Can someone explain Tyrion's Lord trait?

overtaker40#8926

Why does he reduce the upkeep of basically everything except the units he buffs the recruit rank of. I thought this was an oversight in game 2 but its still a thing now?

It just seems weird. Is this just me?

afverrall#1754

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

overtaker40#8926

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

Agree but this still doesn't seem like the way to do it. Why not make it

Recruit rank for spear units +2

-30% upkeep for spear units

Would be consistent but not op

Or even move the recruit rank to the units he reduces the cost of?

Nitros14#7973

overtaker40#8926 said:

Why does he reduce the upkeep of basically everything except the units he buffs the recruit rank of. I thought this was an oversight in game 2 but its still a thing now?

It just seems weird. Is this just me?

Lothern Sea Guard are unionized he can't cut their pay without strikes and labour unrest.

He can bring in Spearmen and Archer scabs of course but their performance is not always that great.

kaiki_utokyo#9006

Actually he doesn't need sea guards at all.

afverrall#1754

I think tyrions faction effects need a re-do anyway like they did for kroq gar and queek.

Captain_Rex#1635

Tyrion is the man of the people. An inspiring Hero for all High Elves. That’s why he has reduced upkeep for all the basic troops like Spearmen, Archers and silver Helms.

He only gets +3 ranks for Sea Guard because he’s leading the faction of Lothern/Eataine.
But hes not known for leading the HE Navy and therefore the Lothern Sea Guard. That’ll be Aislinns thing.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

Captain_Rex#1635

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Captain_Rex#1635

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Captain_Rex#1635

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Well it does since balanced armies are the meta now. Doomstacks are a relic from the past.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Well it does since balanced armies are the meta now. Doomstacks are a relic from the past.

You can keep saying that as many times as you like and it's still not true.

It works how it was always supposed now IMO. Low tier armies are just as viable as high tier armies as a strategy, it's just the number of armies that's the difference. I'd rather run a few elite armies than many low tier armies.

An elite army is not a doomstack. There's a big difference between a 20-stack of Star Dragons on an Imrik vs an elite balanced army and then again a big difference to a low tier balanced army. I'm usually in the middle.

Captain_Rex#1635

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Well it does since balanced armies are the meta now. Doomstacks are a relic from the past.

You can keep saying that as many times as you like and it's still not true.

It works how it was always supposed now IMO. Low tier armies are just as viable as high tier armies as a strategy, it's just the number of armies that's the difference. I'd rather run a few elite armies than many low tier armies.

An elite army is not a doomstack. There's a big difference between a 20-stack of Star Dragons on an Imrik vs an elite balanced army and then again a big difference to a low tier balanced army. I'm usually in the middle.

Well your opinion is wrong obviously. The removal of supply lines changed everything and if you still doomstack you are playing the game wrong.

But I guess you are one of those yap spam Swordmasters, SoA and Dragon Knights as Tyrion to have an completely out of theme Doomstack…

So again, in WH3 it’s more viable to have more balanced armies than fewer doomstacks.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Well it does since balanced armies are the meta now. Doomstacks are a relic from the past.

You can keep saying that as many times as you like and it's still not true.

It works how it was always supposed now IMO. Low tier armies are just as viable as high tier armies as a strategy, it's just the number of armies that's the difference. I'd rather run a few elite armies than many low tier armies.

An elite army is not a doomstack. There's a big difference between a 20-stack of Star Dragons on an Imrik vs an elite balanced army and then again a big difference to a low tier balanced army. I'm usually in the middle.

Well your opinion is wrong obviously. The removal of supply lines changed everything and if you still doomstack you are playing the game wrong.

But I guess you are one of those yap spam Swordmasters, SoA and Dragon Knights as Tyrion to have an completely out of theme Doomstack…

So again, in WH3 it’s more viable to have more balanced armies than fewer doomstacks.

There is no wrong way to play the game, you know... It's the gatekeeping and people telling you what you should be doing that sucks.

