was how units of formed models could beat monsters. This game doesn't have this at all. And a units mass is too low to trap the shaggoth in and allow the unit to inflict damage.
Higher mass on formed unit's.
Slower turn speed of SE's
Would do massive amounts to help against the egregious high armour high speed SE's
YEs tho units costed more than monsters in most cases in TT dotn ignore that, gold for gold most units in this game can take on mosnters, im happy to prove it with ease.
People make it out like monsters are dominating the game now, where in reality thats not the case at all, Non monster armies are more than competitive vs those that take monsters.
That's cool lotus, could you go and win the everchosen without using a single monster. And I mean eagles up to saurians.
As you've said non monster armies are more competitive than those with monsters.
Please prove it with ease.
I didnt see anyone win everchosen without using a single cav or infantry or even spam max mosnters in all games did you? what i seen is armies that have some mosnters and other troops in them...why is that wrong for you?
And yes it can be done, armies without single monsters are very much competitive.
Your challenge is dumb also and bies as hell, tell someone to win everchosen using 3 giants to show how OP monsters are? or 3 eagles EACH GAME...because according to you ALL monsters are OP so those should be free wins no?
I've never said all monsters are OP.
You are the one making the wild claims not me.
So when I call you out on them don't act surprised and whine that I'm making dumb challenges.
Your reaction to this tells us all what you really know to be true.
Fast armoured SEMs are at a huge advantage due to the game mechanics. Keeping them alive and abusing their mechanics is more often than not the win condition.
Well u did, u said win everchosen without using ANY monster, and NOT without using OP mosnters, ANY monster reffers to ALL monsters, so its very easy for me to respond that NOT all mosnters are OP like your statement claims, im not making wild claims, you wrote "could you go and win the everchosen without using a single monster" did you not read what you wrote? SO YES YOU ARE MAKING A DUMB AND BIAS CHALLENGE WHEN YOU SAY WHAT YOU SAID, your response tells me you have no idea what you wrote at all, so next time perhaps write..."win everchosen without using OP monsters or ones that you consider OP can make a reasonable list", than yes i be happy to attempt that.
You said from EAGLE to SAURIAN so i assume you mean eagles are OP to you also?
Want me to quote you again or are you going to read what you wrote ?
YEs tho units costed more than monsters in most cases in TT dotn ignore that, gold for gold most units in this game can take on mosnters, im happy to prove it with ease.
People make it out like monsters are dominating the game now, where in reality thats not the case at all, Non monster armies are more than competitive vs those that take monsters.
You made this claim lotus, I called you out on it.
"Non-monster armies are more competitive ".
It's quite clear
I've said abusive ones, you bring general monsters in to it so Ive called you out on it and you don't like it.
Or do you now want to join in with everyone else and talk about the main culprits and we can actually have a debate without disingenuous arguments being made.
YEs tho units costed more than monsters in most cases in TT dotn ignore that, gold for gold most units in this game can take on mosnters, im happy to prove it with ease.
People make it out like monsters are dominating the game now, where in reality thats not the case at all, Non monster armies are more than competitive vs those that take monsters.
You made this claim lotus, I called you out on it.
"Non-monster armies are more competitive ".
It's quite clear
I've said abusive ones, you bring general monsters in to it so Ive called you out on it and you don't like it.
Or do you now want to join in with everyone else and talk about the main culprits and we can actually have a debate without disingenuous arguments being made.
Yes i said non monster armies are competative..that doesnt mean non monster armies are the best in all circumstances...how do you assume the two.
YEs tho units costed more than monsters in most cases in TT dotn ignore that, gold for gold most units in this game can take on mosnters, im happy to prove it with ease.
People make it out like monsters are dominating the game now, where in reality thats not the case at all, Non monster armies are more than competitive vs those that take monsters.
You made this claim lotus, I called you out on it.
"Non-monster armies are more competitive ".
It's quite clear
I've said abusive ones, you bring general monsters in to it so Ive called you out on it and you don't like it.
Or do you now want to join in with everyone else and talk about the main culprits and we can actually have a debate without disingenuous arguments being made.
Becasue non monster armies win plenty of games...dwarfs are a great example, so are skaven most skaven armies dont have a hellpit in it.
Or pehaps you dont assume i said non monster armies are dominating like you seem to think so.
The OP litterlay talks about nerfs TO ALL SEM are you even following the topic? Hence why im agianst his ideas.
I already stated i think some Monsters need nerfs and made a thread about it.
People aren't arguing for nerfs for the non abusive monsters they are arguing for nerfs for the fast, armoured ones.
You are repeatedly dragging giants into it.
