Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Hate for mounts all of a sudden

245

Comments

  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 9,857
    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 423

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 423
    RikRiorik said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    In MP I don't really care, if we are speaking about campaign I like to have the choice.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209

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



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


    Not to mention, if footlords are ****, FIX them, don't slap a mount on them

    CA could give a charge defence against all for all foot lords, a trait that the stunties lords have already, but beside that there is no much else that could be done for foot lords beside giving them mounts.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813
    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    In MP I don't really care, if we are speaking about campaign I like to have the choice.
    What "choice"? The parrot is better than anything else, there's no choice.

  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 3,593
    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
    If the only thing that matters is CA's vision, then it is impossible to criticise the game for anything. The next DLC introduce jellyfish-people as a new race, and they get 90% of the empire as their homeland? CA's vision. The DLC after makes all factions permanently peaceful, war no longer exists in the game? CA's vision.

    It is a total war game, and a warhammer game. It should try to stay true to warhammer that it is based on, and it should be fun to play as a total war game as well. Even if we disregard the TT completely, having only monstrous lords as the only viable options is bad from a gameplay point of view. It reduces the diversity, there should be benefits and penalties to each option in order to make more builds viable.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,375

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
    If the only thing that matters is CA's vision, then it is impossible to criticise the game for anything. The next DLC introduce jellyfish-people as a new race, and they get 90% of the empire as their homeland? CA's vision. The DLC after makes all factions permanently peaceful, war no longer exists in the game? CA's vision.

    It is a total war game, and a warhammer game. It should try to stay true to warhammer that it is based on, and it should be fun to play as a total war game as well. Even if we disregard the TT completely, having only monstrous lords as the only viable options is bad from a gameplay point of view. It reduces the diversity, there should be benefits and penalties to each option in order to make more builds viable.
    Also, Teclis ain't the most powerful wizard in Warhammer by a longshot.

    Kroak (alive) >>> Mazdamundi > Nagash > Teclis
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!

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

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

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

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
    If the only thing that matters is CA's vision, then it is impossible to criticise the game for anything. The next DLC introduce jellyfish-people as a new race, and they get 90% of the empire as their homeland? CA's vision. The DLC after makes all factions permanently peaceful, war no longer exists in the game? CA's vision.

    It is a total war game, and a warhammer game. It should try to stay true to warhammer that it is based on, and it should be fun to play as a total war game as well. Even if we disregard the TT completely, having only monstrous lords as the only viable options is bad from a gameplay point of view. It reduces the diversity, there should be benefits and penalties to each option in order to make more builds viable.
    Also, Teclis ain't the most powerful wizard in Warhammer by a longshot.

    Kroak (alive) >>> Mazdamundi > Nagash > Teclis
    Sorry, not "CA's VisionTM", Teclis clearly is the bestestest wizard ever and a better brawler than Tyrion because the clear theme of the twins is that Teclis was always better at everything and had also a much bigger elfdick and so Tyrion cuckolded Finubar in frustration.

  • FloppingerFloppinger Registered Users Posts: 526
    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.
    And Vader inside an AT-AT is still a force user. It´s exactly the same. The only difference is that Teclis isn´t a well known character in pop culture.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.


    Oh, do I seem that much more passionate. I´m not the one who replied four times so far in this thread.
    Besides "I don´t really care" isn´t that valuable of a stance to take in a discussion anyways.
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295

    Artjuh90 said:

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

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

    nope he was the second most picked. after the pigeon queen , not picked thats tyrons thing
    tyrion was picked more then alith anar....
    but thats not the point though. Telcis was i a good spot and was usefull in MP.
    Now with the phoenix all his buffs, safetly and massive defense all together on a mage that should be really weak in melee combat but one of the most powerfull mage is a great melee unit and one of the best casters. which is just kinda dumb. if this keeps up why bother with a fighter lord like tyrion ever again.
    same issue has happend with lizardmen though... how often do you see things like kroq'gar or gor-rok. but people tend to care less about that for some reason.
    mazda had his mount in lore so it was one of those things, but the reality in lm is slaan are just better, its not go rok, korq gar or even nakai being bad, just slaan are the best situation.
    and the fact that the slann are still doing quite well in melee for some reason. the stats aren't good but their melee capability is to high i think
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 10,026

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
    If the only thing that matters is CA's vision, then it is impossible to criticise the game for anything. The next DLC introduce jellyfish-people as a new race, and they get 90% of the empire as their homeland? CA's vision. The DLC after makes all factions permanently peaceful, war no longer exists in the game? CA's vision.

