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

124

Comments

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,209
    edited June 2020
    Artjuh90 said:

    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 doesn't 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.
    Legend of total war find custom battles boring, and he play head to head campaigns, you want real challenge? play a head to head campaigns, and cheese abilities should be fixed by CA. You think that you are a good player? that's why you don't want CA to fix cheese abilities?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,718
    edited June 2020
    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!

  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    Ye cause dragons on all fire mages make sense.
    all skaven warlords having a bonebreaker,
    all norscan warlords having a mamoth,
    manticore for all beastmaster,
    carnosaur for all saurus lords and stegadons for skinks

    mate that part has long time sailed my friend. and there where HE riding phoenix in the lore + gamesworkshop also agreed to have it in the game cause nothing get's in without their premission. you know the guys who make the lore. if they would release a armybook tomorrow with teclis on a arcane phoenix would it still be not ok or is everything good then?
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 419

    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.

    Man, in MP Teclis might be op, but in campaign he is nerfed. Teclis was very good because he could globally reduce the spell cost on all magic users by 2.they removed this. Regarding campaign this is more op then even giving him a star dragon with 50% wardsave Ontop. Teclis can only be at one place once and you will never lose a battle with him after he can get the parrot anyway, if you do not play stupid of course. On the positive side it is a nuisance playing him now, very fun compared to the old version. But for legendary campaign I still prefer unne4fed manifold of sorcerery it what it is called. However he is far from RUINED in campaign. Parrot should stay untill they start removing mounts from other lords. Very unfair to just take the parrot away.

    You can choose not to give money to a homeless person, but if you demand the money back after you gave them you kinda make yourself look like a fool.
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 419
    Artjuh90 said:

    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.
    Spoken by a guy that will rage quit if you go against legend in a campaign, then complain on the forum that he cheated or cheesed. Judging by his MP apm from W1 which is on YouTube I think he will out micro your a$$.
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,295
    Emrysor said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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.
    Spoken by a guy that will rage quit if you go against legend in a campaign, then complain on the forum that he cheated or cheesed. Judging by his MP apm from W1 which is on YouTube I think he will out micro your a$$.
    haven't played him in MP in campaign so not sure wtf you are talking about. and no the campaign isn't balanced at all in any way or shape so don't pretend that it is. and no he will not micro my ass of cause hes not even that good. not that i am the best player in MP at all but his micro isnt that good either.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 24,762
    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.
    I apologize in for everything I say till around 29/04
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,694
    edited June 2020
    Tayvar said:

    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

    Gotrek went up against things worse then dragons and won.
    Ethorin said:



    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?

    People don't bring Tyrion because Larry and Teclis are just too good in order to forsake them for a decent lord. Not to mention he doesn't do it for the standard SEM spam build of the HE.

    Yes mobility is good for a caster lord but it goes massively against teclis theme of being vunerable, he isn't vunerable at all on his pigeon. I also addressed this in the fact that it makes him a better lord (at least for a meta perspective) but didn't improve his casting at all.

    As for nerfign larry and I would start with the eagle and star, both are pretty much the most prevalent threw everything. Eagle is to save because the high elves can deal with almost every airforce in the game and it like many flying mounts has an easy time avoiding anything that can threaten it.

    Same problem with teclis 120 speed is just too much because it makes him unasailable unless he chooses too.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 10,937

    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.

    Not really. Most now are not. But they certainly require complete different playstyle.

    Horse lords are currently the weakest lords.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    edited June 2020

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,694

    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.

    Not really. Most now are not. But they certainly require complete different playstyle.

    Horse lords are currently the weakest lords.
    Most are not?

    Most Lords have mounts and are brought on them, the only ones that don't are rarely brought.

    Dwarf lord choices are the perfect example the only ones you bring give you utility against SEM Rune Lord and Grombrindal. Same with the skaven roster you bring the casters you don't bring queek or tretch.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 1,956
    edited June 2020

    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.

    Splendid, but Teclis isn't a footlord as he's always had his horse option. Yet he too got an unnecessarily OP flying mount.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 10,937
    Uagrim said:

    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.

