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

If Swordmasters beat the Executioners

2»

Comments

  • steam_164511531915TqL1vw0steam_164511531915TqL1vw0 Registered Users Posts: 760
    Canuovea said:

    Otters007 said:

    Canuovea said:

    Emarth said:

    Swordmasters cost 100 more than executioners (1300 to 1200 respectively) and Phenix Guards cost 100 more than Black Guard (1400 to 1300 respectivly)

    Seems HE infantry being more expensive than the DE infantry and the DE archers being more expensive than the HE archers.

    It seems the High Elves have better highest tier infantry for one on one fights with high tier infantry... but this is made up for by a weaker mid tier it seems to me.
    And weak low tier. Which is perfect in my opinion. The specialist units definied HE armies. You could build HE 800 ways but for all 800 the High Elves needed a lynchpin unit. Going all cav? Elyrian screen for Dragon Princes. Hammer anvil? Get those swordmasters on a flank and watch them work. By creating really high tier, and bottom tier units, the high elf specialist really earn their place and pay.

    Do they really have a weak low tier? Their spearmen and archers seem pretty good for low tier units.
    I like what I see, I admit, but those aren't bleakswords and AP doom crossbows.
    They have sea guard they are an all around unit.
  • TranceTrance Registered Users Posts: 73
    The Sea Guard are gonna get killed by Bleakswords anyway because sword and board > spearmen in Total War Warhammer. From what I've seen Dark Elf players will have more tactical options in the mid-range while High Elves have to choose what they're gonna put their money into - Sure you might want that sweet Swordmaster/Frost Phoenix combo but then you won't be able to afford those Dragons or Dragon Princes. Feels like lore/TT to me as well.
  • Sebor02Sebor02 Registered Users Posts: 387
    Yeah it seems HE have good starting units and great and game units but not much in between perhaps maybe the lothern seaguard
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,455
    Trance said:

    The Sea Guard are gonna get killed by Bleakswords anyway because sword and board > spearmen in Total War Warhammer. From what I've seen Dark Elf players will have more tactical options in the mid-range while High Elves have to choose what they're gonna put their money into - Sure you might want that sweet Swordmaster/Frost Phoenix combo but then you won't be able to afford those Dragons or Dragon Princes. Feels like lore/TT to me as well.

    Won't be able to afford Dragons that tend to be almost useless in Total War? that's a huge miss.
  • TranceTrance Registered Users Posts: 73
    If anything it looks like Star Dragons will be incredibly effective in dealing with enemy monsters. Anyway, I also mentioned Dragon Princes. You just can't get everything in multiplayer battles and will probably struggle in the campaign as well. The lore and gameplay implementation of High Elves in tabletop always pointed towards this: Sure you can field high quality cavalry, superb elite infantry, good shooters or even some pretty amazing monsters (dragons/eagles). But you can almost never field them all at the same time. You'll have to choose, and once you've done that you can't go back.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,455
    Trance said:

    If anything it looks like Star Dragons will be incredibly effective in dealing with enemy monsters. Anyway, I also mentioned Dragon Princes. You just can't get everything in multiplayer battles and will probably struggle in the campaign as well. The lore and gameplay implementation of High Elves in tabletop always pointed towards this: Sure you can field high quality cavalry, superb elite infantry, good shooters or even some pretty amazing monsters (dragons/eagles). But you can almost never field them all at the same time. You'll have to choose, and once you've done that you can't go back.

    Well not being able to easily to buy everything, is the whole point of price balances, in any roster.
  • GeldorGeldor Registered Users Posts: 1,115
    Trance said:

    If anything it looks like Star Dragons will be incredibly effective in dealing with enemy monsters. Anyway, I also mentioned Dragon Princes. You just can't get everything in multiplayer battles and will probably struggle in the campaign as well. The lore and gameplay implementation of High Elves in tabletop always pointed towards this: Sure you can field high quality cavalry, superb elite infantry, good shooters or even some pretty amazing monsters (dragons/eagles). But you can almost never field them all at the same time. You'll have to choose, and once you've done that you can't go back.

    Yup, now CA pretty much got the HE from the TT. In MP you also have to chose wisely (and be lucky I guess).

    To the OP: Actually I thought the same, when I saw that SM were T4 and not T5 (didn't know the BG were T4). I was worried then that the SM turn out to be not up to snuff. But it looks like this is done for campaign reasons only.