    It is a total war game, and a warhammer game. It should try to stay true to warhammer that it is based on, and it should be fun to play as a total war game as well. Even if we disregard the TT completely, having only monstrous lords as the only viable options is bad from a gameplay point of view. It reduces the diversity, there should be benefits and penalties to each option in order to make more builds viable.
    Also, Teclis ain't the most powerful wizard in Warhammer by a longshot.

    Kroak (alive) >>> Mazdamundi > Nagash > Teclis
    The comparison between Mazdamundi, Nagash, and Teclis was always left fairly ambiguous in the fluff.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,375
    Draxynnic said:

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
    If the only thing that matters is CA's vision, then it is impossible to criticise the game for anything. The next DLC introduce jellyfish-people as a new race, and they get 90% of the empire as their homeland? CA's vision. The DLC after makes all factions permanently peaceful, war no longer exists in the game? CA's vision.

    It is a total war game, and a warhammer game. It should try to stay true to warhammer that it is based on, and it should be fun to play as a total war game as well. Even if we disregard the TT completely, having only monstrous lords as the only viable options is bad from a gameplay point of view. It reduces the diversity, there should be benefits and penalties to each option in order to make more builds viable.
    Also, Teclis ain't the most powerful wizard in Warhammer by a longshot.

    Kroak (alive) >>> Mazdamundi > Nagash > Teclis
    The comparison between Mazdamundi, Nagash, and Teclis was always left fairly ambiguous in the fluff.
    Iirc it was Teclis who was described to "Rival Nagash", whcih imho says that Nagash is considered the Measuring Stick.
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!

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

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

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

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • Darthplagueis13Darthplagueis13 Registered Users Posts: 526

    Is it a lore problem, or a balance one?

    Both. It's a balancing issue because Teclis already was one of the best casters in the game who has access to some of the strongest spells (Net of Amyntok, Regrowth...) as well as a lot of Winds of Magic boosts and hands down the best healing item in the game. That's all nice and fine as long as the character has some weaknesses in exchange and previous to the phoenix mount he was rather squishy.
    With the Phoenix mount he's got more health than a lot of combat lord, causes fear and terror, deals good armour piercing damage and has rather good general combat stats alongside being one of the fastest flyers in the game.
    Sure, it's prohibitively expensive, but he's now one of the most dangerous combat and sniping lords in the game (I think a lot of people forget that the enfeebling foe is actually a very potent duelling debuff) with pretty much no major weaknesses and even if he gets caught out, his potion has enough healing and damage resist to ensure that he won't get punished too much. He's outgrown his niche and made pretty much all the other HE lords obsolete.

    It's also an issue from a lore perspective because Teclis in particular is supposed to be extremely frail and sickly. If he could just mount his personal terrorbird to devastate everything in his path, I don't think they would have had to make it a point that he is a weak combattant. I mean, he's supposed to be Tyrions counterpart.

    Both of them carry the curse that Aenerions heritage brings with it, for Tyrion it is a vulnerable and unstable mind in exchange for his physical prowess, for Teclis it is a frail and sickly body in exchange for great wisdom and near unrivaled magical abilities, at least among his peers.

    That bird just gets rid of Teclis' weakness and serves to make the character more boring because now you don't have to use him like Teclis anymore.

    Imo, they should at least get ridd of the potion of Charoi when he's mounted on that thing, I mean, what's he gonna do, force feed the bird?
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 423

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    In MP I don't really care, if we are speaking about campaign I like to have the choice.
    What "choice"? The parrot is better than anything else, there's no choice.
    This is ****, in singleplayer you always have a choice if we speak about normal difficulty. If you have such a weak will that you need to always use the most optimal builld for a standard N/N campaign then the player not the game is the problem.

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.
    And Vader inside an AT-AT is still a force user. It´s exactly the same. The only difference is that Teclis isn´t a well known character in pop culture.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.