    Not really. Most now are not. But they certainly require complete different playstyle.

    Horse lords are currently the weakest lords.
    Most are not?

    Most Lords have mounts and are brought on them, the only ones that don't are rarely brought.

    Dwarf lord choices are the perfect example the only ones you bring give you utility against SEM Rune Lord and Grombrindal. Same with the skaven roster you bring the casters you don't bring queek or tretch.
    Ok i probably need bit more context right.
    Lords that have mounts are kind of balanced for their higest tier mounts.
    So without their mount they are weak.
    There are couple exceptions example boris who in certain matchups better on pegues.
    And noctillus on his colossus ( this one is mostly my opinion but i have never lost match up where i actually tried to win aka not meme vs nocti boi and his mount, )

    Now to the two lords that you mentioned i think we had this conversation before , and after that tested my idea about them in quick battles( yes played skaven and it made me feel bad, i do not like skaven)
    And neither of them work with meta builds.
    But if you go off meta meaning not skyre and eshin units they work really well.
    At least worked well in my testing. Again many people at this point don't even consider those builds because how effective skyre and eshin are but i suggest testing them out without going deep in those units.
    If you want i can help theory craft some builds.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,694

    Uagrim said:

    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.

    Not really. Most now are not. But they certainly require complete different playstyle.

    Horse lords are currently the weakest lords.
    Most are not?

    Most Lords have mounts and are brought on them, the only ones that don't are rarely brought.

    Dwarf lord choices are the perfect example the only ones you bring give you utility against SEM Rune Lord and Grombrindal. Same with the skaven roster you bring the casters you don't bring queek or tretch.
    Ok i probably need bit more context right.
    Lords that have mounts are kind of balanced for their higest tier mounts.
    So without their mount they are weak.
    There are couple exceptions example boris who in certain matchups better on pegues.
    And noctillus on his colossus ( this one is mostly my opinion but i have never lost match up where i actually tried to win aka not meme vs nocti boi and his mount, )

    Now to the two lords that you mentioned i think we had this conversation before , and after that tested my idea about them in quick battles( yes played skaven and it made me feel bad, i do not like skaven)
    And neither of them work with meta builds.
    But if you go off meta meaning not skyre and eshin units they work really well.
    At least worked well in my testing. Again many people at this point don't even consider those builds because how effective skyre and eshin are but i suggest testing them out without going deep in those units.
    If you want i can help theory craft some builds.
    True lower level mounts are often not brought. Might have something with the AP they only gain on their end game mount and the fear&terror that come with them.

    But yhea you are on to something with how they are only balanced around their big mount. Which is kinda understandable because the balance is getting rely complex at this point but shouldn't be quiet the case. To come back to teclis he was good on a horse vulnerable in melee but capable of getting away from most things that could catch him.

    Might also be also that SE are far more important then line units specifically melee ones which mainly serf to protect the backline and keep things busy while the ranged units and SE decide the fight.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 10,937
    Uagrim said:

    Uagrim said:

    Foot lords are weak. That's the problem.

    Not really. Most now are not. But they certainly require complete different playstyle.

    Horse lords are currently the weakest lords.
    Most are not?

    Most Lords have mounts and are brought on them, the only ones that don't are rarely brought.

    Dwarf lord choices are the perfect example the only ones you bring give you utility against SEM Rune Lord and Grombrindal. Same with the skaven roster you bring the casters you don't bring queek or tretch.
    Ok i probably need bit more context right.
    Lords that have mounts are kind of balanced for their higest tier mounts.
    So without their mount they are weak.
    There are couple exceptions example boris who in certain matchups better on pegues.
    And noctillus on his colossus ( this one is mostly my opinion but i have never lost match up where i actually tried to win aka not meme vs nocti boi and his mount, )

    Now to the two lords that you mentioned i think we had this conversation before , and after that tested my idea about them in quick battles( yes played skaven and it made me feel bad, i do not like skaven)
    And neither of them work with meta builds.
    But if you go off meta meaning not skyre and eshin units they work really well.
    At least worked well in my testing. Again many people at this point don't even consider those builds because how effective skyre and eshin are but i suggest testing them out without going deep in those units.
    If you want i can help theory craft some builds.
    True lower level mounts are often not brought. Might have something with the AP they only gain on their end game mount and the fear&terror that come with them.

