Arbiter10 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Ok, so here are some of my thoughts regarding the changes to the game and to Crusaders specifically: -I love how it seems to be more viable to have every elite slot filled and to have mages and clerics loaded with a full complement of spells. -I love how our already potent healing abilities have been amplified even more with the Healer SA being so prolific now. I admit I did feel a little gipped when all of the merc clerics with Healer started popping up. Now even Sir Conlan has it. This is awesome! -I love how we now have the most powerful cavalry in the game: the Lion's Lancers. Cavalry as a whole was vastly improved, but it's insane just how powerful these guys are now! In the game I played yesterday, these guys, along with Sir Damon, were still tearing things apart with 3 points of damage each! They've lost Smite (Evil) since the preview card that was released a week or two ago and I was looking forward to them having it from a fluff perspective, but it's not a big loss. -Interesting how our captains seem to be less powerful relatively speaking. It's a little weird that some of our sergeants are more expensive than some of our captains, but this isn't a negative, just something to get used to. In particular, I'm thinking about how Lord Ironraven isn't quite as special as he used to be (since First Strike is fairly common and not nearly as powerful as it was). Also, he's no longer unique. Overall, I think the changes are fantastic and Warlord is now closer than ever to the game that I was hoping it would be when I first got into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbdog Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I love the dogs. Is Garr still a dog leader if leading dogs, or only a solo now? I am assuming only a solo now, cause otherwise it would have been a leader with outrider. Garr only being a solo makes his value go down to me. Disable only disables a single MA, and with his low DV, he wont survive long alone to use it. Love all the solos. Wish they could stil convert, but either way I really like each one of them. I really like the changes to trencher and reach, which is basically a staple in the new crusader foot soldier outlook. Crusader cavalry... The only question is, how many can you cram in your army and what are you willing to give up to have them. Clerics. Its a contradiction here. I really like the increased number of healers. Overall I like the layout of clerics in the faction. But, I have to admit I was very disapointed to find out that Nefsokar has 4 clerics of CP 7+ and the Crusaders only have 2. Archers are about the same as before in terms of not having a very high RAV, but at least now they also dont have a very high cost, which makes them worth it. The leaders, for the most part I like them all. Some have changed dramatically, but each fits its roll pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbiter10 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hey, Stubb, you raised a couple of points that had been floating around my mind but that I had forgotten when I was writing my last post. I agree about Garr - it's a shame he can't be a leader anymore . Having him be an elite with Outrider would have been good rather than just a solo, but oh well. I'm not going to harp about something this small when practically all of the new stuff is as good as it is. Regarding the archers, I agree they're still nothing spectacular, but that's ok. Ranged attacks are not what the Crusaders as a faction are about, and while our archers are still bottom-rung, they are by no means useless and overpriced anymore. They did a great job of taking down a few bull orc berzerkers in my game yesterday. I guess the Crusaders no longer have the "super clerics" aspect as part of their faction identity (this having been claimed by the Nefsokar), but I'm ok with this. As far as healing goes, we're still the best at that. Plus, I love the cavalry so much and I'm thrilled that the Lion's Lancers are now more powerful than the Nefsokar lancers. Crusader cavalry... The only question is, how many can you cram in your army and what are you willing to give up to have them. Actually, the next thing I want to try is an almost all-cavalry army led by Lady Jehanne with a troop of archers for support. I've dreamed about using a cavalry-heavy army since the Crusader cavalry first appeared, but it just wasn't viable under 1.2 rules. With this update, it certainly seems like it would have a decent chance of being competetive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushmaster Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I love all the new changes the only thing that has miffed me is the Mercy/Conversion rule . I would have liked to see at least Elites also able to convert , oh well . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storminator Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I love all the new changes the only thind that has miffed me is the Mercy/Conversion rule . I would have liked to see atleast Elites also able to convert , oh well . I'm making a general statement here; I'm not just talking to you BM: I'ts not 'oh well,' it's still in beta! Play some games, write up some meaningful feedback, and send it to EE. The new Mercy/Conversion rules are a big change from closed beta, and should be looked at long and hard. If it just doesn't work, say so where it matters (EE's email). PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengar Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Just an aside, but I was pleased to see Kristi get her 2nd melee attack. It always bugged me she carried that 2nd sword for nothing! But man! No innate Holy Burst The healer SA helps a bit, but damaging those undead as she healed was a sweet effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbdog Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Well, she can have it still, just not innate anymore. Looks like most of the innate stuff went away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengar Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I forgot to ask, was she Cleric 3/14 before? She's the only one in the game now (according to the data card search @ WarlordHQ. And I forgot to mention the sweet CP8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbiter10 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Yes, she was Cleric 3/14 before. At first, I was a little disappointed that she lost Holy Burst as an innate, but I think she's better off now. Having that spell as an innate made her very expensive; now she's the 2nd cheapest warlord in the game. With Cleric 3/14, she can take this spell a maximum of four times, which unless you're playing a huge game, is probably more than suficient. Plus, Holy Burst is even better than it was because it damages enemies now instead of healing them. So, overall, the Kristianna-Holy Burst combo is more effective than it was in the past. Oh yeah, she even has her second elite slot now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castlebuilder Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Just an aside, but I was pleased to see Kristi get her 2nd melee attack. It always bugged me she carried that 2nd sword for nothing! But man! No innate Holy Burst The healer SA helps a bit, but damaging those undead as she healed was a sweet effect. Actually, she carried two swords because she is so clumsy and tends to break things. It's so bad that her page carries a third sword for her........ Or was it bacause she has a sword fetish...... Anybodys guess I suppose. Castlebuilder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengar Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Just an aside, but I was pleased to see Kristi get her 2nd melee attack. It always bugged me she carried that 2nd sword for nothing! But man! No innate Holy Burst The healer SA helps a bit, but damaging those undead as she healed was a sweet effect. Actually, she carried two swords because she is so clumsy and tends to break things. It's so bad that her page carries a third sword for her........ Or was it bacause she has a sword fetish...... Anybodys guess I suppose. Castlebuilder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbiter10 Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 What are everyone's thoughts on the Templar Knights compared to the Unforgiven now that the Breaker SA is no more? Before the Beta, there was a clear distinction between the two and it was a real decision trying to determine when to use the Unforgiven. Now, they are so similar to me that I don't think it really makes a huge difference whether you take one or the other. Essentially, the Knights are harder to crack open with their one point more of DV and Deflect/1, but the Unforgiven hit harder with their MAV 6 vs. MAV 4. Personally, I think I'll choose the Unforgiven most of the time because I tend to prefer a better offense and their DV 11 is still respectable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushmaster Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Since the demise of the SA volley I find the the Knights are much better as shields against ranged attacks . I used to construct units with a 2 to 1 ratio of Knights to Ironspines , now its 1 to 1 to 1 : Knight , Unforgiven , Ironspine . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakhak Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 What are everyone's thoughts on the Templar Knights compared to the Unforgiven now that the Breaker SA is no more? Before the Beta, there was a clear distinction between the two and it was a real decision trying to determine when to use the Unforgiven. Now, they are so similar to me that I don't think it really makes a huge difference whether you take one or the other. Essentially, the Knights are harder to crack open with their one point more of DV and Deflect/1, but the Unforgiven hit harder with their MAV 6 vs. MAV 4. Personally, I think I'll choose the Unforgiven most of the time because I tend to prefer a better offense and their DV 11 is still respectable. Usually I'm against models being that similar, but I make an exception for the Unforgiven and the Knights. Fluff wise this similarity makes sense and I like that it feels incorporated into the game. Unforgive are trained just like knights, but they fight without their shield until they reclaim their honor. So to me it makes sense that they are so similar... that's just my .02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbiter10 Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Fluff wise this similarity makes sense and I like that it feels incorporated into the game. Unforgive are trained just like knights, but they fight without their shield until they reclaim their honor. So to me it makes sense that they are so similar. This makes perfect sense. Funny thing is, I'm usually a stickler for seeing if the fluff and actual stats match, so I don't know why this didn't occur to me. This makes me like the fact that they are so similar, even if gameplay-wise there isn't a lot of difference between them. Come to think of it, it always did bug me that knights had Tough while the Unforgiven didn't since, as you point out, the Unforgiven are knights as well. I'm glad that this has been fixed too. Now if we could just figure out why those Templar Knights who become Justicars forget how to fight in formation (i.e., lose Trencher) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.