Everyone knows they aren't a problem and as such no one but you bring them up first and that is only being done to distract amd confuse the debate deliberately.
Dragons, carnosaurs, saurian, spiders, shaggoths, sphinxes, stegadons are some of the culprits.
Lesser so bastilidons etc.
Not a problem giants etc.
You know this. Stop trying to obfuscate and confuse the debate on purpose
they not, they are arguing nerfs to ALL monsters you need to read their arguments please.
Read the OP its suggesting nerfs TO ALL MOSNTERS
Actually, OP refers to all Single Entities, not all monsters.
Although the nature of some of the proposed changes would affect some SE more than others. SEM like Giants and Treemen can not abuse charge animation, so it would be affected less by loss of mass or cb. They would do less damage if lower on health, like all others would, that is true.
Warhammer 1 had SEM that were very easy to deal with Warhammer 2 has SEM that are very powerful and outright dominant in late stages of the battle I'd like for Warhammer 3 strike a balance between the two
Warhammer 1 had SEM that were very easy to deal with
No they weret, they were stronger than currently are, all monsters got nerfed compared to game 1, you must not remember game 1 too much.
Chicken could solo whole WE army almost...how do you not remember this. Durtho could solo chaos armies aswell...ofcourse unless they had Kholek who could solo whole armies.
The thing in game 2 though is much more monsters got introduced.
Warhammer 1 had SEM that were very easy to deal with
No they weret, they were stronger than currently are, all monsters got nerfed compared to game 1, you must not remember game 1 too much.
Chicken could solo whole WE army almost...how do you not remember this. Durtho could solo chaos armies aswell...ofcourse unless they had Kholek who could solo whole armies.
The thing in game 2 though is much more monsters got introduced.
Are we talking early WH1 or late WH1 because in early WH1 monster where really bad and in late WH they got a lot of buff.
Warhammer 1 had SEM that were very easy to deal with
No they weret, they were stronger than currently are, all monsters got nerfed compared to game 1, you must not remember game 1 too much.
Chicken could solo whole WE army almost...how do you not remember this. Durtho could solo chaos armies aswell...ofcourse unless they had Kholek who could solo whole armies.
The thing in game 2 though is much more monsters got introduced.
Are we talking early WH1 or late WH1 because in early WH1 monster where really bad and in late WH they got a lot of buff.
Early warhammer 1 a VC lord on a dragon could solo whole armies also so it depends which monsters though, actually it was more a lot of units got nerfed and mosnters stay the way they were if i remember correctly.
Well, the trend certainly continues on ladder. Why wouldn't anyone spam Single Entities why they have fewest counters, and do 100% damage on 5% health.
SEMs have a much easier time to make their cost back than practically any other unit type outside maybe chariots. They also require only simple strategies for effective usage and are much easier to control to the point that you can dance around enemy salvos.
$ says that SEMs should reign supreme...and they do.
Just in response to that they are impactful on the battles, people often spend half funds on a few units. To me SEMs are not automatically OP relative to their cost, not at all. I do agree that it's unfortunate that such a big proprotion of the total funds are used on SEMs in some builds though, I don't approve of that play style much but it's not necessarily OP in my experience.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Well, the trend certainly continues on ladder. Why wouldn't anyone spam Single Entities why they have fewest counters, and do 100% damage on 5% health.
And all you need to do is right click.
I definitely play less armies that have 3 or more SE armies than they do on ladder so i hardly see any issue.
And majority of armies i play against have biggest % of their gold spent on infantry (including missile ifnantry)...are we to expect a thread from you on nerfing infantry? i do sure hope so this infantry META has been going on for years now and noone seems to point it out.
Well, the trend certainly continues on ladder. Why wouldn't anyone spam Single Entities why they have fewest counters, and do 100% damage on 5% health.
And all you need to do is right click.
I definitely play less armies that have 3 or more SE armies than they do on ladder so i hardly see any issue.
And majority of armies i play against have biggest % of their gold spent on infantry (including missile ifnantry)...are we to expect a thread from you on nerfing infantry? i do sure hope so this infantry META has been going on for years now and noone seems to point it out.
Nobody complains about missile infantry which if left unchecked can easily recoup its cost but melee infantry never was META and it will not change much if you level the playingfield a little so its not just a meat shield anymore and instead can actually win some games if you have enough left.
The game has for a long time just been get rid of range and enemy fast SEMs = WIN.
Well, the trend certainly continues on ladder. Why wouldn't anyone spam Single Entities why they have fewest counters, and do 100% damage on 5% health.
And all you need to do is right click.
I definitely play less armies that have 3 or more SE armies than they do on ladder so i hardly see any issue.