    But yhea you are on to something with how they are only balanced around their big mount. Which is kinda understandable because the balance is getting rely complex at this point but shouldn't be quiet the case. To come back to teclis he was good on a horse vulnerable in melee but capable of getting away from most things that could catch him.

    Might also be also that SE are far more important then line units specifically melee ones which mainly serf to protect the backline and keep things busy while the ranged units and SE decide the fight.
    It comes down play style honestly because i have to admit that everyone who plays mp kind of have builds they like.

    Now to teclis on his horse he had good mobility he was brought for his synergy with kindle flame nets and regrowth along with sisters and a dragons.
    Now **** dragons he got his own mount. Which is just as strong as a star dragon minus the breath attack but much more tanky.
    And the sad thing is you counter him the same way you counter his brother its just kill every thing else except the lord.
    At this point give tyrion magic and be done with it.

    That mount was never needed, there are some lords who could use mount or rework. But teclis was not the one. Plus it kind of took away from the dudes uniqueness.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,760
    This is not even debatable, the rainbow parrot needs to go!

    Adding it was a mistake, but hey mistakes happen. So it’s all good, if only CA would fix it and remove it.

    Wulfrik, Aranessa and Lokhir also need their mounts removed. These are the worst examples because these mounts completely destroy the character.

    After that, CA should also remove Settras Cat, Luthors Bat, Alarielles Bird and Cylostras Crab.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    ArneSo said:

    This is not even debatable, the rainbow parrot needs to go!

    Adding it was a mistake, but hey mistakes happen. So it’s all good, if only CA would fix it and remove it.

    Wulfrik, Aranessa and Lokhir also need their mounts removed. These are the worst examples because these mounts completely destroy the character.

    After that, CA should also remove Settras Cat, Luthors Bat, Alarielles Bird and Cylostras Crab.

    Yeah, really great marketing idea to be known as the gaming company that deletes the stuff they just sold it. You folks are hilarious. It'll never happen.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,760
    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,760
    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    This is not even debatable, the rainbow parrot needs to go!

    Adding it was a mistake, but hey mistakes happen. So it’s all good, if only CA would fix it and remove it.

    Wulfrik, Aranessa and Lokhir also need their mounts removed. These are the worst examples because these mounts completely destroy the character.

    After that, CA should also remove Settras Cat, Luthors Bat, Alarielles Bird and Cylostras Crab.

    Yeah, really great marketing idea to be known as the gaming company that deletes the stuff they just sold it. You folks are hilarious. It'll never happen.
    Umm I never paid for the Parrot or Lokhirs Dragon. I actually paid for a loreful presentation of Teclis, so the Parrot is not what I paid for. adding it was a mistake so CA should remove it. Monster mounts for everyone devalued and destroys the game.

    You actually have any valid arguments or are you just repeating the same phrase over and over again? (Honest question)

    Giving away monster mounts to characters like Wulfrik, Lokhir, Aranessa, Settra, Teclis and Luthor Harkon was a mistake. Usually mistakes should be fixed and solved.

    Something like:

    „Hey lads we realised that giving monster mounts to everyone and their grandparents was a mistake. We thought it was fun back then, but realised that it was a bad design decision and doesn’t reflect the character. So we came to the conclusion that we have to remove certain monster mounts, but don’t worry, instead of just removing certain mounts, we will fix footlords as a compensation to make them more viable.“

    With something like this, nobody would really complain. Most casual players don’t care about it anyways and would take it with a shrug and call it a day.

    But whatever, I assume you are one of those „Lokhir needs a Karybdis mount“ guys, aren’t you?
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,760
    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    This is not even debatable, the rainbow parrot needs to go!

    Adding it was a mistake, but hey mistakes happen. So it’s all good, if only CA would fix it and remove it.

    Wulfrik, Aranessa and Lokhir also need their mounts removed. These are the worst examples because these mounts completely destroy the character.

