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

Buff Temple Guard?

FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
One of the few problems I have with the current Lizardmen roster is that Temple Guard feel very underwhelming for a high-tier unit. Saurus Warriors are amazing for a low-to-mid tier unit, but I often find myself passing up Temple Guard entirely and just keeping my Saurus Warriors / Spears into the late game.

Let's compare their stats.

Saurus Spears with shields cost 200 upkeep. Temple Guard cost a whopping 300 upkeep, a solid 50% increase. This buys you:
- 3 points of health
- 15 leadership
- 8 melee attack
- 4 melee defence
- 4 charge bonus
- damage swapped to armor-piercing (they do roughly the same damage, Temple Guard just get more of it as AP)
- slightly higher armor

The leadership isn't a big deal since Saurus already barely ever break. The 8 melee attack is a welcome addition. Everything else kinda feels like peanuts, and not worth the massive price jump.

Let's put this into context by comparing the Temple Guard to another high-tier melee unit - Swordmasters.

Swordmasters cost 325 upkeep, only 25 more than temple guard. They have:
- 25 less health
- 15 less leadership
- 14(!!) higher melee attack
- 6 higher charge bonus
- 4 less AP damage
- 14 Bonus v. Infantry

That 14 bonus v. Infantry is especially insane, since in a fight with Temple Guard it would raise their melee attack advantage to 28, and (assuming the bonus damage is not AP) let them eke out a ~3 damage advantage on successful hits. And then on top of all this, at the start of the fight the Swordmasters of Hoeth get Martial Prowess, for another +2 Melee Attack and +12 melee defence.

So taking into account martial prowess and their bonus vs. Infantry, you've got the Swordmasters chilling at 62 melee attack and 50 melee defence, which is absolutely absurd when compared to the Temple Guard's 32 melee attack and 38 melee defence. They're not even in the same class of unit at that point.

High Elves, the supposedly "all-rounder" faction with great ranged power and versatility, have a high-tier melee unit that would win in an infantry duel against the high-tier infantry of the Lizardmen, a faction with only three strengths: heavy infantry, monsters, and magic. Does this seem wrong to anyone else?

I think Temple Guard need higher melee attack and defense at the very least. Maybe also more health. What do you all think?
«13

Comments

  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 1,135
    Temple guard have more versatility. They have shields so won’t get shredded so fast by ap missiles and also a bonus vs large so won’t get thrashed by cav so hard.

    Also I think it’s good that different units have different stats. How boring would the game be if every unit had exactly the same stats. As a by product of this, some units will be better AND more cost effective than others.

    Lizardmen have really great Dino units as their strengths. Heavy infantry is perhaps a slight weakness which I’m fine with
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,411
    edited September 2018
    1)In campaign balance is wonky and garbage, comparing units based on campaign performance against an AI that's braindead is basically pointless, that's why most of the balancing discussion here is focused on MP.

    2)Quite frankly comparing them to swordmasters is horrid. Swordmasters are a dedicated infantry killer, temple guard are a dedicated anti-large unit, a more accurate comparison is with phoenix guard, who are 200 more expensive. Keep in mind that TG's huge edge in hp and shields is actually amazing, because it can't simply be bypassed by magic or AP the same way armor/physical resistance can be. That same low hp on high elf units also makes them really susceptible to losing martial prowess, and with it a good chunk of their stats.

    3)Compare them to a unit like saurus spears and those differences are HUGE. Even ignoring the small MA/MD/HP/CB buffs, those other benefits are absolutely critical. 15 Leadership on a unit with no immunity to psychology is absolutely indispensable when you need to bunker down and provide a solid anchor for your monstrous troops. The difference in armor between the units isnt small either, it's 25! It's nearly a 50% increase! It takes the temple guard into an area of survivability where AP actually becomes preferable to take them out, whereas the lowish-medium armor on saurus means any decent non-AP unit dumpsters them. Finally, AP is in and of itself a huge boost. When you need to deter heavily armored monsters or heavy cav from attacking your big units, that AP can be a gamechanger.

    4)Dinos are not an infantry faction. They come across as such in early game, but by mid-late game their edge is gone and the core damage dealers of your army are supposed to be monsters. Their infantry is just there to provide a solid anchor for their other tools, namely monsters to do their work. Honestly, if one takes an overarching view, it could be argued lizardmen are bog average for infantry, probably in roughly the same spot as empire.

    5)HE are not simply an all arounder faction. They are an elite faction with respectable tools in most categories. Their units are generally relatively flimsy and reliant on martial prowess to survive, and their units are horribly expensive for what they provide. This is badly represented in campaign, but like I said earlier, the campaigns balance doesnt really matter all that much, in MP it becomes blatantly obvious.

    In short, Temple Guard are a really solid unit for their function, and they perform their role of AP monster support unit really well. Could they use a tiny amount of tweaking somewhere? Maybe, but I'm not at all convinced.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • BlissBliss Registered Users Posts: 519
    To me, Temple Guard are absolutely fine. They beat Black Orcs 1v1 for instance (without whaagh).
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,845
    Why have TG so low WS?

    Even Black Guards have more!
  • BlissBliss Registered Users Posts: 519
    edited September 2018
    That's not relevant.

    Then why do Temple Guards have Bronze Shield ? Why do they have more HP ?

    Temple Guard are not only an anti large tool in LM infantry, they can fulfil very well the role of a Black Orc unit, or any decently armored GW unit for an honest price (they cost 1200, and beat more often than not Black Orcs without whaaagh -1150 gold-, and have on top of that AL and bronze shield).
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,626
    edited September 2018
    Bliss said:

    To me, Temple Guard are absolutely fine. They beat Black Orcs 1v1 for instance (without whaagh).

    Wow really? Gotta test it again, remember they lost due to much lower dmg tho better stats. U sure about that?
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • BlissBliss Registered Users Posts: 519
    edited September 2018
    They have more model counts (so more dps early fight) and more LD : they often end with same HP than Black Orcs, but BO rout before TG.

    I shouldn't say "beat", but "trade tooth for tooth" : in real fights BO will comeback.
  • BlissBliss Registered Users Posts: 519
    edited September 2018
    Double post, delete plz.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,626
    Topic about temple guards have pop up time to time sue to the fact they r liz most elite inf.

    Stats may indeed be been slightly, very little underwhelming. But really if they do well vs blk orcs, black guards will easily wiped em out lol.

    Maybe its a wrong comparison due to dif troop type or whatever. Its difficult to know if they r performing just right or under. I use them quite frequently but the value they provide is just about there. U dont really gain anything at all switching from saurus to temples. 2 temples r 3 sauruses. Too hard to tell abr their performance
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
    To all the people talking about shields: Swordmasters have 20% missile resistance as well because of their deflect shots ability, so Temple Guard only have a small edge there.

    And to the people saying that Temple Guard are anti-large... why don't they have any bonus vs. Large then? The only thing they have is charge defense vs. Large.

    You don't like comparing them to Swordmasters, because they're dedicated anti-infantry? Lizardmen don't have an elite infantry unit who is dedicated anti-infantry, so I think it's a fair comparison.
    Lizardmen have to use either Saurus or temple guard for everything, so if you're fighting high elves, you are going to be pitting your temple guard against there swordmasters at some point. But instead, how about Ironbreakers, since they're both supposedly tank units?

    Ironbreakers have 25 less health but way more armor (60% compared to Temple Guard's 40%), 2 less melee attack but 28 more melee defence, a little bit less in the way of melee damage but they also have blasting charges. Ironbreakers also have 25% magic resistance and Expert Charge Defence which is just straight better than charge defence vs. Large. And their upkeep is also only 25 more than temple guard.

    Yes, most of your late-game punch is supposed to come from dinosaurs, but that's not really an excuse. Most of the dwarves' late-game punch comes from their artillery and ranged units. Most of the High Elves late-game punch comes from magic and dragons. Why should these factions have stronger elite infantry?

    Also from a lore standpoint, it makes no sense for Lizardmen to have some of the weakest top-tier infantry in the game. They are 8-foot-tall bipedal dinosaurs who walk out of the spawning pools ready to kill. Most Temple Guard have hundreds of not thousands of years of battle experience, since they're biologically immortal. What possible reason could there be for them to be weaker than the elite infantry of other races, especially when Saurus Warriore are so strong?

    I also don't think a faction should only have one viable tactic. When I play Lizardmen my favorite thing to do is field a wall of Saurus backed up by revivification crystal bastiladons and a Heavens skink priest for buffs. I'll field two or three big dinosaurs with each army for punch, plus my generals are usually Oldbloods on carnosaurs, so it's not like I only use infantry either. I think there's no reason why that strategy should not be viable in the late-game.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,411
    Fraxinus said:

    To all the people talking about shields: Swordmasters have 20% missile resistance as well because of their deflect shots ability, so Temple Guard only have a small edge there.

    And to the people saying that Temple Guard are anti-large... why don't they have any bonus vs. Large then? The only thing they have is charge defense vs. Large.

    You don't like comparing them to Swordmasters, because they're dedicated anti-infantry? Lizardmen don't have an elite infantry unit who is dedicated anti-infantry, so I think it's a fair comparison.
    Lizardmen have to use either Saurus or temple guard for everything, so if you're fighting high elves, you are going to be pitting your temple guard against there swordmasters at some point. But instead, how about Ironbreakers, since they're both supposedly tank units?

    Ironbreakers have 25 less health but way more armor (60% compared to Temple Guard's 40%), 2 less melee attack but 28 more melee defence, a little bit less in the way of melee damage but they also have blasting charges. Ironbreakers also have 25% magic resistance and Expert Charge Defence which is just straight better than charge defence vs. Large. And their upkeep is also only 25 more than temple guard.

    Yes, most of your late-game punch is supposed to come from dinosaurs, but that's not really an excuse. Most of the dwarves' late-game punch comes from their artillery and ranged units. Most of the High Elves late-game punch comes from magic and dragons. Why should these factions have stronger elite infantry?

    Also from a lore standpoint, it makes no sense for Lizardmen to have some of the weakest top-tier infantry in the game. They are 8-foot-tall bipedal dinosaurs who walk out of the spawning pools ready to kill. Most Temple Guard have hundreds of not thousands of years of battle experience, since they're biologically immortal. What possible reason could there be for them to be weaker than the elite infantry of other races, especially when Saurus Warriore are so strong?

    I also don't think a faction should only have one viable tactic. When I play Lizardmen my favorite thing to do is field a wall of Saurus backed up by revivification crystal bastiladons and a Heavens skink priest for buffs. I'll field two or three big dinosaurs with each army for punch, plus my generals are usually Oldbloods on carnosaurs, so it's not like I only use infantry either. I think there's no reason why that strategy should not be viable in the late-game.

    Just looking at this post Im not even sure if you're trolling.

    1)Yeah swordmasters have 20% missile block, but 1, theyre not the accurate comparison and 2 20% isn't 35%. Stack that on a piteous hp pool of 6k and they get wrecked by a stiff breeze.

    2)They have a BvL of 16... Do you even play the game?

    3)The fact that a faction doesnt have a dedicated anti-infantry infantry doesnt make comparing temple guard to swordmasters accurate. Hell, you could compare foot squires to swordmasters and then complain brettonia is crippled by its lack of top tier anti-infantry infantry. Lizardmen are supposed to use dinos as their top tier killing units. Need to crack infantry? Bring a stegadon of some sort.

    4)Comparing to ironbreakers? Are you serious? This is another atrocious comparison. As I said before, theyre a halberd unit, the best comparison is other halberds, like black guard, phoenix guard, chosen halberds etc. Ironbreakers literally only hold, and they hit like a wet noodle vs any target that isnt chaos marauders. You're cherrypicking stats on significantly different units, downplaying factors like hp, mobility, AP etc and then complaining a unit needs a buff. Make a valid case ffs!

    5)Yes it is an excuse that most of your late game punch comes from dinos. It's called asymmetrical balance. Multiple factions do not have top tier infantry. Instead they rely on things like cost efficiency or support tools to carry the day. Hell, for brettonia their top tier infantry is worse and cheaper than most factions mid-tier infantry.

    6)Blame TT? Or the fact that lizards arent that smart lowering their chances at improvement? Saurus aren't really that strong either, especially not for their cost. They just look good in campaign cuz they fight units half their cost(or less). Theyre once again a more holding oriented unit than anything else, with enough WS to club down squishier infantry.

    7)Dinos have quite a few viable tactics, especially when you factor in cost efficiency, the fact that something is your favorite strategy doesnt mean it should be valid vs all comers or should be equal to other factions. There's also the fact that some factions are simply less versatile than others, and intentionally so(we'll see if DLC changes this later too). Brettonia is objectively the worst faction in raw quality in basically every department, yet is incredibly competitive and has very cost efficient troops that perform their task well in every slot, does that mean their infantry should be buffed because my favorite strat is to mass men at arms with a grail reliquae? Absolutely not.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • BlissBliss Registered Users Posts: 519
    Fraxinus said:



    And to the people saying that Temple Guard are anti-large... why don't they have any bonus vs. Large then? The only thing they have is charge defense vs. Large.

    Temple Guards have 16 bonus vs Large.

  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,585
    edited September 2018
    >why should these factions have stronger infantry?

    It’s called asymmetrical balancing. If you don’t like it play HE, you will discover where HE is weak. LZM simply don’t have an anti-infantry infantry, they have Bastiladon, Solar Engines and Kroxigors instead.


    Although comparing upkeep is a terrible way of assessing balancing (especially like others have mentioned balancing here orients mostly toward MP), it sounds like the way to make you happy would be to lower upkeep on Temple Guard by 50/75.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
    About the bonus vs. Large thing, I apologize. I haven't played a LM campaign in a while (I shelved them after my 3rd campaign so that I didn't make myself sick of them before the DLC came out) and I don't have access to the game right now to check, so I was going based off my own memory and the Wiki.

    I understand asymmetrical balancing. That's why I'm not asking and would never ask for Lizardmen to get Wood Elf-level ranged firepower

    In terms of asymmetrical balancing, here are the strengths of the Lizardmen:
    - Giant dinosaurs
    - Magic
    - Strong heavy infantry (and don't try to say this isn't true, as Saurus have done amazing things for me in the early-game)

    And here are their weaknesses:
    - Speed
    - Ranged power
    - Versatility
    - Rampage

    Let's talk about asymmetrical balancing then. High Elves have dragons that are just about as good as Lizardmen monsters and can fly (and let's not forget their breath attacks). High Elves have magic that is arguably just as good as the Slann, at least in game stats. And between Pheonix Guard and Swordmasters, they have better end-game infantry. They also don't suffer from any of the Lizardmen's weaknesses; they are fast, they have amazing ranged units, their roster is incredibly versatile, and they don't rampage. What is the balancing factor here? I'm not seeing it. High Elves share all of the Lizardmen's strengths and none of their weaknesses.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
    As a footnote because I feel like someone is going to argue with me about the giant monsters thing:

    The High Elves' most basic dragon, the Sun Dragon, is about on par with a Feral Carnosaur (some things it does better, some things it does worse). Their best dragon, the Star Dragon? It's not even a contest.

    The star dragon is 50% more expensive, which would be a justifying factor except that I'm pretty sure based on the stats that 2 Star Dragons could whip 3 Carnosaurs. Remember, a 50% price difference is the same as the difference between Saurus and Temple Guard, and the difference there is laughable.

    The Star Dragon has better... basically everything. More HP, higher leadership, way more melee attack and defense, significantly higher damage, more missile resistance... oh yeah, and it can fly and has a breath weapon. And it doesn't rampage.