And majority of armies i play against have biggest % of their gold spent on infantry (including missile ifnantry)...are we to expect a thread from you on nerfing infantry? i do sure hope so this infantry META has been going on for years now and noone seems to point it out.
Nobody complains about missile infantry which if left unchecked can easily recoup its cost but melee infantry never was META and it will not change much if you level the playingfield a little so its not just a meat shield anymore and instead can actually win some games if you have enough left.
The game has for a long time just been get rid of range and enemy fast SEMs = WIN.
What do you meen melee infantry is not META...open up any toruaemnt cast and you see they are the META and have been since the lounch of the game, how ignorant is everyone here? 90% or more of torument armies include some form of melee infantry that is its META or are you saying all the people who are picking melee infantry in toruaments are trolling? which would be almost everyone, i dont know a single toruaemnt that someone didnt use a single infantry unit for the whole event and did well.
We can argue on the impact they have on the game or what not but they are META
Because CA decided to limit the ammount of abusive units you can take it already aknowledged the META, (Most effective tactic available or just the best way to win) and no spamming melee infantry is outside of Dwf vs anyone with better ap inf never the META.
Melee inf is never a win condition they are a meat shield first and even anti large infantry units are only semi effective vs some very strong SEMs which should be rebalanced by tweaking the mechanics that give them an unfair advantage even over their counters.
Because CA decided to limit the ammount of abusive units you can take it already aknowledged the META, (Most effective tactic available or just the best way to win) and no spamming melee infantry is outside of Dwf vs anyone with better ap inf never the META.
Melee inf is never a win condition they are a meat shield first and even anti large infantry units are only semi effective vs some very strong SEMs which should be rebalanced by tweaking the mechanics that give them an unfair advantage even over their counters.
Well yeah they added caps, units are capped to 5 also, beyond that more is not needed.
And infantry is and always have been part of the META.
Who cares if melee infantry is not a win condition? not all aspects need to be, and i call that not true either because in some match-ups they very well are.
theres simple no need for re-balance currently other than nerfing OP mosnters, no need to ruin the game because of few mosnters that can easily be adjusted.
Because CA decided to limit the ammount of abusive units you can take it already aknowledged the META, (Most effective tactic available or just the best way to win) and no spamming melee infantry is outside of Dwf vs anyone with better ap inf never the META.
Melee inf is never a win condition they are a meat shield first and even anti large infantry units are only semi effective vs some very strong SEMs which should be rebalanced by tweaking the mechanics that give them an unfair advantage even over their counters.
Well yeah they added caps, units are capped to 5 also, beyond that more is not needed.
And infantry is and always have been part of the META.
Who cares if melee infantry is not a win condition? not all aspects need to be, and i call that not true either because in some match-ups they very well are.
theres simple no need for re-balance currently other than nerfing OP mosnters, no need to ruin the game because of few mosnters that can easily be adjusted.
Because like a third of the game units are melee infantry?
Because many of the iconic Warhammer units are melee infantry (Chosen, Wardancers, Ironbreakers, Black Orcs, Swordmasters, Chaos Warriors...) ?
Even if I agreed with the fact that only some SEM are OP, I don't see how nerfs you suggested a few days ago are supposed to fix that.
Karl Franz -2MD? That is a joke. Would only possibly affect his performance vs other SE.
Didn't felkon build a zero click army and try to win with, did that succeed? Iirc it was an alarielle pg resist box in a forest but I don't remember if he won without a single click. It tells a story nevertheless and has a take home message about the game play we would like to design. That's why I am careful what I wish for.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Comments
Go read my original post again if you are curious. I’m done with the thread.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd yes it can be done, armies without single monsters are very much competitive.
Your challenge is dumb also and bies as hell, tell someone to win everchosen using 3 giants to show how OP monsters are? or 3 eagles EACH GAME...because according to you ALL monsters are OP so those should be free wins no?
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeMost people here never argued that ALL Monsters are overpowered, or in fact, monsters are overpowered at all
The mechanics heavily favour monsters over other units and i see no good arguments why that should be.
Dont tell me if its overpowered or not
but why do SEM benefits more from
healing
chevrons
mass
animation
Those mechanics are also discussed in other threads
so i dont get your whataboutism
How about you make your own thread about those things?
Its not about the exploits is about the mechanics
Nobody is arguing that giants are op
are you arguing that HE spearmen are op cause they can fly and avoid damage?