    After that, CA should also remove Settras Cat, Luthors Bat, Alarielles Bird and Cylostras Crab.

    Yeah, really great marketing idea to be known as the gaming company that deletes the stuff they just sold it. You folks are hilarious. It'll never happen.
    Umm I never paid for the Parrot or Lokhirs Dragon. I actually paid for a loreful presentation of Teclis, so the Parrot is not what I paid for. adding it was a mistake so CA should remove it. Monster mounts for everyone devalued and destroys the game.

    You actually have any valid arguments or are you just repeating the same phrase over and over again? (Honest question)

    Giving away monster mounts to characters like Wulfrik, Lokhir, Aranessa, Settra, Teclis and Luthor Harkon was a mistake. Usually mistakes should be fixed and solved.

    Something like:

    „Hey lads we realised that giving monster mounts to everyone and their grandparents was a mistake. We thought it was fun back then, but realised that it was a bad design decision and doesn’t reflect the character. So we came to the conclusion that we have to remove certain monster mounts, but don’t worry, instead of just removing certain mounts, we will fix footlords as a compensation to make them more viable.“

    With something like this, nobody would really complain. Most casual players don’t care about it anyways and would take it with a shrug and call it a day.

    But whatever, I assume you are one of those „Lokhir needs a Karybdis mount“ guys, aren’t you?
    You were talking about Wulfrik, Aranessa, Luthor... those are DLC characters, you know. People purchased them as advertised.

    And my argument is that this little sit-in is beyond ridiculous. I remember you same ten guys shouting against the kill faction ability of Snikch. Did it work? Yeah, like a charm... and that was a very simple mechanic in programming terms, really, just a script and an icon. Here, CA actually made animations for characters on mounts. Animations are expensive.

    This isn't some grognard wargame where ten angry hardcore fans can influence development. This is a game with over a million players. Most of them don't care one bit about TT or lore purity. They just want to have fun with cool stuff. And you're asking CA to remove things they, as devs, spent money to add, and that players spent money to buy. Imagine the reaction from people who don't read our little boards, aka the vast majority of people: "hey, were is my monster mount? Why are you removing stuff from my game?"

    If you think they'll ever consider doing that you need a reality check asap.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nah, they shouldn't. Really, they should give mounts to everyone because it's cool. But it's not like this debate will amount to anything. CA already decided, they won't remove things from DLC. That's not even an option.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,718
    edited June 2020
    And for the next grand VISION OF CA, Tyrion will get Lore of Life, planted on a Star Dragon and Sunfang will be changed to boost his magic abilities instead. Because they only know how to make lords FUUUUUUUUUUUUN by making them all the same.


    CA will make all mages into brawlers and then turn all brawlers into mages, so everyone can have everything served on a silver platter, with no individuality or idiosyncrasies. Just like the MOBA crowd wants it.

  • Cadia101Cadia101 Registered Users Posts: 1,316
    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nah, they shouldn't. Really, they should give mounts to everyone because it's cool. But it's not like this debate will amount to anything. CA already decided, they won't remove things from DLC. That's not even an option.
    When « cool » additions make the game less interesting and ruin caracters uniqueness it isn’t fun.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,760
    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nah, they shouldn't. Really, they should give mounts to everyone because it's cool. But it's not like this debate will amount to anything. CA already decided, they won't remove things from DLC. That's not even an option.
    Okay then CA should give Vlad a modern day real world tank because that would be so much fun.

    Or even better, let’s mix different fantasy settings and give Archaon a Balrok Mount because that would be FUUUUUN.

    I also really like the idea of an AT-AT Mount for all Lords and AT-ST for heroes. Why? Because of FUUUUUN.

    Tyrion should also be changed and get a Lazer sword and magic because of FUUUUUUUN.

    Markus Wulfhart should get a Jetpack and a Rocket Launcher because of FUUUUUUN.

