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

Hate for mounts all of a sudden

Private_GubsyPrivate_Gubsy Registered Users Posts: 43
What with Teclis’ new Phoenix mount, I am seeing a lot of people complaining about the mount situation. My question is, why? Is it a lore problem, or a balance one? I remember when everyone was complaining about how weak foot lords were compared to mounted lords, so what has changed?
Tagged:
«1345

Comments

  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 1,692
    edited June 2020
    1) Balance for me, Teclis was one of the best mages in the game balanced off by how vulnerable he is...the stupid parrot let him fly and outfield many melee characters. So now he's the best spellcaster AND a monstrous flying bruiser



    2) Teclis already has a horse, he's no foot Lord.


    Not to mention, if footlords are ****, FIX them, don't slap a mount on them
  • ROMOBOYROMOBOY Registered Users Posts: 3,443

    What with Teclis’ new Phoenix mount, I am seeing a lot of people complaining about the mount situation. My question is, why? Is it a lore problem, or a balance one? I remember when everyone was complaining about how weak foot lords were compared to mounted lords, so what has changed?

    You just listed both reasons.
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Cathay > Chaos Dwarfs = Pain
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 3,480
    Nothing has changed, it's the exact same problem. Foot lords are weak while mounted lords are much stronger. This porblem can't be solved by giving more foot lords mounts, it only makes those lords strong without adressing the problem itself. If every single lord rides a big flashy monster, then big flashy monsters mean nothing, and there is less diversity.

    Teclis in particular is a character who is known for being very weak and fragile, but having immense magical powers at his disposal. He is meant to have great strength's and weaknesses, the definition of a glass cannon. Giving him a powerful monster mount removes his main weakness, and makes him just another monster wizard.

    In the tabletop game characters could join units, and as such a character was typically better protected if they had a bodyguard of good soldiers than if they were alone but riding a dragon. Total war works differently, but it removes a lot of the diversty among characters that existed on the TT. Another problem is that items, ward saves etc. are shared in total war, while on the TT it was separate (a lord wearing a magic armour would not have his armour protect the dragon, they could die separately).

    In total war all the disadvanteges of riding a monster are removed, while all the advanteges of being on foot/horse sized mount are also removed. The result is that monstrous mounts are always better than not having it, which greatly reduces the amount of viable options. Ideally, there should be good and bad sides to all characters, but in total war there is only all good or all bad. Moving Teclis from the bad to the good does absolutely nothing to solve the actual problem.

    It is also unloreful, but that does not matter compared to the actual problem.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,283
    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,828
    It's not exactly "out of a sudden".

    There already had been quite a few people disliking the unnecessary/unflavourful addition of mounts to certain lords, Maelstrom, a stronger dragon in effect than Seraphon for Lokhir is a good example.

    The Phoenix that makes Teclis as good a melee fighter as Tyrion, or even better, is for many the straw that broke the camels back.

    not too dissimilar with the "NOT EVERY LORD NEEDS AN UNIQUE STARTING POSITION!" crowd, in the sense that we go with a "sometimes, less is more" approach and think that flavorful and lorefulness isn't always detrimental, just because it means we don't have Ludwig Schwarzhelm leading an engineers army in the inevitable city in the Chaos Wastes...

    CA struggles with balancing footlords, so the bandaid they slap on some lords is "give them a huge mount!"

    Settra got a sphinx that eclipses the Chariot of the Gods...
    Lokhir got a Dragon
    Wulfrik got a horse (OK, fine, fits), Chariot (less necessary.... give us Surtha Ek please! :tongue: ) and a MAMMOTH... the guy who's whole shtick is dueling.

    I mean, there are a few mounts where I can say "OK, it's somewhat fitting"), like Khalida's tomb serpent, I can see why the Vampire Coast got the mounts they got (aside of Aranessa... and Direfin would work better with a stage on top of the Leviathan :tongue: , and I can see why they gave Kemmler and Teclis Horses.

    But then as said, we have Maelstrom, the Mammoth and co, which take characters that, in this example, are intended as 1:1 duelists and turns them into WMDs...

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!

    #PrayForBorisBokha (don't you dare kill of one of the 2 bigname Kislev characters in Backstory... he's the Bear guy!)