(your basically doing that repeatedly despite people told you thats not their argument many times)
anyways im done
arguing with you and disposable has usually go nowhere cause you will argue something else or make up fantasy scenarios like chasing scourgerunner with cavs while dodging their shots.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeI can see why it could potentially be attractive to make single entities less binary in a way, but if you just want to nerf monsters and make it easier to kill them there are simpler ways to do it by addressing op units directly and not rebalancing every single single entity in the game.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeThey suggest nerfs to ALL monsters, i dont care what they think if they suggest nerfs to ALL monsters it means they are targeting balanced monsters as well as OP ones, why is that hard for you to understand? And majority of monsters currently are BALANCED so there is no need for such extreme suggestion.
Dont tell me if its overpowered or not
but why do SEM benefits more from
healing
chevrons
mass
animation
They DOnt from healing or chevrons but they pay for mass and animations, why do you ignore the cost?
At same time in most cases they suffer more from vigour loss and most defiantly flanks and rear penalties.
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeYou are repeatedly dragging giants into it.
Everyone knows they aren't a problem and as such no one but you bring them up first and that is only being done to distract amd confuse the debate deliberately.
Dragons, carnosaurs, saurian, spiders, shaggoths, sphinxes, stegadons are some of the culprits.
Lesser so bastilidons etc.
Not a problem giants etc.
You know this. Stop trying to obfuscate and confuse the debate on purpose
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeYou are the one making the wild claims not me.
So when I call you out on them don't act surprised and whine that I'm making dumb challenges.
Your reaction to this tells us all what you really know to be true.
Fast armoured SEMs are at a huge advantage due to the game mechanics. Keeping them alive and abusing their mechanics is more often than not the win condition.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeRead the OP its suggesting nerfs TO ALL MOSNTERS
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeYou said from EAGLE to SAURIAN so i assume you mean eagles are OP to you also?
Want me to quote you again or are you going to read what you wrote ?
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeTo now defend others when they have added further detail in following posts it is clear they mean the main culprits. Not giants.
You are arguing against the point you wish people were making. They aren't or, upon clarification it is clear they aren't.
You are being disingenuous
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree"Non-monster armies are more competitive ".
It's quite clear
I've said abusive ones, you bring general monsters in to it so Ive called you out on it and you don't like it.
Or do you now want to join in with everyone else and talk about the main culprits and we can actually have a debate without disingenuous arguments being made.
- Report
1 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeOr pehaps you dont assume i said non monster armies are dominating like you seem to think so.
The OP litterlay talks about nerfs TO ALL SEM are you even following the topic? Hence why im agianst his ideas.
I already stated i think some Monsters need nerfs and made a thread about it.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAlthough the nature of some of the proposed changes would affect some SE more than others. SEM like Giants and Treemen can not abuse charge animation, so it would be affected less by loss of mass or cb. They would do less damage if lower on health, like all others would, that is true.
Warhammer 1 had SEM that were very easy to deal with
Warhammer 2 has SEM that are very powerful and outright dominant in late stages of the battle
I'd like for Warhammer 3 strike a balance between the two
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeNo they weret, they were stronger than currently are, all monsters got nerfed compared to game 1, you must not remember game 1 too much.
Chicken could solo whole WE army almost...how do you not remember this.
Durtho could solo chaos armies aswell...ofcourse unless they had Kholek who could solo whole armies.
The thing in game 2 though is much more monsters got introduced.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd all you need to do is right click.
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree$ says that SEMs should reign supreme...and they do.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIt actually proves that Single Entities are just THAT effective when people are investing so much money into them.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd majority of armies i play against have biggest % of their gold spent on infantry (including missile ifnantry)...are we to expect a thread from you on nerfing infantry? i do sure hope so this infantry META has been going on for years now and noone seems to point it out.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe game has for a long time just been get rid of range and enemy fast SEMs = WIN.
- Report
3 · Disagree AgreeWe can argue on the impact they have on the game or what not but they are META
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree(Most effective tactic available or just the best way to win) and no spamming melee infantry is outside of Dwf vs anyone with better ap inf never the META.
Melee inf is never a win condition they are a meat shield first and even anti large infantry units are only semi effective vs some very strong SEMs which should be rebalanced by tweaking the mechanics that give them an unfair advantage even over their counters.
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeAnd infantry is and always have been part of the META.
Who cares if melee infantry is not a win condition? not all aspects need to be, and i call that not true either because in some match-ups they very well are.
theres simple no need for re-balance currently other than nerfing OP mosnters, no need to ruin the game because of few mosnters that can easily be adjusted.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeBecause many of the iconic Warhammer units are melee infantry (Chosen, Wardancers, Ironbreakers, Black Orcs, Swordmasters, Chaos Warriors...) ?
Even if I agreed with the fact that only some SEM are OP, I don't see how nerfs you suggested a few days ago are supposed to fix that.
Karl Franz -2MD? That is a joke. Would only possibly affect his performance vs other SE.
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree