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

The Novelty of Monsters and Monstrous mounts is wearing off

135

Comments

  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    I don't disagree entirely but a few days on that forum don't constitute a "trend". V coast is yet to be released and let's be honest the streaming focused a lot on the details of the big guys. I don't feel such monster fatigue to be real thing at this moment.

    Most people play the campaign so the cheese against lords is not big issue, but it's true foot bound lords have limitations. Even if Grimgor did not disappoint back in the day. I agree that monstruous mounts make the lord disappear behind the creature, alas, an issue that was not present in the TT because they really had separate profile and the mount was an addition. With TW, the profile is blended and you only get to see the mount animations. It's not that annoying when it's one of a kind (Louen super hyppogryph for instance) but all those pirate lords will have a mount from their roster.

    The physics of the game make using foot characters complicated and even with heavy handed fixes (like making guys such as grimgor almost no pushable) the mobility issue will stay. I know it's an MP issue, but I have the - maybe unpopular - opinion that this game can't be competitive while staying true to it's current rules anyway. Unless you admit half the options won't be used bar for fun.

    I want to stress that normal and mid sized unit do require work and yield a nice army. I fully expect Tileans and Arabian regiments to be colorful and impresive. The ultra focus on single models can be damaging. Question is, is there more gameplay variations possible in this category or the large ones instead?
    Lizarmen for instance offer a stark contrast, by the mid game you have your saurus that are quite baseline and who will half the time stick in melee without being controllable. You end up microing mainly your skirmisher and dinosaurs that you will plow through lines to benefit from trample and terror. Only air units (hello gyrocopters) and chariots really require more attention. I get that infantry units can feel a bit "stale", because all categories have been covered : chaff, anti light DD, anvils, anti large anvil, heavy anti infantry....

    That said I think we have a few more options open in the future. Pikemen could bring us back to the phalanx logic with Southern realm. Araby may have a few hit an run units similar to wardancers. Daemon will have a triple variations on anvil/debilitating (nurgle), brute force AP (khorne), quick chaff blenders (slaanesh) Chaos dwarfs will have a dual roster visually super distinctive betwenn hobgoblins chaff and armored dwarfs with exotic weapon (rifle halberds, hand cannons)

    On the bigger side, Djiinis will probably be something else. Their elemental theme could mean they will both feature extra skills and traits similar to phoenix. Just picture anti crowd fire element, super anvil earth, slowing/showing water, etc. Chaos dwarfs have the K'Daii that sport a fire aura (and are self destructive) and very specific artillery. If they do manage to include the artillery train, oh man. But expect at least a queen's beth kind of thing appearing.

    --

    As an aside it's less monster fatigue for me than the campaign options. I'm trying desperately to get into a campaign, mainly with the HE (since I'm waiting on fix on skavens/DE/LM ) and in the early game what's hurting me is mostly the fact that their infantry is spear / bow or spearbows. You have to reach T3 to finally access something else. Infantry variations can be cool. The increasing addition of specific skills to some units is welcome to keep things fresh, such as the murderous frenzey of witch elves, smoke bombs of nasty skulkers etc.
  • Barrel02Barrel02 Registered Users Posts: 92
    Monsters basically are cool and I don't see a problem with them as a unit. But just giving nearly every new lord monstrous mounts that go against their core role and abilities (e.g. Cylostra losing ethereal on the crab) is just stupid.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,917
    ben8vtedu said:


    Oh sure, disregard everything myself and others have said for the sake of simplicity. We'll just pack up and play historical titles like we've been told to a dozen times already, we wouldn't want to spoil your monster party.

    In the end, money speaks. We've been shown and told non-humanoid models take a lot of time and resources to develop. As CA has the numbers and we have not, we can safely conclude they are doing this because they see a strong return in sales for the effort, not out of the goodness of their heart. Bottom line, more monsters will always sell more, so if they were free to make we would have like 20 per faction. But there is obviously a number from where diminishing returns start to kick in. All other considerations are moot.
  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Registered Users Posts: 1,400
    But lokhir is free. Less effort to give him no mount.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,303
    Xenos7 said:

    ben8vtedu said:


    Oh sure, disregard everything myself and others have said for the sake of simplicity. We'll just pack up and play historical titles like we've been told to a dozen times already, we wouldn't want to spoil your monster party.