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 9,065
    There was always some hatred for mounts that shouldn't exist, it just got a lot stronger with Teclis as this one is quite ridiculous.
  • epic_159734188596UVsdwmxepic_159734188596UVsdwmx Registered Users Posts: 427
    I don't think people hate mounts, only that Teclis was already a viable pick, now with his mount he's just the only pick for HE.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,828
    Zafras said:

    I don't think people hate mounts, only that Teclis was already a viable pick, now with his mount he's just the only pick for HE.

    see above, it's not only Teclis. It's also that certain characters got powerful mounts they shouldn't have, completely transforming their role, or taking the spotlight from the "prime" mount that the character has in TT and Lore (Chariot of the Gods for example)
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!

    #PrayForBorisBokha (don't you dare kill of one of the 2 bigname Kislev characters in Backstory... he's the Bear guy!)

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • SakuraHeinzSakuraHeinz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,977
    The hate for mounts existed since Lohkir, I heard there was some for wulfriks mammoth too, but I didnt saw any threads myself.
  • Sir_GodspeedSir_Godspeed Registered Users Posts: 2,978
    What I heard what that apparently no one played Teclis but Alarielle instead, so they gave him a flying option.

    Dunno if that's true, or valid, or a good reason, but several youtubers mentioned it.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 9,986

    What I heard what that apparently no one played Teclis but Alarielle instead, so they gave him a flying option.

    Dunno if that's true, or valid, or a good reason, but several youtubers mentioned it.

    nope he was the second most picked. after the pigeon queen , not picked thats tyrons thing
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 9,326
    edited June 2020
    There was always a bit of discontent, but Teclis getting an Arcane Phoenix out of the blue was a bridge too far.

    In some cases, you can look at characters on the tabletop and go "well, that's as far as they got in canon, but they wouldn't necessarily have stayed that way if they had the opportunity to do something different". I think Maelstrom is an example of this - a Black Ark commander would certainly see a value in riding a Black Dragon if the opportunity presented itself. Lokhir on tabletop was only a hero, after all - it's not hard to imagine that a level 40 Lokhir who has forged himself a large empire would have the resources and the wherewithal to acquire a dragon mount.

    Teclis, on the other hand... There's the balance perspective. Yeah, archmages with dragon mounts where a thing since 7E, but Teclis isn't a random archmage, he's Teclis. Picking him should involve trading a bit of melee potential for having more magic.

    There's also the lore perspective. Phoenixes are not supposed to be particularly safe to just sit on - Annointed can do it because they have a special blessing from Asuryan, but Teclis isn't a member of the Phoenix Guard.

    A Great Eagle like Alarielle could probably have worked, but the Arcane Phoenix is a bit of a 'wait, what?' moment, especially since it means Teclis's flying mount is locked behind DLC for players who don't have it. Doubly because they appear to have changed the nature of the Sword of Teclis because allowing it to be combined with a phoenix mount would be broken...
  • GeorgeTrumanGeorgeTruman Registered Users Posts: 64

    I am seeing a lot of people complaining about the mount situation.

    I think you might be mistaken. I don't think there are a lot of people complaining, i think there are a few people complaining a lot.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 1,692
    edited June 2020

    Zafras said:

    I don't think people hate mounts, only that Teclis was already a viable pick, now with his mount he's just the only pick for HE.

    see above, it's not only Teclis. It's also that certain characters got powerful mounts they shouldn't have, completely transforming their role, or taking the spotlight from the "prime" mount that the character has in TT and Lore (Chariot of the Gods for example)
    Teclis isn't alone. But he was especially egregious for most people. For most people this crossed a very thick line.


    As a person who didn't mind Settra on his Wasphinx too much, it didn't break him, and for any decent player, the Chariot is a stronger in a fair number of situations. But Teclis just went WAY TOO FAR.



    It wouldn't have been nearly as big a controversy if Teclis wasn't already one of the best casters in the game alongside Mazdamundi.
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,257

    What I heard what that apparently no one played Teclis but Alarielle instead, so they gave him a flying option.

    Dunno if that's true, or valid, or a good reason, but several youtubers mentioned it.

    nope he was the second most picked. after the pigeon queen , not picked thats tyrons thing
    tyrion was picked more then alith anar....
    but thats not the point though. Telcis was i a good spot and was usefull in MP.
    Now with the phoenix all his buffs, safetly and massive defense all together on a mage that should be really weak in melee combat but one of the most powerfull mage is a great melee unit and one of the best casters. which is just kinda dumb. if this keeps up why bother with a fighter lord like tyrion ever again.
    same issue has happend with lizardmen though... how often do you see things like kroq'gar or gor-rok. but people tend to care less about that for some reason.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 9,986
    Artjuh90 said:

    What I heard what that apparently no one played Teclis but Alarielle instead, so they gave him a flying option.

    Dunno if that's true, or valid, or a good reason, but several youtubers mentioned it.

    nope he was the second most picked. after the pigeon queen , not picked thats tyrons thing
    tyrion was picked more then alith anar....
    but thats not the point though. Telcis was i a good spot and was usefull in MP.
    Now with the phoenix all his buffs, safetly and massive defense all together on a mage that should be really weak in melee combat but one of the most powerfull mage is a great melee unit and one of the best casters. which is just kinda dumb. if this keeps up why bother with a fighter lord like tyrion ever again.
    same issue has happend with lizardmen though... how often do you see things like kroq'gar or gor-rok. but people tend to care less about that for some reason.
    mazda had his mount in lore so it was one of those things, but the reality in lm is slaan are just better, its not go rok, korq gar or even nakai being bad, just slaan are the best situation.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • dchip1dchip1 Registered Users Posts: 646
    Foot lords should be made viable, instead CA just plops some LLs that are supposed to be awesome warriors (Lokhir and Wulfrick) on top of mounts that just turn them into a monster unit on the roster instead of reducing knockback for foot lords or giving them some type of advantage.

    Teclis getting a parrot is also lame because hes supposed to be a fragile glass cannon ultra caster not a guy who swoops in on a Phoenix into the thick of an army. Esp since it seems almost out of nowhere
  • XxXScorpionXxXXxXScorpionXxX Registered Users Posts: 2,112
    Its just getting silly at this point. Might as well give Grimgor a Wyvern mount or give Sigvald a Chaos Dragon mount.
    Request scorched body textures, poisoned dying animations for infantry's skeletons, a blood slider that allows us to control how much blood appears in battle and make proper death animations for all ethereal units so they vanish for Blood for the Blood God 3.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 9,986

    Its just getting silly at this point. Might as well give Grimgor a Wyvern mount or give Sigvald a Chaos Dragon mount.

    game is not mature so can not give sigvald mounts
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Prkl8rPrkl8r Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 951
    It's more than just lords with mounts are better, it's lords with monstrous or flying mounts are better.

    Lords that only have a horse are only a little better off than foot lords, and better have some nice abilities to compensate.

    You need the high Mass of a monster or mobility of a flying mount to be a good Lord. Better still, a monsterous flying mount.

    This relates to MP, but I assume that's why they make decisions like this to begin with.
  • YrellianYrellian Registered Users Posts: 1,645
    If they want mount so badly for him, they should give him chariot which, if I recall correctly, was possible for hin in 6th edition and five him pegasus which he rode in Tyrion and Teclis trilogy (not Silver Wing, coz he’s dead).


    His Royal Highness, Phoenix King Finubar!

    "It has been too long since I drew a blade in anger, Tyrion. You have been my sword, and Teclis has been my shield. But now it is time I fought my own battles!"

    I used to be crazycrix, then Epic happened and I became Dubinekdubajs, which I had to change again😀
  • TheLowKingTheLowKing Registered Users Posts: 203
    There is just not enough tradeoff for Lord choices. The Table Top had very clear advantages and disadvantages for different kinds of lord, with non-monsterous lords trading raw power for safety and stronger bodyguard units. Having non-Loreful mount picks would be slightly more ok if it wasnt just a strait upgrade in every case. The reason you didnt want Teclis in combat in the TT was because he would die to a stiff breeze, being one of the squishyest characters in the entire game.

    It is not just a problem with mounts though. Magic suffers the same issue, there is very little downside for the massive power you get from it. The deadly miscasts from the TT were the only thing that kept magic sort of balanced, you couldnt always risk your General being a spellcaster. In Total War miscasts do very little, there is no risk to just having the Slann or Archmage as the leader of every army.
  • FonRestorffFonRestorff Registered Users Posts: 355
    If we are talking MP they should just adjust the prices.

    In SP footloord needs to have more benefits. They shouldn't automatically be weaker.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,601

    If we are talking MP they should just adjust the prices.

    In SP footloord needs to have more benefits. They shouldn't automatically be weaker.