    So tell me again how the strength of the Lizardmen is giant monsters.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,585
    edited September 2018
    the only problem with what you wrote is that it’s all your opinion and not backed by data or actual testing cost per cost.

    Now better go start a Carnosaur nerf thread to keep true to my Elf propaganda agenda
    Post edited by Green0 on
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,585
    what stats would you like Temple Guard to have?
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,411
    edited September 2018
    Fraxinus said:

    About the bonus vs. Large thing, I apologize. I haven't played a LM campaign in a while (I shelved them after my 3rd campaign so that I didn't make myself sick of them before the DLC came out) and I don't have access to the game right now to check, so I was going based off my own memory and the Wiki.

    I understand asymmetrical balancing. That's why I'm not asking and would never ask for Lizardmen to get Wood Elf-level ranged firepower

    In terms of asymmetrical balancing, here are the strengths of the Lizardmen:
    - Giant dinosaurs
    - Magic
    - Strong heavy infantry (and don't try to say this isn't true, as Saurus have done amazing things for me in the early-game)

    And here are their weaknesses:
    - Speed
    - Ranged power
    - Versatility
    - Rampage

    Let's talk about asymmetrical balancing then. High Elves have dragons that are just about as good as Lizardmen monsters and can fly (and let's not forget their breath attacks). High Elves have magic that is arguably just as good as the Slann, at least in game stats. And between Pheonix Guard and Swordmasters, they have better end-game infantry. They also don't suffer from any of the Lizardmen's weaknesses; they are fast, they have amazing ranged units, their roster is incredibly versatile, and they don't rampage. What is the balancing factor here? I'm not seeing it. High Elves share all of the Lizardmen's strengths and none of their weaknesses.

    Except what you said is simply wrong in far too many ways.
    Lizardmen strengths are not heavy infantry, and never have been. Saurus are not a heavy infantry by any stretch of the imagination. Theyre only heavy infantry by early game standards when the every other faction is operating units that cost half their price. Based on that we might as well say WE are an infantry faction because they have wardancers early on.
    Lizardmen strengths are monsters and magic, true, but they also have incredible heroes, solid harassment/skirmish units, revification crystals and top tier(at least in SP) heavy cavalry.

    Their main disadvantages are lack of good access to magic damage(not magic, magic damage outside of spells), lack of long-mid range skirmishers and mediocre infantry(theyre basically average when considered objectively) and to a slight extent rampage.

    Speed is only bad if youre considering their lack of good fliers or light cav, but otherwise their units mobility, in their tiers, is perfectly average/above average.

    As for high elves disadvantages, theres actually several but by far the most significant is cost.
    1)High cost, this is badly shown in campaign(which is why campaign balance doesnt really matter) because youre incentivized to roll with doomstacks. This is a game design issue more than anything and screws any cost efficiency faction. It's why hyper elite factions like Chaos, Dwarves and High Elves are all relatively favored in campaign. All of those great elite HE units fall apart when theyre mobbed and it's a constant struggle for HE in MP to cover all angles due to their high costs.
    2)Flimsiness, low hp pools on most of their units and an overreliance on martial prowess/mastery to keep survivability up.
    3)Lack of cost effective, flexible AP, much less anti-large AP. Once again not really an issue in campaign where you can spam a 20 stack of star dragons, but when actually based on cost, they have huge gaps here. Either you pay an arm and a leg for starfire shaft tier sisters of averlorn that are hard to protect, both arms and both legs for dragons, or are stuck with inflexible infantry that, although maybe fast for heavy infantry, cannot flex fast enough to protect your army from getting gutted by heavy cav or monsters. Technically nobles fill this gap, but theres only so much they can do and only so many you can field. I suppose I should note bolt throwers too, with their anemic damage output.
    4)The monster/cav game. All too often this is the deciding factor, and outside of cheesing with allarielle HE heavy cav is kinda middling in its quality(certainly good for cost, but not top tier). Although suffering from rampage, horned ones actually give dinos a solid edge in the flank/monster fights, as does the support of carnosaurs and saurus scar vets. In comparison, dragons are significantly inferior in those situations because they pay a lot of money for flight+breath attacks.
    Fraxinus said:

    As a footnote because I feel like someone is going to argue with me about the giant monsters thing:

    The High Elves' most basic dragon, the Sun Dragon, is about on par with a Feral Carnosaur (some things it does better, some things it does worse). Their best dragon, the Star Dragon? It's not even a contest.

