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

135

Comments

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 11,018
    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    It has to do with their animations. Because it's the reason they seem to get more hits than their ma suggest.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 9,163
    Xenos7 said:

    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.
    Is calling people with a different opinion the "fun police" all you have to say ?

  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,797
    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 11,018
    I really think the parrot lover squid is very young. Young enough not get what the effects means for gameplay and lore.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 423

    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".
    Some people like the parrot and others do not. Some find it fun and others u fun, that is entirely subjective. How about you find a way to balance it in MP to keep that crowd happy and you keep him unchanged for SP and thereby keeping both sides happy. The mount is added and judging by history, the lords in a similar situation is still unchanged. What could be interpreted is that CA is happy with that direction. You cannot simply remove content they just added. And most likely more foot lords will follow suit eventually getting a monstrous mount.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,375
    edited June 2020

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    Grombrindal has a muhc more powerful mount than the Shard Dragon. And Thorgrim only needs a proper Throne of Power rather than the poor imitation he currently has.


    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!'
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    You mean Griffon? well CA already turned Gelt to Elector Count, somehow, so they might as well.
  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,797
    Tayvar said:

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    You mean Griffon? well CA already turned Gelt to Elector Count, somehow, so they might as well.
    Nah Gelt will get a Dragon. Maybe even a Zombie Dragon per his stint with Necromancy in the End Times.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 11,018
    Emrysor said:

    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".
    Some people like the parrot and others do not. Some find it fun and others u fun, that is entirely subjective. How about you find a way to balance it in MP to keep that crowd happy and you keep him unchanged for SP and thereby keeping both sides happy. The mount is added and judging by history, the lords in a similar situation is still unchanged. What could be interpreted is that CA is happy with that direction. You cannot simply remove content they just added. And most likely more foot lords will follow suit eventually getting a monstrous mount.
    They totally can and should remove mount. The game will be fine. And people will get over it. They have done it in smaller scale.
    Nope not everything needs a mount.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209

    Tayvar said:

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    You mean Griffon? well CA already turned Gelt to Elector Count, somehow, so they might as well.
    Nah Gelt will get a Dragon. Maybe even a Zombie Dragon per his stint with Necromancy in the End Times.
    If Gelt would be able to become a Necromancer in Total War then I am okay with him getting a Zombie Dragon.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271

    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".
    There isn't any concrete argument for playing videogames, you know. It isn't good for your health, they won't get you a degree or a good job or a beautiful girlfriend... but oh, they are fun. Stop taking this stuff so seriously.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,699
    All the talk about giving melee lord monsterous mounts forget the other part of the mage plus monsterous mount combo.

    Yhea the magic part.

    When are we handing out magic to melee lords?

    And at that point characters mean nothing and show little diversity among themselves and all just become this homogeneous blob of just looking different and not much else.

    That is the real issue with giving out monsterous mounts like no tomorrow it makes other characters less interessting and reduces it all to the same thing, till the question comes down to if the lord is a mage or not. And if not well you better get that caster hero or else your playing a disadvantage.


    If monsterous mounts were less powerful and footlord/horse mounted lords more useful it would be great but as long as that isn't the case each and every monster mount they add is just avoiding the issue and trying to circumvent it.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 1,973
    edited June 2020
    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    You mean Griffon? well CA already turned Gelt to Elector Count, somehow, so they might as well.
    Nah Gelt will get a Dragon. Maybe even a Zombie Dragon per his stint with Necromancy in the End Times.
    If Gelt would be able to become a Necromancer in Total War then I am okay with him getting a Zombie Dragon.
    A **** ty amateur who just started Necromancy should not be controlling a dragon.


    At most a Hellsteed named Quicksilver
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209

    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    You mean Griffon? well CA already turned Gelt to Elector Count, somehow, so they might as well.
    Nah Gelt will get a Dragon. Maybe even a Zombie Dragon per his stint with Necromancy in the End Times.
    If Gelt would be able to become a Necromancer in Total War then I am okay with him getting a Zombie Dragon.
    A **** ty amateur who just started Necromancy should not be controlling a dragon.