    In the end, money speaks. We've been shown and told non-humanoid models take a lot of time and resources to develop. As CA has the numbers and we have not, we can safely conclude they are doing this because they see a strong return in sales for the effort, not out of the goodness of their heart. Bottom line, more monsters will always sell more, so if they were free to make we would have like 20 per faction. But there is obviously a number from where diminishing returns start to kick in. All other considerations are moot.
    So hypothetically, if Dwarfs had been held back and were releasing next month, you think they'd have monsters in their roster?
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • tyrannustyrannus Registered Users Posts: 1,080
    My problem is that a lot of factions seem like nothing without their monsters. Like for example, i was really hyped for lizardmen before game 2 released, because i heard a lot of stories about their awesome infantry, which is basically like black orcs, that they will have good cavalry, and that skinks have a lot of utility, and are great skirmishers. And on the top of that all they have cool monsters. When they came out, they had good infantry, but nothing awesome, skinks are just redundant, and you don't have to use them in your army at all, because you can go to saurus warriors immediatly, slann are nothing special, kroxigors are mediocre, flying units suck, and the only good skirmishers are chameleon skinks, and stupid rampage mechanic completely ruins cavalry and infantry. So there is truly only one way to play as lizardmen - send your rampaging saurus warriors at enemy infantry(you don't even have to control them because of the rampage), and then just smash everything with your stegadons and carnosaurs. Also, for all the variety of monster loadouts, the only one that feels truly special is the revification crystal. You have stegadons with ballistas, blowpipes, bastiladons with lazer cannons, but in the end, their purpose is the same, to just SMASH. What's the point of having 3 types of stegadons i really don't understand. So my problem with those big centerpiece units is that they often minimize usability of all other units in the army, and make factions one trick ponies, that play samey.

    Believe in humanity!
  • Lord_HenkusLord_Henkus Registered Users Posts: 1,611
    This is a very well written discussion and I applaud you for that
    How negative I may sound, game is stil 11 out of 10

    Also, please slow down combat!




  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,917
    edited October 2018
    ben8vtedu said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ben8vtedu said:


    Oh sure, disregard everything myself and others have said for the sake of simplicity. We'll just pack up and play historical titles like we've been told to a dozen times already, we wouldn't want to spoil your monster party.

    In the end, money speaks. We've been shown and told non-humanoid models take a lot of time and resources to develop. As CA has the numbers and we have not, we can safely conclude they are doing this because they see a strong return in sales for the effort, not out of the goodness of their heart. Bottom line, more monsters will always sell more, so if they were free to make we would have like 20 per faction. But there is obviously a number from where diminishing returns start to kick in. All other considerations are moot.
    So hypothetically, if Dwarfs had been held back and were releasing next month, you think they'd have monsters in their roster?
    I think they would dig something out of the lore, yes. Like the rune golem.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,303
    Xenos7 said:

    ben8vtedu said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ben8vtedu said:


    Oh sure, disregard everything myself and others have said for the sake of simplicity. We'll just pack up and play historical titles like we've been told to a dozen times already, we wouldn't want to spoil your monster party.

    In the end, money speaks. We've been shown and told non-humanoid models take a lot of time and resources to develop. As CA has the numbers and we have not, we can safely conclude they are doing this because they see a strong return in sales for the effort, not out of the goodness of their heart. Bottom line, more monsters will always sell more, so if they were free to make we would have like 20 per faction. But there is obviously a number from where diminishing returns start to kick in. All other considerations are moot.
    So hypothetically, if Dwarfs had been held back and were releasing next month, you think they'd have monsters in their roster?
    I think they would dig something out of the lore, yes. Like the rune golem.
    Well then we're on two completely different pages. I for one don't think that CA should or would ever compromise the character of a race which is defined not just by its strengths but by its deliberate gaps as well especially with something so obscure and with such sparse lore as the Rune Golem. When you've got Dwarfs with Rune Golems in their lineup, it just isn't Warhammer anymore.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    You can afford more skinks than saurus though and they are your ranged units and the ones you can actually move. They offer good screen units, too and are good pursuers. Hopefully with the pack we'll get some lords dedicating to buffing these little guys and Kroxygors (kinda like the gobbos lords)

    Air is medium but still can be useful. I agree about cavalry. I haven't felt the need to get it since dinosaurs do offer good shock and awe, they have more armor, more mass and can easily move in melee, bring terror and are often more likely to survive, not forgetting than until they die they don't lose models and efficiency. The poor cold ones can't really compete in that context.