    The star dragon is 50% more expensive, which would be a justifying factor except that I'm pretty sure based on the stats that 2 Star Dragons could whip 3 Carnosaurs. Remember, a 50% price difference is the same as the difference between Saurus and Temple Guard, and the difference there is laughable.

    The Star Dragon has better... basically everything. More HP, higher leadership, way more melee attack and defense, significantly higher damage, more missile resistance... oh yeah, and it can fly and has a breath weapon. And it doesn't rampage.

    So tell me again how the strength of the Lizardmen is giant monsters.

    Stardragon doesnt have BvL, and is actually pretty flimsy in melee(for the cost). Flight is nice, breaths are certainly good, but when you need to win a cav fight id rather have the carnosaur, or even better a saurus scar vet on a carnosaur. As for a 2 v 3, almost guaranteed the star dragons would lose in a straight up fight. Carnosaurs frenzy and BvL would let them do huge amounts of work. I'll also be quite blunt in saying that for their cost, neither carnosaurs nor stardragons are particularly great choices. Finally, as I already described in my first response, the difference between Saurus and TG is not trivial. TG are far superior in several ways. Their huge leadership, lack of rampage, significantly better armor and AP alone are good enough to put them there.

    Finally, having something as your defining strength doesnt mean you cant be beaten there. Brettonia is considered the best cav faction by many. Its defining feature is indisputably its cav selection. Despite this it can be handily contested in the cav game by several factions, most notably empire and vampire counts. They also arent known for their infantry, in fact theyre widely considered the worst infantry faction, yet manspam builds can and do work, in no small part due to the raw cost efficiency of brettonian infantry.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,641
    Bliss said:

    That's not relevant.

    Then why do Temple Guards have Bronze Shield ? Why do they have more HP ?

    Because they have shields and because they are toughness 4 instead of toughness 3.

    They also have 2 attacks and strength 4 instead of strength 3, meaning their weapon strength should be higher as well.

    You obviously can't translate all the tabletop stats into the game on a 1 to 1 ratio, but Temple guard are basically chosen with worse attack/defense. They're stronger and tougher than elves and have more attacks than other elite tough units like black orcs or bestigore. They also have as good an armor save as an ironbreaker. They're durable killing machines on tabletop and seeing them be this sort of mediocre halberd unit feels bad.

    The only reason temple guard are good is because they have tons of hit points and leadership. They have bad attack, bad defense, and bad damage. They can win fights because of their enormous HP pool, but that doesn't feel very satisfying.

    Temple guard on tabletop are immune to psychology when protecting a Slann, are magic resistant in the lore, and are as offensive as they are defensive. In Total War Warhammer 2 they have no special abilities, no Slann guardian, no spell resistance, nothing to represent their special rules. They have the same melee attack as an empire swordsman, and the same defense than an Empire spearman. Their damage is not only worse than comparable units like Phoenix guard and black guard, but also even saurus warriors. In fact, fully ranked up saurus warriors are cheaper than temple guard, and also win agains them 1v1, because fully ranked up saurus actually have the stats of an elite unit.