    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    Cadia101 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nah, they shouldn't. Really, they should give mounts to everyone because it's cool. But it's not like this debate will amount to anything. CA already decided, they won't remove things from DLC. That's not even an option.
    When « cool » additions make the game less interesting and ruin caracters uniqueness it isn’t fun.
    I find it more interesting this way. That's the wonder of opinions, I guess, everybody can have one.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,271
    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nah, they shouldn't. Really, they should give mounts to everyone because it's cool. But it's not like this debate will amount to anything. CA already decided, they won't remove things from DLC. That's not even an option.
    Okay then CA should give Vlad a modern day real world tank because that would be so much fun.

    Or even better, let’s mix different fantasy settings and give Archaon a Balrok Mount because that would be FUUUUUN.

    I also really like the idea of an AT-AT Mount for all Lords and AT-ST for heroes. Why? Because of FUUUUUN.

    Tyrion should also be changed and get a Lazer sword and magic because of FUUUUUUUN.

    Markus Wulfhart should get a Jetpack and a Rocket Launcher because of FUUUUUUN.

    Sure, because giving a magic high elf-aligned intelligent beast as a mount to a high elf wizard is exactly like giving a tank to a vampire. Please.
  • GobsmakaGobsmaka Registered Users Posts: 282
    I'm not against mounts, I'm against sameness. Telis on the parrot removes his flaw, Wulfric on a mammoth goes against everything the game tells you he is, not some old army book this game it makes no sense.

    Once every lord and lady is mounted where do you go next? Already we are seeing some grim examples of lords with expanded magic. How long until the rule of cool calls for Tyrion, Franz or Grimgor to get spell trees to keep up with mounted casters? Scary thought isn't it?

    The reason I love this game is every campaign is different, variety in lords is apart of that as much as race/faction mechanics and starting location.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 9,065
    Xenos7 said:

    Cadia101 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    ArneSo said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Artjuh90 said:

    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
    Man, are you pretending to be that oblivious?

    Some people actually give a damn about the setting! Seeing Teclis, who has a very defined character and abilities on a damn monster parrot is about as dumb as having Karl Franz mount a Taun Taun and swinging a lightsaber around while mumbling about the Force, it's totally off!
    You folks really have to explain me why it is so weird that Teclis has bound an Arcane Phoenix and rides it in battle. For the life of me, I can't understand. Does he hate birds? Is he allergic to feathers? Because it looks quite plausible to me that a strong mage rides a strong beast known to be an incarnation of magic.
    It’s unloreful and makes no sense.

    If we get Tec on a Phoenix what will be next? Orion on a Forest Dragon? Because of „reasons“?

    Or Skarsnik on an Arachnarok Spider?

    Malus on a Hydra?

    Nakai on a Dreadsaurian?

    Tiktacto on an ancient Salamander?

    These mounts make no sense and were never a thing on TT and in the lore. Teclis simply is not able to ride a Phoenix. He is a super powerful Mage but very very fragile. The parrot ruined him just like the Mammoth ruined Wulfrik.

    Fancy monster mounts should be something special and very rare. Not everyone and their grandparents should have them.

    For generic Lords it is different. Since these are „no names“ the player is able to customise them. So having Mount options makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense for Legendary Characters like Teclis, Lokhir and Wulfhart. These characters are already well defined and their huge monster mounts simply don’t fit.
    Wanna bet they'll never remove this stuff?
    But they should! And that’s exactly the point. Right now no character is save from being destroyed with ridiculous over the top monster mounts so CA needs to stop with that „giant mounts for everyone“ policy.

    So who will be the next victim?

    What ridiculous mount option will be next?

    A Dragon for Belegar?
    A Steamtank for Markus?
    A Hellpit abomination for Queek?

    No character is save and CA has to stop with that bs.
    Nah, they shouldn't. Really, they should give mounts to everyone because it's cool. But it's not like this debate will amount to anything. CA already decided, they won't remove things from DLC. That's not even an option.
    When « cool » additions make the game less interesting and ruin caracters uniqueness it isn’t fun.
    I find it more interesting this way. That's the wonder of opinions, I guess, everybody can have one.
    Oh no if a lord doesn't have a stupidly OP mount the game is not fun, how will I recover.
Sign In or Register to comment.