    Unless army limitation are put in place, units with similar abilities are going to outcompete themselves.

    Currently skaven are a bit in the samish situation. Not played them much but one thing that annoyed me is that visually their army is just a chaotic mass of greens and browns. I remember Teclis quest battle (which I lost two times by trying with early units) and didn't notice the plague monks until too late, they didn't stand out at all. So what does ? Rat ogres, catapults, abos, etc ....
    Plus Skaven a a very gradual updating of units with similar roles (2 slaves, 2 clan rats, 2 storm, 5 eshin variants !!! ) There is nothing like the stark transition between swordmen to greatsword or like BM from gors to bestigor (the armored units in an army) that you can spot easily nonetheless. Plus they like the very specific roles of dwarf miners, witch elves etc.

    Dwarfs may be only infantry but since they don't have cav, I've managed to learn how to create killboxes, defend arty, use my bombs/incendiary along my campaigns. Microing that army was fun, maybe because there wasn't any cav to cycle charge or monster to move, doing most of the kills.

    So yes, it's true that monsters can leave some army a tad bare, either gameplay wise or visually. From what I've seen the pirates aren't too shabyy, with neat zombies and super elite vampires infantry, and ranged options. Plus honestly gunpowder units are more interesting to micro than bows. (I find the early HE gameplay kinda boring)
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 4,466
    I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking any of this seriously. One, I don't take the opinions voiced in this relatively low-population forum as been representative of the broader playerbase. Two, I see a lot of posters here who were mad Vampire Coast even made it into the game at all.

    It all reads as sour grapes.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,303

    I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking any of this seriously. One, I don't take the opinions voiced in this relatively low-population forum as been representative of the broader playerbase. Two, I see a lot of posters here who were mad Vampire Coast even made it into the game at all.

    It all reads as sour grapes.

    Sour Grapes- pretending that one no longer desires or cares for a certain object when said object becomes unattainable.

    What exactly reads as sour grapes in this situation? Also, if you have a better way to get a read on the broader playerbase, by all means share it. Finally, does someone's attitude towards a particular race taking priority over a personal favorite somehow invalidate their right to share an opinion concerning the topic at hand?

    Personally, I think the topic we're discussing here is quite relevant to the addition of Vampire Coast. I think a large factor for its inclusion was the potential for big monsters and mounts not only due to the units in the Vampire Coast source material but also due to the open ended nature of having such a small list. There was much more room for improvisation with this particular DLC candidate and the fact that 3 out of 4 lords had no guidance at all on what kinds of mounts they should or should not have (since they had no WHFB TT rules to go off of) meant there was no reason they couldn't give all of them big monsters to ride.

    I think this DLC is an apt demonstration that in the absence of a clear framework, CA is more than willing to inflate the roster with monsters and lose the lords behind the mounts, which is why this thread exists in the first place.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • SternguardShootyfaceSternguardShootyface Registered Users Posts: 234
    I'm also concerned with the power creep occuring with monsters and mounts.

    I see some saying this is a fantasy game so go play historicals, but it's not an all or nothing situation, there are degrees to this, and there is definitely a point where it's being overdone.
  • BeaverDDSBeaverDDS Registered Users Posts: 85
    ben8vtedu said:

    I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking any of this seriously. One, I don't take the opinions voiced in this relatively low-population forum as been representative of the broader playerbase. Two, I see a lot of posters here who were mad Vampire Coast even made it into the game at all.

    It all reads as sour grapes.

    Sour Grapes- pretending that one no longer desires or cares for a certain object when said object becomes unattainable.

    What exactly reads as sour grapes in this situation? Also, if you have a better way to get a read on the broader playerbase, by all means share it. Finally, does someone's attitude towards a particular race taking priority over a personal favorite somehow invalidate their right to share an opinion concerning the topic at hand?

    Personally, I think the topic we're discussing here is quite relevant to the addition of Vampire Coast. I think a large factor for its inclusion was the potential for big monsters and mounts not only due to the units in the Vampire Coast source material but also due to the open ended nature of having such a small list. There was much more room for improvisation with this particular DLC candidate and the fact that 3 out of 4 lords had no guidance at all on what kinds of mounts they should or should not have (since they had no WHFB TT rules to go off of) meant there was no reason they couldn't give all of them big monsters to ride.