    At most a Hellsteed named Quicksilver
    Good point, but it's Gelt, we know that Gelt is a fast learner, also Vlad likes his Mask. :)
  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,797

    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    Nah lets just homogenize characters Lets give Gelt a Dragon, Grimgor a Wyvern, Sigvald A Faerie Dragon and Thorgrim, Ungrim and Grombrindal a Shard Dragon mount.
    Total War: Super Smash Bros Monster Mash.

    You mean Griffon? well CA already turned Gelt to Elector Count, somehow, so they might as well.
    Nah Gelt will get a Dragon. Maybe even a Zombie Dragon per his stint with Necromancy in the End Times.
    If Gelt would be able to become a Necromancer in Total War then I am okay with him getting a Zombie Dragon.
    A **** ty amateur who just started Necromancy should not be controlling a dragon.


    At most a Hellsteed named Quicksilver
    Nope he'll get two Dragons now.. Mount Creep for the Mount God!
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • EthorinEthorin Registered Users Posts: 431
    ..."Birb Teclis is a better duelist than Tyrion" people say...

    I thought duelist lords were trash in MP and no one brought them anyway.

    So like... why does dueling capacity even matter?

    In SP Tyrion and Teclis still do different things strategically and have very different campaigns so it's not like they aren't diverse in SP. In MP no one picked Tyrion anyway.

    Like, I can kind of see why people are annoyed that Teclis is suddenly not grounded which apparently matters a ton to some people... but honestly, are people actually picking Teclis because Birb or are they picking Teclis and then going "and I can afford the Birb and flying casters are just better"?

    Like, do you still take Teclis if what you want is healing?

    The thing I see is, "I like casters that fly best because they have easiest time getting to where I need them, Allarielle on an Eagle is flat out better than Teclis on a horse if I expect to be casting spells in wide range of locales even with Teclis' better WoM and arguably better spell list." BUT Teclis is supposed to be the best Caster Lord for the HE, if he's consistently getting dropped in favor of another caster because he lacks mobility then the obvious solution to make him the best Caster Lord again is give him the mobility, and hey, cool new thematical unit, let's make it a mount.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,699
    Ethorin said:

    ..."Birb Teclis is a better duelist than Tyrion" people say...

    I thought duelist lords were trash in MP and no one brought them anyway.

    So like... why does dueling capacity even matter?

    In SP Tyrion and Teclis still do different things strategically and have very different campaigns so it's not like they aren't diverse in SP. In MP no one picked Tyrion anyway.

    Like, I can kind of see why people are annoyed that Teclis is suddenly not grounded which apparently matters a ton to some people... but honestly, are people actually picking Teclis because Birb or are they picking Teclis and then going "and I can afford the Birb and flying casters are just better"?

    Like, do you still take Teclis if what you want is healing?

    The thing I see is, "I like casters that fly best because they have easiest time getting to where I need them, Allarielle on an Eagle is flat out better than Teclis on a horse if I expect to be casting spells in wide range of locales even with Teclis' better WoM and arguably better spell list." BUT Teclis is supposed to be the best Caster Lord for the HE, if he's consistently getting dropped in favor of another caster because he lacks mobility then the obvious solution to make him the best Caster Lord again is give him the mobility, and hey, cool new thematical unit, let's make it a mount.

    Duelist lords are trash in MP when they are groundbound and even Tyrion isn't a bad one since his horse is pretty speedy. People bring Karl and Louen regularly, you don't see Lokhir on the other hand because if you want a lord on a dragon why not go all the way with malekith. A duelist lord automatically means you have to bring a caster because magic is just that important. You pay more and need to track two units one you should keep out of melee and the other you need to engage the correct target with.

    Teclis not being groundbound is exactly and for info it also is with many other casters like Allarielle because they are TOO save and can easily and if that wasn't already bad enough monstrous mounts means they can chew infantry rely quickly.

    As for your last argument.

    Teclis is supposed to be the strongest HE caster, BUT he is also supposed to be SQUISHY and in need of protection.

    Giving him a mount didn't make him a better caster it made him a better lord by giving him all the advantages of a flying monstrous mount reducing the need for his protection. It did not improve his casting ability, that is what the sword of teclis change did.