    Oh, do I seem that much more passionate. I´m not the one who replied four times so far in this thread.
    Besides "I don´t really care" isn´t that valuable of a stance to take in a discussion anyways.
    Okay I will rewrite my argument then if you are going to use this kind of argumentation. You have the choice not to put Vader in a AR-AT and the same choice with Teclis from a SP perspective. In MP you can restric or make the mount unavailable for balancing issues. My view is that you should let the player to use the mount or not in SP. And I do care about fun changes for the SP aspect in the game and mounting lords are part of that. I strictly said that because you seemed well verse in this topic and I thought you would have insight where CA have spoken about the matter.

    You can criticize CA's point but I feel if you are going to have a worthy discussion about this topic it would be nice to have CA's stance on the matter. And I would play a game where I could put Vader in a machine it is cool. When the changes are already implemented, why should you remove from SP where you are the master of your own campaign? There are multiple ways to deal with this for the MP crowd. Taken away something is a punishment, even though you may debate and have right in certain context that it should not be there from. Lore perspective.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    psychoak said:

    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.

    CA can't make foot lords work because technical reasons, foot lords can't join units in total war.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,375
    Tayvar said:

    psychoak said:

    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.

    CA can't make foot lords work because technical reasons, foot lords can't join units in total war.
    Meanwhile modders:
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1662936739
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!

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

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

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

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813
    Tayvar said:

    psychoak said:

    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.

    CA can't make foot lords work because technical reasons, foot lords can't join units in total war.
    Oooh, but they could make them work, it's just that a certain MP clique *cough* HE MAINS *cough* really doesn't want anything but monster lords to be viable since their preferred race has so many of them and so immediately spams every thread that proposes fixes to foot lords with post after post of pure BS.

  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 9,173
    Tayvar said:

    psychoak said:

    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.

    CA can't make foot lords work because technical reasons, foot lords can't join units in total war.
    You do realise attaching a lord to a unit wouldn't be the only way to make them good, right ?

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209

    Tayvar said:

    psychoak said:

    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.

    CA can't make foot lords work because technical reasons, foot lords can't join units in total war.
    Oooh, but they could make them work, it's just that a certain MP clique *cough* HE MAINS *cough* really doesn't want anything but monster lords to be viable since their preferred race has so many of them and so immediately spams every thread that proposes fixes to foot lords with post after post of pure BS.
    How a marauder chieftain on foot could be a match to mammoth one-on-one? a lot of plot armor?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813
    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    psychoak said:

    It's probably mostly over the lore, but monster madness is getting pretty extreme here.

    If they can't make foot lords work, they need to quit their day jobs and go do something else. Once you start handing out tier 5 monsters to everything, any attempt at presenting yourselves as serious game designers is kinda out the window.

    CA can't make foot lords work because technical reasons, foot lords can't join units in total war.
    Oooh, but they could make them work, it's just that a certain MP clique *cough* HE MAINS *cough* really doesn't want anything but monster lords to be viable since their preferred race has so many of them and so immediately spams every thread that proposes fixes to foot lords with post after post of pure BS.
    How a marauder chieftain on foot could be a match to mammoth one-on-one? a lot of plot armor?


    Very. Old. Fantasy. Trope.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813
    edited June 2020
    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    In MP I don't really care, if we are speaking about campaign I like to have the choice.
    What "choice"? The parrot is better than anything else, there's no choice.
    This is ****, in singleplayer you always have a choice if we speak about normal difficulty. If you have such a weak will that you need to always use the most optimal builld for a standard N/N campaign then the player not the game is the problem.

    You have a mount that makes Teclis infinitely easier to use and gives you a free powerful flying monster.

    Of course there's no choice. Why pick any other option when they're all obviously is so much weaker than the rainbow parrot?

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    Prkl8r said:

    It's more than just lords with mounts are better, it's lords with monstrous or flying mounts are better.

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

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

    This relates to MP, but I assume that's why they make decisions like this to begin with.

    Malagor saw that comment and start crying. Why CA why? why did you do that to Malagor's Wings?