    I think this DLC is an apt demonstration that in the absence of a clear framework, CA is more than willing to inflate the roster with monsters and lose the lords behind the mounts, which is why this thread exists in the first place.
    It's not inflation its options harkon on terrorgheist is so he can chase any mages which is his main target , noct is suppose to stand with his line and snipe and summon, arranessa might need some tackiness so she gets a promethian and cylostra gets a levithan so she isn't sniped and thus is able to get more magic off. The best part about their mounts is that they are optional should footlords be left in the dust absolutely not but its not inflation its options
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered Users Posts: 1,080

    I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking any of this seriously. One, I don't take the opinions voiced in this relatively low-population forum as been representative of the broader playerbase. Two, I see a lot of posters here who were mad Vampire Coast even made it into the game at all.

    It all reads as sour grapes.

    You do realise that one of the reasons why people were mad about vampire coast is that it's yet another monster based faction?Also I don't see what this forum's population has to do with validity of opinion.

    Believe in humanity!
  • ErathilErathil Registered Users Posts: 933
    I'm given to understand that part of the issue is game mechanics. The way mass, momentum, and knock-down work with the game engine can severely disadvantage lords on foot. (As I understand it, this is the major reason why Grimgor Ironhide is bottom tier at the moment.)

    Weirdly, this is almost the inverse of what was happening on the table-top. In later editions, putting your lord on a huge mount, while awesome looking, was often a terrible decision; you couldn't bunker them in an elite unit for protection or buffs, and large monsters were more easily sniped by cannons, artillery, and magical or armor-piercing range units.

    I rather like how CA has been handling LL mounts recently. I don't really think it necessarily impinges people or races with primarily foot-based armies; that would just make their lords stand out a bit more.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    The two main objections to the pirates were in order

    - actually less important lorewise than DoW and Araby
    - yet "another" vampire faction

    I've seen more complaintsa bout their lack of monsters (ok, from mostly one guy) than the opposite.

    I think the positives from CA viewpoint were
    - they did like them (I'm not fully cynic there)
    - they would easily be able to scatter them on the vortex while making thematic additions (island battles, Lokhir )
    - the undead pirate theme is popular outside strict warhammer fandom.

    DoW & Araby may have drawbacks from CA viewpoint too
    - less marketable ? I think Arabic fantasy is distinctive enough, but DoW... they resonate more with fans of warhammer - fans of humans in warhammer more precisely - than with the public at large
    - DoW have HUGE issues in campaign design. If they are the southern realms they would skip all their real starting pos. If they are the mercenaries then they need something that makes them "click"

    I don't think the monsters are an argument, and the OP is tackling mostly monsters as mounts for every LL. I'll be honest it was a bit weird in TWH1 to have many LL with less choices than generic lords. Though that made mounts quite special.

  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,303
    Erathil said:

    I'm given to understand that part of the issue is game mechanics. The way mass, momentum, and knock-down work with the game engine can severely disadvantage lords on foot. (As I understand it, this is the major reason why Grimgor Ironhide is bottom tier at the moment.)

    Weirdly, this is almost the inverse of what was happening on the table-top. In later editions, putting your lord on a huge mount, while awesome looking, was often a terrible decision; you couldn't bunker them in an elite unit for protection or buffs, and large monsters were more easily sniped by cannons, artillery, and magical or armor-piercing range units.

    Honestly, if they found some way to represent some of those aspects of taking large mounts I think a lot of the current problems would sort themselves out. It should be a huge risk to mount your lord against artillery/ranged heavy races like Dwarfs, Wood Elves, or the Empire or races with lots of offensive magic spells. Monsters should be vulnerable to those kinds of attacks. Instead they're treated like big HP sinks which just soak up tons of damage before eventually closing in on the units that should be dropping them from across the battlefield.
    BeaverDDS said:

    It's not inflation its options harkon on terrorgheist is so he can chase any mages which is his main target , noct is suppose to stand with his line and snipe and summon, arranessa might need some tackiness so she gets a promethian and cylostra gets a levithan so she isn't sniped and thus is able to get more magic off. The best part about their mounts is that they are optional should footlords be left in the dust absolutely not but its not inflation its options