    Price adjusting isn't rely the solution.

    In many ways SEM need to be turned down in performance, they are just too good currently.
  • kelembriborkelembribor Registered Users Posts: 757
    It is easy way solution instead of making foot lords work.

    They are also making other lords and whatever their uniqueness transported from tabletop less and roles redundant.

    Lokhir should had been similar like Deathmaster Snikch on battlefield with more of focus in commanding, in lore he has ability Daring Leap which enables him to attack combatants he isn't in direct contact.

    Teclis is one of the most powerful mages, he was weak in melee though and giving him flying mount makes things lot easier for him.

    In High Elves roster Alarielle, Teclis, Eltharion and imrik all have flying mounts when on tabletop only two latter had.

  • Ares354Ares354 Registered Users Posts: 3,838

    What with Teclis’ new Phoenix mount, I am seeing a lot of people complaining about the mount situation. My question is, why? Is it a lore problem, or a balance one? I remember when everyone was complaining about how weak foot lords were compared to mounted lords, so what has changed?

    CA dont wonna fix Foot Lords problem, so they do lazy way, and add mounts to many, who shouldnt have them in first place.

    How can Wulfrik be Hunter of Champion of top of beast ? taller then most monster in game ? That is person who duel Champions ? no.

    CA should make foot lords viable, not add mounts from nothing.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 9,704
    edited June 2020
    Teclis' entire shtick is being frail. A glass cannon. He even has his potion which is supposed to make him less frail some of the time. And on the table top he had a horse. That was it. Being mounted on an Arcan Phoenix just seems over the top to me.

    Special characters on the table top had a very specific allure. They were not customizable but that was part of their charm. Which is why when you break with what they are supposed to be it sort of feels wrong. At least if you have a table top background.

    Me I always preferred making my own Lords and the only two special characters I've ever fielded are Thorek Ironbrow and Valten. Three if you count the Dark Emissary from Shadows over Albion.

    I don't super mind them having mount options when playing them. I don't mount Wulfrick,Lokhir or Luthor Harkon for example. Nor do I particualrily feel that the likes of Count Noctilus, Cylostra or Aranessa are particularily suited to be riding mounts either. But I don't like to face off with off putting characters in campaign.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 344
    I am curious to know about CA's stance on Total War: Warhammer series in relation to the TT. Have they made remarks that they view TT and lore in general as the rule, in how they design and implement elements into the game? Or have they said the lore and TT purely as background material where they are very free with artistic influences?

  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 344
    RikRiorik said:

    Teclis' entire shtick is being frail. A glass cannon. He even has his potion which is supposed to make him less frail some of the time. And on the table top he had a horse. That was it. Being mounted on an Arcan Phoenix just seems over the top to me.

    Special characters on the table top had a very specific allure. They were not customizable but that was part of their charm. Which is why when you break with what they are supposed to be it sort of feels wrong. At least if you have a table top background.

    Me I always preferred making my own Lords and the only two special characters I've ever fielded are Thorek Ironbrow and Valten. Three if you count the Dark Emissary from Shadows over Albion.

    I don't super mind them having mount options when playing them. I don't mount Wulfrick,Lokhir or Luthor Harkon for example. Nor do I particualrily feel that the likes of Count Noctilus, Cylostra or Aranessa are particularily suited to be riding mounts either. But I don't like to face off with off putting characters in campaign.

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
  • FloppingerFloppinger Registered Users Posts: 526
    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

    Teclis' entire shtick is being frail. A glass cannon. He even has his potion which is supposed to make him less frail some of the time. And on the table top he had a horse. That was it. Being mounted on an Arcan Phoenix just seems over the top to me.

    Special characters on the table top had a very specific allure. They were not customizable but that was part of their charm. Which is why when you break with what they are supposed to be it sort of feels wrong. At least if you have a table top background.

    Me I always preferred making my own Lords and the only two special characters I've ever fielded are Thorek Ironbrow and Valten. Three if you count the Dark Emissary from Shadows over Albion.

    I don't super mind them having mount options when playing them. I don't mount Wulfrick,Lokhir or Luthor Harkon for example. Nor do I particualrily feel that the likes of Count Noctilus, Cylostra or Aranessa are particularily suited to be riding mounts either. But I don't like to face off with off putting characters in campaign.

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
Sign In or Register to comment.