    I'd like temple guard to get some special abilities that are very niche, such as magic resistance and guardian that only works on unmounted Slann. I'd also like there to be a sword and shield variant similar skaven stormvermin, so I can actually get the offensive stats that I think they deserve, without them having to be balanced around being an anti-large unit.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116
    I think that current TG concept is underdeveloped both in lore and gameplay sense. I am sure that best example of similar unit is Blood Knights. They are very different balancewise because they are very solid as general purpose shock cavalry and they have very solid AL potential on top of that. It seems some people cant understand why TG is badly implemented. On TT they have rule that gives them chance to generate additional attacks from their base successful attacks ( up to 4 attacks max ) They were one of the most hard-hitting unit on TT. I think that TG can use buff to weapon dmg of 8 ( to 50 base dmg, same AP ratio ) to represent their feral might on the battlefield. Maybe, +25$ $ on top of that.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
    I just wrote up a long post but then I tried to edit it and the forums ate it... which is depressing.
    Let me try and summarize.
    First of all, I've played campaigns as many different factions, and out of all of them, Lizardmen are the only one that comes to mind right now where such a defining pillar of your early-game military strength is disincentivized later on. The only other faction that I can think of that comes close is the Tomb Kings, because early-game you are forced to rely on masses of free skeletons, whereas late game you are supposed to more rely on giant monsters to do the job... but Tomb Kings seem different to me because their skeletons really aren't all that great, the only reason why it's a defining feature for them is because they get a lot of them. And even with Tomb Kings, they do get Tomb Guard who are not bad at all, even in the late-game.
    So here are my suggestions:
    - Give Temple Guard slightly higher (like maybe 2-6 points in each) melee attack and melee defense, to make them a little more worth the cost
    - Add a hand-weapon variant, with higher attack and damage but no bonus v. large
    - Maybe even add a Great Weapon variant, with even higher attack and more AP damage but no shield and lower defense
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,585
    edited September 2018
    basically you listen to nobody and continue to think you’re 100% right.
    2-6 MA/MD buff would be a huge buff that would make them too good for every purpose while I (and probably others) think that they shouls be good vs armored large and average-to-bad vs infantry.

    - GW and sword and shield variant is a bit ridiculous, might as well make Chaos Warriors (Spears) and Swordmasters (Sword and Shield). Goodbye asymmetrical balance and fun and every faction becomes a reskin of the other.

    I’m not sure your suggestions are well balanced for MP, but if the problem is SP only, can’t you just modify the values via a mod to whichever values you prefer? Surely not everyone must bear your “wonderful creation” of TG with 50 MA/MD, high health and 50 WS :D

    On a more serious note, everyone would like their fav faction to be OP, I dream of the day when Swordmasters will have 50/50 base stats, Dragon Princes with anti-large AP... then I remember that HE are stronf elsewhere and if I really want to play 1 battle with AP cav I switch to Empire.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
    You're going to accuse me of not listening to other people and then you're going to just go ahead and not listen to me?
    An increase of 2-6 MA/MD would not bring them to 50 MA/MD. Not even close. Currently they're sitting at 32/38. An increase of 4 MA and 2 MD would bring them to 36/40, so...
    Secondly, adding more variants to Temple Guard would not do away with asymmetrical balance at all. It's funny that you mention Chaos Warriors (Spears), because Chaos Warriors and Chosen both have three variants - hand weapon & shield, great weapon, and halberd.
    High Elves have anti-infantry and anti-large high end infantry. Dark Elves have the same. Skaven have sword&shield and halberd stormvermin. Lizardmen are the ONLY game 2 race who does not have multiple options for their high-tier infantry. I would be fine with Temple Guard being mediocre against enemy infantry if they had another option for high-tier infantry that was good against enemy infantry - like a sword-and-shield version of Temple Guard. To claim that adding such would kill variety when three out of the four game 2 races already have it is just absurd.
    I'm not trying to make anything OP, and I'm not ignoring what has been said so far - it's just that what has been said so far has not been sufficient to convince me. I still think that Lizardmen are lacking a good high-tier infantry unit for fighting enemy infantry, and I see no reason why it would be gamebreaking for them to have one.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Registered Users Posts: 322
    And as an addendum, you dream of the day when Swordmasters will have 50/50 base stats? Read my original post again. With Martial Prowess and their Bonus vs. Infantry, taken into account, Swordmasters have an effective statline of 62/50, so... your dream is already a reality.
  • NeutronStarNeutronStar Registered Users Posts: 105
    I would just increase the buffs TG get from techs in campaign, it feels pretty bad to keep using only saurus warriors for the entirety of the game because they are very close to begin with and get better technologies.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,585
    edited September 2018
    Swordmasters have 46/36 plus MP which is active only when above 50% HP and pitiful health for a high tier infantry. With MP they have 48/48 but it would be foolish to say they always have those stats because even if you consider campaign where AI won’t focus them with AP missiles or stuff like Bjuna you will have battles where they drop below 50% HP and from there you fight at 46/36 like I said. I don’t know where you pull 62/50 from. If it’s because od the BvI, then be fair and add to TG their BvL if that’s what you like to do. Can’t do it for one but not the other ;) When fighting against their intended target, Temple Guards have 48 MA, 38 MD that doesn’t go away when below 50% HP, a massive +1875 HP with the same model count (whopping +25 HP per model), 6 more WS in general and 4 more AP damage (25 vs 29). Their bonuses again favor TG since TG gets +16 va their intended target while SM only 14. On top of all this, TG have MUCH HIGHER Leadership (actually a useful value if one day you’ll start playing MP) and cost $50 less.