    I think being on a huge monster makes it more likely that she'll get sniped. Being both small and ethereal makes her a much trickier target. Why would Harkon need to chase anything down? He's got a hand cannon, shouldn't he be shooting them from afar rather than gooning them from the air? Not to mention that he loses his magic resistance on the mount which kind of defeats the purpose of chasing down the very targets most able to hurt him if he gets too close. I assume you meant "tankiness" for Saltspite, but being quick and agile is kind of her shtick, isn't it? Putting her on a lumbering crab kind of takes that away from her. As for Noctilus, being a high armor/HP, anti-large melee/caster hybrid just didn't give him enough "umph"? There was no way he couldn't "stand with his line and snipe and summon" without his own personal pirate-themed Gundam?
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • NameAlreadyExistsNameAlreadyExists Registered Users Posts: 131
    In my view, giving a legendary lord a mount shouldn't be an "upgrade" to him (in terms of: mount = better). A lord without mount should be nothing less than a different playstyle that is as viable as a having a lord with mount.

    I have to admit, i don't know, how to balance this properly.
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,127
    Completely agree with you original post @ben8vtedu and also with the arguments you've made for it.

    To add my own points:

    1) Monsters
    This is very much a problem that GW created and CA have inherited as a result. As TT moved into 7th edition, they had started trying to sell big centrepiece models and to hell with the armies they had previously created. It's worth noting that 6th edition was when we saw most of the current 'races' firmed up and even the likes of Kislev, Middenland and Vampire Coast received some attention. As TT 'progressed' into 8th, GW were making up any monster they could think of and cramming them into books, even though several of them didn't fit the even have models and even the ones which did were rarely seen in actual games (amongst collectors who had used these armies previously).

    The effect of the backlash from CA not including the jabberslythe for beastmen (even though they had no idea at the time how successful the franchise would be), a creature with no model in TT and certainly not in keeping with beastmen lore, and latterly the kharabys in the excellent Q&C pack feels like it's had the knock on effect of forcing CA to envisage and model every one of these hastily tacked on footnotes in the TT's legacy.

    Which is a shame to those of us who were happy with those rosters but would rather see them use that time to create themed variants of units (Night Goblin netters, tuskgor chariots, savage orc characters and troops, Middenland/Ulrican and local Empire troops, Araby, TEB, standard bearers for units etc).

    Now sure there needs to be a balance and I'm happy to see Vampire Coast added as a faction, but please realise that it suggests a shift towards finding reasons to incorporate monsters, monsters and more monsters. If that's what you're after, lucky you, but I agree with those asking for something different in upcoming lord, race and campaign packs.

    As I've said before, adding monsters to every faction, especially monstrous, mobile artillery, is removing the unique playstyle and focus of each race. It also removes the 'specialness' and rareness of monsters, because once everyone has one they're not special any more; they're standard - you may as well just make all units 3x bigger and say everything is a monster.




    2) Monstrous mounts
    These are getting very much out of hand IMO. Wulfrik may not have been the start of this, but again CA has inherited a problem of GW's causing.

    In battle, it's basically impossible physically for a rider on a large mount to make contact with anything its mount is engaged with. So we're told characters like Lokhir, Wulfrik and Harkon are wonderful fighters, duelists famed around the world, but in battle they just end up sitting atop a giant monster observing as it does the work. If they are commanders rather than warriors, fair enough, and maybe this should be a character type, but as it stands Kroq-Gar never attacks anyone, he just hangs on whilst hosoint does the work.

    Certain characters and combinations are nigh on undefeatable in TT. The chariot may be Settra's preferred mount, but put him on a necrokitten and he can bound in and out of combat where he chooses. Tomb Kings are supposed to be armies of endless skeleton warriors, archers and chariots, yet I can't remember the last time I saw them in MP when they weren't made up almost exclusively of constructs.

    I believe there is a solution to this which CA could incorporate for Game 3 and this would be the option to embed characters within a unit. No longer able to be singled out, they and their bodyguard become a more formidable force more difficult to be singled out by an opponent on a monster.

    The latest 5 lords are the culmination of this power creep where every 'great' character is reduced to a monster rider and all they're good for is hanging on for dear life.




    3) Animations
    In general, monster v monster animations just look naff.

    TWW animations are superb. CA have done an amazing job. But there are clearly some impossible combinations to pull off. Wulfrik's Mammoth v Settra's Necrokitten is a classic one.

    Meanwhile, plenty of other animations are 'missing' which were in previous TW games. This ranges from the minor (handgunners not reloading, for example), the medium (no squig handlers or skaven packmasters) to major (no standard bearers in game). Personally, it saddens me to think that the time spent animating phoenixes, heirotitans, bastiladons, boat ents (shout out to whoever coined that) and hellpit abominations could have been spent creating animated battle standards for units.