    You think it a good thing that teclis was brought to Larry standard, but I disagree bringing Larry down to make her less prevalent was the way to go.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209

    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.
    As I said, a lot of plot armor, and in Warhammer one need to be on the power level of Abhorash to not be curb-stomped by a Dragon in a duel, same goes for Mammoth, so CA had got that part right.

    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Abhorash
  • EthorinEthorin Registered Users Posts: 431
    Uagrim said:

    Ethorin said:

    ..."Birb Teclis is a better duelist than Tyrion" people say...

    I thought duelist lords were trash in MP and no one brought them anyway.

    So like... why does dueling capacity even matter?

    In SP Tyrion and Teclis still do different things strategically and have very different campaigns so it's not like they aren't diverse in SP. In MP no one picked Tyrion anyway.

    Like, I can kind of see why people are annoyed that Teclis is suddenly not grounded which apparently matters a ton to some people... but honestly, are people actually picking Teclis because Birb or are they picking Teclis and then going "and I can afford the Birb and flying casters are just better"?

    Like, do you still take Teclis if what you want is healing?

    The thing I see is, "I like casters that fly best because they have easiest time getting to where I need them, Allarielle on an Eagle is flat out better than Teclis on a horse if I expect to be casting spells in wide range of locales even with Teclis' better WoM and arguably better spell list." BUT Teclis is supposed to be the best Caster Lord for the HE, if he's consistently getting dropped in favor of another caster because he lacks mobility then the obvious solution to make him the best Caster Lord again is give him the mobility, and hey, cool new thematical unit, let's make it a mount.

    Duelist lords are trash in MP when they are groundbound and even Tyrion isn't a bad one since his horse is pretty speedy. People bring Karl and Louen regularly, you don't see Lokhir on the other hand because if you want a lord on a dragon why not go all the way with malekith. A duelist lord automatically means you have to bring a caster because magic is just that important. You pay more and need to track two units one you should keep out of melee and the other you need to engage the correct target with.

    Teclis not being groundbound is exactly and for info it also is with many other casters like Allarielle because they are TOO save and can easily and if that wasn't already bad enough monstrous mounts means they can chew infantry rely quickly.

    As for your last argument.

    Teclis is supposed to be the strongest HE caster, BUT he is also supposed to be SQUISHY and in need of protection.

    Giving him a mount didn't make him a better caster it made him a better lord by giving him all the advantages of a flying monstrous mount reducing the need for his protection. It did not improve his casting ability, that is what the sword of teclis change did.

    You think it a good thing that teclis was brought to Larry standard, but I disagree bringing Larry down to make her less prevalent was the way to go.
    Cool... did anyone bring Tyrion in MP?

    And... you do realize you entirely ignored my point about mobility being useful in and of itself for caster lords?

    As for nerfing Allarielle, ok, how?
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295
    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggist problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda trown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as mutch cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295
    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
    who cares what happens on other peoples single player campaign.
    that is just kinda bs tbh. i get the multiplayer aspect cause you have to deal an unbalance which isnt great in any multiplayer game.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
    Who cares what happens on other peoples single player campaign.
    that is just kinda bs tbh. I get the multiplayer aspect cause you have to deal an unbalance which isn't great in any multiplayer game.
    Who care if entrepreneur was a very OP ability? if a player can't counter it then it's a AI breaker too.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,810
    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
    who cares what happens on other peoples single player campaign.
    that is just kinda bs tbh. i get the multiplayer aspect cause you have to deal an unbalance which isnt great in any multiplayer game.
    Still utter bull.
    Teclis getting ruined is happening in SP as much as in MP. In SP he now has an optimal mount that's an autopick which dumbs his campaign down considerably. And you will meet Teclis cruising around on his idiotic parrot if you ever get to him.

    CA broke what didn't need fixing and now needs actual fixing.