    If you want something to deal with infantry, ask for a buff to the Lizardmen anti-infantry solution: Horned Ones or Feral Bastiladon. As other people have mentioned, TG seems in a good spot. Moreover, if your concern is only single player (like most of your posts suggest), a mod on the Steam workshop or even just changing 2-3 values to what you think most appropriate will solve all your problems. As for multiplayer, since TG is balanced, buffs to its stats should be accompanied by nerfs elsewhere (e.g. health and armor) or cost increase. The buffs you ask for would make them more expensive by $100 at the very least but probably even $200.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,626
    So brave to ask for liz buffs on these forums /respect

    Please hold, the Nerf squad will be with you shortly.

    We are sorry, due to the ridiculous amount of buff elf threads we are unable to process your buff liz request.

    We will now transfer you to the nerf liz department.

    Thank you for making a thread with us. Is there anything else we can help you with today?

    May we recommend switching to our latest instant win factions, the posh high elf and the undefeatable dark elves.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,585
    they have a saying in my country yst, joke’s funny while it’s still fresh
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116
    Green0 said:

    they have a saying in my country yst, joke’s funny while it’s still fresh

    Classic jokes about elves are always fresh.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,411
    Fraxinus said:

    You're going to accuse me of not listening to other people and then you're going to just go ahead and not listen to me?
    An increase of 2-6 MA/MD would not bring them to 50 MA/MD. Not even close. Currently they're sitting at 32/38. An increase of 4 MA and 2 MD would bring them to 36/40, so...
    Secondly, adding more variants to Temple Guard would not do away with asymmetrical balance at all. It's funny that you mention Chaos Warriors (Spears), because Chaos Warriors and Chosen both have three variants - hand weapon & shield, great weapon, and halberd.
    High Elves have anti-infantry and anti-large high end infantry. Dark Elves have the same. Skaven have sword&shield and halberd stormvermin. Lizardmen are the ONLY game 2 race who does not have multiple options for their high-tier infantry. I would be fine with Temple Guard being mediocre against enemy infantry if they had another option for high-tier infantry that was good against enemy infantry - like a sword-and-shield version of Temple Guard. To claim that adding such would kill variety when three out of the four game 2 races already have it is just absurd.
    I'm not trying to make anything OP, and I'm not ignoring what has been said so far - it's just that what has been said so far has not been sufficient to convince me. I still think that Lizardmen are lacking a good high-tier infantry unit for fighting enemy infantry, and I see no reason why it would be gamebreaking for them to have one.

    You forgot plague monk censer bearers and sisters of slaughter for DE, just saying.

    Most WH1 factions only had 1-2 top tier infantry though and theyre fine without it. Plenty of them dont even have an infantry above 1k gold in cost. There's no reason for why a WH2 race should have multiple specialized top tier units in a given category. HE don't have an AP cav, should they be given one simply because it's a gap in their roster, based on your logic?
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
Sign In or Register to comment.