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,274
    It's the fun police. They patrol games to ensure nobody has fun in ways they don't approve.
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 423

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    In MP I don't really care, if we are speaking about campaign I like to have the choice.
    What "choice"? The parrot is better than anything else, there's no choice.
    This is ****, in singleplayer you always have a choice if we speak about normal difficulty. If you have such a weak will that you need to always use the most optimal builld for a standard N/N campaign then the player not the game is the problem.

    You have a mount that makes Teclis infinitely easier to use and gives you a free powerful flying monster.

    Of course there's no choice. Why pick any other option when they're all obviously is so much weaker than the rainbow parrot?
    Teclis is still strong on the parrot or just on the horse. Are you spamming only dragon and sisters of avelorn armies as well? Since that is the best doomstack for HE any other unit is garbage? You choose the most optimal play and yes it is the players fault, when all they can do is spam the most optimal choice for everything in SP(disregarding higher battle difficulty).
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 10,026

    Draxynnic said:

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    If CA made a Star Wars game with "their vision" of the setting and they had Darth Vader piloting an AT-AT, instead of relying on his skills with the lightsaber and using the force in his ultimate form, people wouldn´t be happy with either.
    He is the most powerful wizard in the universe, maybe he learned a spell that make it possible to ride a Phoenix. Also your example is off, he is still mage but you have the option to go with the Phoenix mount if you dislike it.

    Maybe instead of arguing about thus you can find CA's stance on TT and lore? You seem more dedicated and passionate about this than mine. Because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is CA's vision.
    If the only thing that matters is CA's vision, then it is impossible to criticise the game for anything. The next DLC introduce jellyfish-people as a new race, and they get 90% of the empire as their homeland? CA's vision. The DLC after makes all factions permanently peaceful, war no longer exists in the game? CA's vision.

    It is a total war game, and a warhammer game. It should try to stay true to warhammer that it is based on, and it should be fun to play as a total war game as well. Even if we disregard the TT completely, having only monstrous lords as the only viable options is bad from a gameplay point of view. It reduces the diversity, there should be benefits and penalties to each option in order to make more builds viable.
    Also, Teclis ain't the most powerful wizard in Warhammer by a longshot.

    Kroak (alive) >>> Mazdamundi > Nagash > Teclis
    The comparison between Mazdamundi, Nagash, and Teclis was always left fairly ambiguous in the fluff.
    Iirc it was Teclis who was described to "Rival Nagash", whcih imho says that Nagash is considered the Measuring Stick.
    Nagash is older and is therefore the incumbent (and the measuring stick), while Teclis is the plucky upstart. The statement is ambiguous of which is actually more powerful, it just indicates that they're at a comparable level.

    Mazdamundi is even older, but isn't the measuring stick primarily because he's basically unknown outside of the Lizardmen. From what I can recall, though, the fluff has never made the direct comparison, and the crunch has never made him a 5th level wizard (although, arguably, his Slann special abilities put him on a similar level). There is a temptation to suggest that the strongest living Slann is going to be more powerful because the Slann taught the Elves... but that isn't necessarily the case. The student outstripping the teacher is a common trope both in Warhammer and other properties, and there are references in the fluff that the Elves have come up with magics that the Slann either didn't think of or refused to do.

    There are things each can do that the others can't, but like I said, the actual power order was left ambiguous. I suspect that GW never actually decided themselves.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813
    Xenos7 said:

    It's the fun police. They patrol games to ensure nobody has fun in ways they don't approve.

    It's the MOBA crowd. They patrol games to ensure everything's dumbed down and simplified so they don't have to think when playing.
    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

    Emrysor said:

    RikRiorik said:

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

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

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

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

    You eliminate those factions easy enough in the campaign so they are hardly more than nuisance to begin with.
    Maybe people need to let the TT go because CA wants their vision of Warhammer in their games?
    Or maybe we need to realize that less is often times more. We need more niche and less all encompassing.
    In MP I don't really care, if we are speaking about campaign I like to have the choice.
    What "choice"? The parrot is better than anything else, there's no choice.
    This is ****, in singleplayer you always have a choice if we speak about normal difficulty. If you have such a weak will that you need to always use the most optimal builld for a standard N/N campaign then the player not the game is the problem.

    You have a mount that makes Teclis infinitely easier to use and gives you a free powerful flying monster.