    All the above rambling is obviously my personal opinion and I don't expect everyone to share them. However, it feels like a loud minority of voices has influenced things in the above direction, so it feels like it might be time to put forward the opposite argument.

    Peace.
  • Lord_HenkusLord_Henkus Registered Users Posts: 1,611
    Why doesn't this topic get to the top of the first page after people post new stuff? It feels like censorship.
    How negative I may sound, game is stil 11 out of 10

    Also, please slow down combat!




  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,127

    Why doesn't this topic get to the top of the first page after people post new stuff? It feels like censorship.

    Erm, forum update. I think they're trying to make it more like Reddit.
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered Users Posts: 1,080
    edited October 2018
    Also if we're gonna talk about wider player audience,i'd like to bring up a little fact. Remember the whole queen and crone drama(which btw was an excellent dlc in my opinion)? When people here were calling it worst dlc evah, and lamenting for medusas and other stupid units? Well if we go to the dlc steam page, we can see that it has 75% positive reviews,which makes it seem to me that most of the players don't give a damn about which monster from armybook made it and which did not. Maybe all those people also should go play historicals?

    Believe in humanity!
  • MakoTheMakoMakoTheMako Registered Users Posts: 1,246
    Luthor having his insanely high damage missile attack, all his debuffs against both melee and caster targets, AND getting the stats of the terrorgheist when mounted is really damn ridiculous. He doesn't need that.

    die about it

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,917
    ben8vtedu said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ben8vtedu said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ben8vtedu said:


    Oh sure, disregard everything myself and others have said for the sake of simplicity. We'll just pack up and play historical titles like we've been told to a dozen times already, we wouldn't want to spoil your monster party.

    In the end, money speaks. We've been shown and told non-humanoid models take a lot of time and resources to develop. As CA has the numbers and we have not, we can safely conclude they are doing this because they see a strong return in sales for the effort, not out of the goodness of their heart. Bottom line, more monsters will always sell more, so if they were free to make we would have like 20 per faction. But there is obviously a number from where diminishing returns start to kick in. All other considerations are moot.
    So hypothetically, if Dwarfs had been held back and were releasing next month, you think they'd have monsters in their roster?
    I think they would dig something out of the lore, yes. Like the rune golem.
    Well then we're on two completely different pages. I for one don't think that CA should or would ever compromise the character of a race which is defined not just by its strengths but by its deliberate gaps as well especially with something so obscure and with such sparse lore as the Rune Golem. When you've got Dwarfs with Rune Golems in their lineup, it just isn't Warhammer anymore.
    Look at what they did with Bretonnia. Melee cavalry (grail guardians), monstrous flying cavalry (hippogryph knights), shock infantry (squires). GW would have probably added those by itself if Bretonnia was updated. I'm quite sure they would have added some kind of centerpiece to the Dawi in time, as this was the running theme of the eight edition.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,917
    tyrannus said:

    Also if we're gonna talk about wider player audience,i'd like to bring up a little fact. Remember the whole queen and crone drama(which btw was an excellent dlc in my opinion)? When people here were calling it worst dlc evah, and lamenting for medusas and other stupid units? Well if we go to the dlc steam page, we can see that it has 75% positive reviews,which makes it seem to me that most of the players don't give a damn about which monster from armybook made it and which did not. Maybe all those people also should go play historicals?

    75% makes it the worst rated Warhammer 2 product, including the base game and the blood pack. It will probably remain so after Vampire Coast. It's a testament to the overall strength of the game, but that rating makes Queen and Crone subpar by definition. Taking into account the whole franchise, Grim and Grave had 73% and King and Warlord 84%, so Queen and Crone is on the lower side of Lord packs review scores.

    It's worth nothing that is has just 2/3 of Grim and Grave reviews, and it's 11% lower in score than the base game, while Grim and Grave is only 2% shy of Warhammer 1 score. So no, according to Steam reviews that's not a well received DLC. Besides that, 25% of players leaving a negative review is in itself worth a change in course, which CA promptly promised in the AMA. Which is probably because they saw something in the sales numbers, as again, they are not a charity giving out toy monsters to kids.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 4,075
    ben8vtedu said:

    Nyxilis said:

    I kinda agree, it's a power creep. Quite a few games and things fall prey to it. If it doesn't have the big and shiny what are you gonna do? So I kinda do worry on groups that don't have that despite the Empire hands down being the most played of game one. Despite the lack of it. And yeah, I agree the main game 'sells itself' in that so it's more a DLC thing but if the most played race of that one had none of it why must these? I think any of them with a fun roster, fun army, and fun map mechanics make it far and more.