Tyrion has spent as much time in his life in Avelorn than Lothern so it's perfectly thematic to bring Sisters with him. He used to spar with Alarielle's Handmaidens in the lore.

afverrall#1754

You can doomstack but generally with the amount of territory and armies plus wars across continents multiple low/mix tier armies is much more efficient than doom stacking now.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

afverrall#1754 said:

You can doomstack but generally with the amount of territory and armies plus wars across continents multiple low/mix tier armies is much more efficient than doom stacking now.

Not really interested in efficiency either tbh. I just like cool, strong units. Not even necessarily strong if they're not the main workhorse of the army. I like the War Lions even though they're terrible. But I only bring a few at most.

afverrall#1754

I've had good results with war lions, especialy mixed with silverin guard or rangers. Tbh you can play yhe game the way you want and theres a lot of customization.

humbleogre#5089

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Well it does since balanced armies are the meta now. Doomstacks are a relic from the past.

You can keep saying that as many times as you like and it's still not true.

It works how it was always supposed now IMO. Low tier armies are just as viable as high tier armies as a strategy, it's just the number of armies that's the difference. I'd rather run a few elite armies than many low tier armies.

An elite army is not a doomstack. There's a big difference between a 20-stack of Star Dragons on an Imrik vs an elite balanced army and then again a big difference to a low tier balanced army. I'm usually in the middle.

Well your opinion is wrong obviously. The removal of supply lines changed everything and if you still doomstack you are playing the game wrong.

But I guess you are one of those yap spam Swordmasters, SoA and Dragon Knights as Tyrion to have an completely out of theme Doomstack…

So again, in WH3 it’s more viable to have more balanced armies than fewer doomstacks.

You saying doomstacks aren't viable anymore doesn't make it true. In fact I have an easier time fielding doomstacks in warhammer 3 vs warhammer 2. Stop the childish finger pointing and accept that people play differently. If you're so convinced you're right, please link us your profile, achievements, and the difficulty you play on and we can judge how "right" you are.=

afverrall#1754

humbleogre#5089 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

ArneSo#7705 said:

Slayer_Yannir#8069 said:

afverrall#1754 said:

I assume because 50% upkeep off seaguard would be too strong.

I don't think it would be tbh. It would give you a good reason to actually recruit LSG for Tyrion rather than Sisters of Avelorn. They're currently in a pretty awkward spot being worse archers than Sisters while not really being better in melee than them but also being a much worse version of Silverin Guard in melee.

Tyrion with a cheap and cheerful stack of LSG would be a solid alternative. Particularly since he by himself is a freaking raidboss even without the SoK. His army is there just to spectate.

As Tyrion you are supposed to use a mix of Archers and LSG as your main ranged units.

Keep in mind that spamming Elites isn’t viable anymore, so better have more balanced armies with a core of regular units.

How is it not viable, exactly? Sisters haven't been nerfed or anything. HE economy nerfs make the low tiers more viable but they don't make the high tiers less viable.

Using rare and elite units as your staple isn’t viable anymore thanks to no supply lines.

Balanced armies are the way to go now.

Like I said, that makes low tier armies more viable but it doesn't make high tier armies not viable.

Well it does since balanced armies are the meta now. Doomstacks are a relic from the past.

You can keep saying that as many times as you like and it's still not true.

It works how it was always supposed now IMO. Low tier armies are just as viable as high tier armies as a strategy, it's just the number of armies that's the difference. I'd rather run a few elite armies than many low tier armies.

An elite army is not a doomstack. There's a big difference between a 20-stack of Star Dragons on an Imrik vs an elite balanced army and then again a big difference to a low tier balanced army. I'm usually in the middle.

Well your opinion is wrong obviously. The removal of supply lines changed everything and if you still doomstack you are playing the game wrong.

But I guess you are one of those yap spam Swordmasters, SoA and Dragon Knights as Tyrion to have an completely out of theme Doomstack…

So again, in WH3 it’s more viable to have more balanced armies than fewer doomstacks.

You saying doomstacks aren't viable anymore doesn't make it true. In fact I have an easier time fielding doomstacks in warhammer 3 vs warhammer 2. Stop the childish finger pointing and accept that people play differently. If you're so convinced you're right, please link us your profile, achievements, and the difficulty you play on and we can judge how "right" you are.=

Your doing exactly the same thing, if you want the superiority, play as I play and childishness to stop maybe stop reciprocating.