  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295
    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
    Who cares what happens on other peoples single player campaign.
    that is just kinda bs tbh. I get the multiplayer aspect cause you have to deal an unbalance which isn't great in any multiplayer game.
    Who care if entrepreneur was a very OP ability? if a player can't counter it then it's a AI breaker too.
    actually agreed. entrepreneur wasn't that mutch of a problem honestly. there are way worse cheese mechanics in the game tbh.when you can actually abuse it you were actually already in the mid to late game to make it actually profitable. do think doomstack meta is more harmfull for the game then **** like entrepreneur or incinerary or howevery you write it.

    and for SP, you know you CAN choose not to pick the phoenix if you dislike him having it. but you still take it so who is in the wrong then you or CA? sorry if you abuse a mechanic in the game that isn't neccercary it is on you not on CA. take your own responsablity jesus
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    edited June 2020
    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
    Who cares what happens on other peoples single player campaign.
    that is just kinda bs tbh. I get the multiplayer aspect cause you have to deal an unbalance which isn't great in any multiplayer game.
    Who care if entrepreneur was a very OP ability? if a player can't counter it then it's a AI breaker too.
    actually agreed. entrepreneur wasn't that mutch of a problem honestly. there are way worse cheese mechanics in the game tbh.when you can actually abuse it you were actually already in the mid to late game to make it actually profitable. do think doomstack meta is more harmfull for the game then **** like entrepreneur or incinerary or howevery you write it.

    and for SP, you know you CAN choose not to pick the phoenix if you dislike him having it. but you still take it so who is in the wrong then you or CA? sorry if you abuse a mechanic in the game that isn't neccercary it is on you not on CA. take your own responsablity jesus
    You call it abusing, we call it playing efficiently, why players should handicap themselves? it's CA who should fix OP abilities, not the players, if you see a "I win button", would you not use it?
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295
    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    Tayvar said:

    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).
    It's the game fault when spamming elite units is the most efficient way to play in the campaign.
    Not for MP. and there lies the biggest problem for the most forumusers complaining about them. in campaign balance is kinda thrown out of the window anyway with buffs on buffs on certain units and factions while other faction have way less buffs.
    honestly more mounts in campaign don't matter as much cause you can choose not to use them and it is not that you fight the same enemy LL with the same army every single time( can happen but then you almost killed the faction off anyway)
    Yes for multiplayer campaign, not for custom battles, both multiplayer and singleplayer. :)
    Who cares what happens on other peoples single player campaign.
    that is just kinda bs tbh. I get the multiplayer aspect cause you have to deal an unbalance which isn't great in any multiplayer game.
    Who care if entrepreneur was a very OP ability? if a player can't counter it then it's a AI breaker too.
    actually agreed. entrepreneur wasn't that mutch of a problem honestly. there are way worse cheese mechanics in the game tbh.when you can actually abuse it you were actually already in the mid to late game to make it actually profitable. do think doomstack meta is more harmfull for the game then **** like entrepreneur or incinerary or howevery you write it.

    and for SP, you know you CAN choose not to pick the phoenix if you dislike him having it. but you still take it so who is in the wrong then you or CA? sorry if you abuse a mechanic in the game that isn't neccercary it is on you not on CA. take your own responsablity jesus
    You call it abusing, we call it playing efficiently, why player should handicap themselves? it's CA who should fix OP abilities, not the players, if you see a "I win button", would you not use it?
    if you just abuse the i win button. you should cry about it being to strong and makes it to easy. you have an option making it to easy for people who are just bad and need it to win games.
    MOST games have these mechanics in the games already to make the plebs feel like they are good at the game.
    if you win a legendary campaign just by cheesing you aren't good by any means.
    just play against a player who doesnt do that in MP and see how good you are.
    there is a reason why a cheeselord like legend of total war doesn't play MP, cause he will get stomped and he doesn't want to hurt his ego.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,343
    I don't. Doing something in single player because it's there, is **** ****. You deserve it if you're a masochistic bastard and torture yourself on purpose.

    The player doesn't control the AI however, and the AI participates in monster mount madness 100% of the time. So whether we choose to have our stupidly powerful ultimate caster hero on a broke ass monster mount he's not physically capable of riding or not, we do have to put up with the AI always using it.
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295
    psychoak said:

    I don't. Doing something in single player because it's there, is **** ****. You deserve it if you're a masochistic bastard and torture yourself on purpose.

    The player doesn't control the AI however, and the AI participates in monster mount madness 100% of the time. So whether we choose to have our stupidly powerful ultimate caster hero on a broke ass monster mount he's not physically capable of riding or not, we do have to put up with the AI always using it.

    Ye cause AI battles are so damn hard.
    AI is so smart and always utilize units so damn well.


    o wait nvm
Sign In or Register to comment.