    Of course there's no choice. Why pick any other option when they're all obviously is so much weaker than the rainbow parrot?
    Teclis is still strong on the parrot or just on the horse. Are you spamming only dragon and sisters of avelorn armies as well? Since that is the best doomstack for HE any other unit is garbage? You choose the most optimal play and yes it is the players fault, when all they can do is spam the most optimal choice for everything in SP(disregarding higher battle difficulty).
    The game is in fact making anything but doomstacks the most optimal choice. Why take anything but the highest tiers when you have infinite money by midgame and the higher tiers are disporportionally more effective than anything lower tier and endlessly spammable on top of it?

    Buddy, the game gives you ZERO incentive to go for anything but the strongest and it's the same with Teclis' parrot. There's no point to have him on foot or the horse because that's so obviously a downgrade you get nothing whatsoever from.

    Look up how player motivation works.

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,274

    Xenos7 said:

    It's the fun police. They patrol games to ensure nobody has fun in ways they don't approve.

    It's the MOBA crowd. They patrol games to ensure everything's dumbed down and simplified so they don't have to think when playing.
    Difference is, nobody was going around the boards shouting "hell CA, give Teclis a frigging monster!". Most people just saw that after CA added it, said "yeah, cool" for half a second, then returned to their business. Then there are ten or so people who seem personally offended by the fact one can have fun with things they dislike, so frantically ask CA to remove the content they just added.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,375
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's the fun police. They patrol games to ensure nobody has fun in ways they don't approve.

    It's the MOBA crowd. They patrol games to ensure everything's dumbed down and simplified so they don't have to think when playing.
    Difference is, nobody was going around the boards shouting "hell CA, give Teclis a frigging monster!". Most people just saw that after CA added it, said "yeah, cool" for half a second, then returned to their business. Then there are ten or so people who seem personally offended by the fact one can have fun with things they dislike, so frantically ask CA to remove the content they just added.
    oh, the mythical "but i have fun with it" again...

    that it turns Teclis into a quite strong melee fighter, which should be Tyrion's Role, is not important, is it? Why not just make every LL be able to do everyhting well?
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!

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

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

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

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,813
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's the fun police. They patrol games to ensure nobody has fun in ways they don't approve.

    It's the MOBA crowd. They patrol games to ensure everything's dumbed down and simplified so they don't have to think when playing.
    Difference is, nobody was going around the boards shouting "hell CA, give Teclis a frigging monster!". Most people just saw that after CA added it, said "yeah, cool" for half a second, then returned to their business. Then there are ten or so people who seem personally offended by the fact one can have fun with things they dislike, so frantically ask CA to remove the content they just added.
    So most people don't care. They're therefore irrelevant to the debate.

    So why do you?

    It's telling Parrot Apologists can't even come up with any concrete argument for why Teclis on a parrot is a good thing other than some nebulous appeal to "fun". Concrete arguments have been made why this change is detrimental for gameplay, but heeey, doesn't matter because "fun".

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,274

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's the fun police. They patrol games to ensure nobody has fun in ways they don't approve.

    It's the MOBA crowd. They patrol games to ensure everything's dumbed down and simplified so they don't have to think when playing.
    Difference is, nobody was going around the boards shouting "hell CA, give Teclis a frigging monster!". Most people just saw that after CA added it, said "yeah, cool" for half a second, then returned to their business. Then there are ten or so people who seem personally offended by the fact one can have fun with things they dislike, so frantically ask CA to remove the content they just added.
    oh, the mythical "but i have fun with it" again...

    that it turns Teclis into a quite strong melee fighter, which should be Tyrion's Role, is not important, is it? Why not just make every LL be able to do everyhting well?
    See, I don't care at all. I never played a single TW game vanilla for more than a single testing campaign, after Shogun 1 (and that's only because I was a little kid and didn't know how to install mods). So remove it, keep it, who cares. It's not like vanilla mainstream strategy games are ever realistic, or difficult, or well balanced. I just dislike the fun police, the idea that someone comes here and opens a thread specifically to remove some stuff other people may have fun with. It seems extremely unfriendly to me, and a way to take games way too seriously.
Sign In or Register to comment.