    About SM beating Executioners, they did hat on the TT too, but I'm sure here it will only be barely, and because HE and DE have their peculiar bonuses also situational. If SM and Excecutioners fight at 100% health with no DEMP up, SM will win. If they meet around or under 50% health with DEMP up Executioners will win.

    And likely, in most cases, the unit which wins will be also pretty much done.

    If you look at the stats of the Executioners - they are reallly good. They'll shred a lot of other units. Same now for the SM. They also look good now, especially when HEMP is up.
  • SquallsySquallsy Registered Users Posts: 176
    i assume swordmasters win on collision, but in the long run executioners would win out if they had enough left
  • Nazjax#2857Nazjax#2857 Registered Users Posts: 2,557
    edited September 2017
    Tayvar said:

    mahboi1 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Yes the Black Guards are Malekith's personal army, so they supposed to be the best unit that the Dark Elves have, but it's might have something to do with how Halberds are working in Total War.

    http://warhammerfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Guard

    Didn't CA_Duck say that there isn't any real discrepancy in the animations for swords and halberds?
    I am not talking about animations , but Halberds serves as 'half spear' role in Total War, for unti-large/anti-cavalry, while in real life Halberds are good against almost everything, except arrows.
    They have armor piercing^^ But yeah your right, on infantry vs infantry haleberd is more stronger than a greatsword or other things real life, but for game balance you can't add a weapon bonus vs infantry, large and AP damage !
  • Canuovea#6291Canuovea#6291 Registered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 15,959
    The thing that gets me with the Seaguard is that they have considerably smaller units. I'd probably put them on the flanks really, not make them mainline. And given the bleaksword's shields, they'd probably be able to close with then murder a Seaguard unit.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -New Rules: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules#latest
    -Rules FAQ: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287650/total-war-forum-faq#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 5,346
    Yea seaguard dont impress me much for their cost. Paying for a mediocre ranged unit thats mediocre in melee, but drops for elite cost. Hybrid units only work when they have the mobility to make use of both their techniques across the field. Like Glade riders harassing with poison arrows and murdering other archers in melee.

    Spearmen make a decent enough wall but if you check the end screen they never bring any damage to the fight. Archers put up decent numbers but are still only archers. Without MP archers have a melee defense stat of 2. Just 2. Subject to change sure but im not seeing that stat go up much.

    HE elite units are impressive across the board, but nothing low to mid tier is anything to write home about. Mid tier like white lions arent necessarily terrible from what small amount we've seen, but they sure as hell haven't performed at Saurus/Temple Guard/Dino level yet.
  • wingren013wingren013 Registered Users Posts: 1,084
    edited September 2017
    If we go by how the match worked TT wise Dark Elfs should lose unit for unit but have better shooting and other things to make up for it.

    I'm fine with this. Dark Elfs aren't about direct frontal engagements. That's the High Elf schtick. They are about flanking and blasting the enemy with magic and crossbows so they're too weak to fight back.
  • Schussel#7671Schussel#7671 Registered Users Posts: 1,039
    Why has a T5 Unit to win against a T4 or T3 Unit?
    Shouldn't be the Type of Unit be more Important?


  • mitthrawnuruodo#4895mitthrawnuruodo#4895 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,974
    edited September 2017
    One can make the same complaint about the White Lions.

    Personally speaking, as long as the in-game cost and upkeep is consistent with unit stats, I do not have much issue with units moving up / down by just a single tier.

    They are called Swordmasters, not Swordpeasants after all. Its consistent with their name at least lol.
    Post edited by mitthrawnuruodo#4895 on
  • TomipapaTomipapa Registered Users Posts: 101
    edited September 2017
    Schussel said:

    Why has a T5 Unit to win against a T4 or T3 Unit?
    Shouldn't be the Type of Unit be more Important?


    But they are the same type. We are not talking about how a spearman beats higher tier cavalry units, of course it will beat them cause it is their direct counter. But Swormasters and Executioners are the same type of units with the same role: anty infantry units with ap damage. A lower tier unit shouldn't beat the higher one of the same type. Will an orc boy beat a longbeard in 1v1? Never. As i said i have no problem with the SM win itself, as lorewise SM are the stronger one but their place should represent their strength and the weaker one shouldn't be in higher tier. Just move the Executioners to t4 and it's fine.
  • GeldorGeldor Registered Users Posts: 1,115
    Tomipapa said:

    Schussel said:

    Why has a T5 Unit to win against a T4 or T3 Unit?
    Shouldn't be the Type of Unit be more Important?