    I am of course happy to see the monsters where they are supposed to be and cast my glare when they are not.. looking at you Beastmen...

    But I think CA would rather give them a mount and leave it unspoken that you can simply not go with the mount and they have the best of both worlds.

    I see where you're coming from, but doesn't giving every lord a mount kind of let them off the hook for making foot lords competitive or worthwhile in their own right? It's like they gave up on trying to make foot lords interesting and just decided to give everyone a mount instead.
    Yes and no, when a footlord is bad I do get a tad disgruntled but I get that way when any legendary lord is trash. They're the next largest influence in the game aside only from a brand new race altogether. So there is in my opinion a desperate need to make any they do add at least workable on the regular map. This can unfortunately possibly sum to stick a mount on it.

    But I wont at all deny the possibility that they're worried that a guy running around just doesn't have the pizzazz that a guy on a giant mount does and so they rush to it but it's hard to tell as the Tomb Kings were already littered with giant monster options as was appropriate. So they probably just decided why shouldn't some of them ride them. And the rule of cool with a why not probably did pop right up.

    Vampire Coast shows a similar issue but for different reasons. Three out of four are straight pirate captains and one's simply cursed. So they were probably seeking ways to really stand out in differences, and how to make them that much more different from the Vampire Coast. Which was the bigger fear they likely had when making the Vampire Coast as supposed to the Vampire Counts. Are they to much the same. So they started sticking on giant dead crabs, and the necrofex to give to their small roster then thought why wouldnt' any of them ride them? Especially their new girl they were likely worrying about having appeal.

    But I don't think it fit mounting them all. Harkon's supposed to be a bruiser famed for his skill, there is a reason for his bloodline. And Saltspite was a feared captain for skill in combat but mount just says feared for mount. I can live with Noctilus getting one because he was all about power gain and slapped his castle afloat. It seems like something he would in fact do. Direfin, we'll she's new. She can basically have whatever she wants cause, new. You can make to fit it at that moment.

    But sums up there was an easy push for TK as they were already littered, and a push to make them different than the Vampire Counts that likely only pushed the trend far more than it might have otherwise been.
  • Stormspirit88Stormspirit88 Registered Users Posts: 108
    Can't we just, I don't know, buff the foot soldiers?

    Also, it would seem CA made the right call leaving Gorgons and the like out of the Beastmen roster. We should encourage them to return to that policy.
  • ReeksReeks Registered Users Posts: 3,797
    tyrannus said:

    Also if we're gonna talk about wider player audience,i'd like to bring up a little fact. Remember the whole queen and crone drama(which btw was an excellent dlc in my opinion)? When people here were calling it worst dlc evah, and lamenting for medusas and other stupid units? Well if we go to the dlc steam page, we can see that it has 75% positive reviews,which makes it seem to me that most of the players don't give a damn about which monster from armybook made it and which did not. Maybe all those people also should go play historicals?

    You are talking about wider player audiences and then refer to steam reviews when QatC have 397 reviews in total

    Taking steam reviews as a accurate measure stick of the opinions of the majority of the player base is as foolish as doing the same with the forum users.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,917

    Which is a shame to those of us who were happy with those rosters but would rather see them use that time to create themed variants of units (Night Goblin netters, tuskgor chariots, savage orc characters and troops, Middenland/Ulrican and local Empire troops, Araby, TEB, standard bearers for units etc).

    There is no point. Every single major overhaul mod (SFO, CTT, Choice and Consequences, Radious) has Middenland Teutogen Guard and White Wolf Knights. They look pretty much like the original minis. Most DoW regiments were already modded in by Cataph and they also look good. A full savage orcs roster was made by Decomposed, Mixu made the heroes...

    A point can surely be made for the most gimmicky non-monstrous units (horse drawn artillery, guys needing new animations like pavise crossbowmen and pikemen...), but overall there is no reason to waste CA's attention on things we can easily do ourselves.

    People must understand that things aren't equivalent here: modders can give us weapon variants and reskins, only CA can give us monstrous units. Obviously they should be prioritized, it's a matter of simple logic.
Sign In or Register to comment.