    But they are the same type. We are not talking about how a spearman beats higher tier cavalry units, of course it will beat them cause it is their direct counter. But Swormasters and Executioners are the same type of units with the same role: anty infantry units with ap damage. A lower tier unit shouldn't beat the higher one of the same type. Will an orc boy beat a longbeard in 1v1? Never. As i said i have no problem with the SM win itself, as lorewise SM are the stronger one but their place should represent their strength and the weaker one shouldn't be in higher tier. Just move the Executioners to t4 and it's fine.
    SM cost more though, at least so far in MP. They cost 1,300 and Executioners cost 1,200. So the SM should be the slightly better unit. PG costs also 100 more than BG (BG is at 1,300)

    This has more to do with campaign mechanics. If you look at the standard costs, likely SM will be more expensive than Execand have higher upkeep. But even if not, with all the differences between races in the campaign, comparing them there doesn't make that much sense.
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 5,346
    edited September 2017
    Where did this specific numbered tier system come from? I was only aware of three extremely generalized tiers. Low tier early game units, Mid tier "core" units, and high tier elites used for specific functions. You break individual factions up into their own list breakdown. When comparing across factions, use cost vs stats and abilities. Then factor that into the units role in their army. So in this case, of course SM would win 1v1. They occupy the exact same role, but cost a bit more.

    Unless were arguing building requirements as tiers. In which case that is a hilariously inaccurate way of measuring unit value.
  • GeldorGeldor Registered Users Posts: 1,115
    He means the building tiers, yup. You need a tier4 building for BG and SM, but a tier 5 one for Exe.

    But as he mentioned himself, Blackguard - although the more expensive unit, is also one tier below the Executioners, but will have better stats than the Exe (if they haven't made any last minute changes).

    Juat some campaign mechanics. Maybe because DE already have pretty good AI infantry in lower tiers they wanted to make it a bit more difficulty to get the best one or something like that.
  • Horus168Horus168 Registered Users Posts: 578

    It's CA, nothing they do makes sense when you compare it to TT.

    Executioners are the DE mirror of White Lions and they should be the same tier. (12 points and 13 points respectively)

    Swordmasters should be the same tier as WL, but have higher damage and weapon skill, but lower AP.

    Black Guard are the DE mirror of Phoenix Guard and they should be the same tier. (15 points each)

    Stop changing things for no reason.

    There probably are reasons though.

    DE have counters against swordmasters; crossbow units will likely tear them to pIeces.

    Whereas HE don't really have any other counters against high armour anti-infantry; archers will likely be pretty ineffectual if their AP fraction is similar to game 1.

  • Learn2EelLearn2Eel Registered Users Posts: 137
    As others have already addressed regarding table-top stats, Swordmasters were better at killing infantry while Executioners won out against cavalry and tougher opponents. It seems like this is represented in the game, it looks like Executioners do more armor-piercing damage but Swordmasters excel in other areas. That anti-infantry trait makes quite the difference.

    Swordmasters always won the unit-versus-unit engagements with Executioners due to fighting in an extra rank, having an extra attack per model in the front rank, and having higher Weapon Skill. Basically, Swordmasters would end up with two full extra ranks worth of attacks at the same unit sizes, they'd hit on 3s whereas the Executioners would hit on 4s, then both would kill each other on wound rolls of 2+. The Executioners having re-roll 1s to wound simply wasn't as good as what the Swordmasters got in that match-up.
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 5,346
    Geldor said:

    He means the building tiers, yup. You need a tier4 building for BG and SM, but a tier 5 one for Exe.

    But as he mentioned himself, Blackguard - although the more expensive unit, is also one tier below the Executioners, but will have better stats than the Exe (if they haven't made any last minute changes).

    Juat some campaign mechanics. Maybe because DE already have pretty good AI infantry in lower tiers they wanted to make it a bit more difficulty to get the best one or something like that.

    In that case building tier has less to do with unit viability and more to do with availability. I mean look at saurus warriors. Bog standard Saurus can throw down with phoenix guard apparently, and they're tier 1. But Lizardmen need to have a strong infantry presence that early. If they were stuck at tier 3 or even 2 building wise, your first 20 turns would be horrific. Other factions get solid back up or sheer numbers to cover down on their early game, saurus get to kick your face in from jump street.

    Executioners compete with other units already in the DE roster for their slot. You have bleakswords. You have plenty of ap. Putting them that high up in building chain is just because they aren't necessary to have earlier then late game to have a competitive DE army.

    Thats another difference between the strategic campaign map, and the tactical battle map. One is about stats and tactics, the other composition and construction.
This discussion has been closed.