Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » BattleLore - English » maybe to powerful
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Posts: 266
Registered:
August 2005
Re:maybe to powerful Wed, 29 August 2007 21:41
cebalrai wrote on Wed, 29 August 2007 14:32

I've personally never been a big fan of the L3 Cleric/L3 Commander, although it's effective. L3 Cleric/L2 Commander plus a L1 Wiz or rogue is the way to go I think.

The cleric deck simply has so many more level-scaling cards than the other decks that it's hard not to justify stacking multiple levels of it. Compare that to the warrior with almost no cards that take your warrior level into consideration...


I agree putting more than one level into Warrior makes no sense. But, I propose putting one level there makes a LOT of sense. The Warrior has so many nice cards that are very precisely targeted, and can really give you a slight edge exactly when and where you need it. It also give at-cost access to Assault, possibly the best Lore card in the game. No matter what terrain is available, having all your units attack at +1 die is useful.

I also agree with your proposal to put one level in Wizard. Wizard gives at-cost access to Fireball, which can be crucial against creatures and other pesky unit types.

The Rogue actually has 5 level-dependent spells (only 2 less than the Cleric). His spells seem a little more situational (like the Cleric's), but I still take him some of the time.

So, one level in Wizard and Warrior, plus 3 in Cleric, only leaves one for Commander. We both agree this isn't a good thing. Lately I've been taking a L2 Cleric when I take one at all. That allows me to cover two other Lore Masters and still have a L2 Commander. That means there's only a maximum of 8 out-of-character cards in the deck.

Also, once some of the cooler, higher-level creatures come out, players will want to allocate more levels to creatures. That leaves less and less levels to assign to Lore Masters, including the Cleric.

In summary, I agree if you're going to have a Cleric, go with at least L2. However, a L3 anybody starts to put too many holes in the War Council. Just my 2-cents on War Council.
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:maybe to powerful Wed, 29 August 2007 23:29
One level in warrior? Why? Smile

Warrior is clearly the least popular loremaster, meaning you're likely looking at limited warrior cards.

Also, Assault doesn't scale to level. You can just pay 3 more lore and have the same exact assault at level 0 as you can at level 3.

A level of cleric where the cards regularly take advantage of level is just much more valuable.

Hopefully DoW will improve this weird scaling/non-scaling thing in future expansions...
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Thu, 30 August 2007 04:59
mvettemagred wrote on Wed, 29 August 2007 13:41



I agree putting more than one level into Warrior makes no sense.


Sorry, but couldn't let this comment pass Wink In CtA, King's Allies can be a very powerful card when coupled with two red banner cavalry. Or one if you're feeling lucky Wink And, Cry Havoc and Berserk, while only two cards, are very powerful when played by a l3 warrior.
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:maybe to powerful Thu, 30 August 2007 14:04
Yeah my bad not worthless. Just not as useful as levels of other loremasters since hardly any cards scale. What is it, seven scaling cards for the cleric and two for warrior? Smile

Toddrew, are you really comparing cry havoc to the cleric nuke cards? Smile They're in a whole other league than anything in the warrior deck.

Not to mention they're cheaper...

I've played a L3 warrior before, just for fun. But it ended up not being fun. My warrior levels were never referenced by my warrior lore cards so it felt useless. I had 0's in my lore council making a lot of spells a pain to cast, for no payoff at all.

      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Posts: 266
Registered:
August 2005
Re:maybe to powerful Thu, 30 August 2007 16:52
For some reason, my buddy and I both love the Warrior at L1. I haven't spent the time to perform a detailed cost/benefit analysis of all the Lore cards, but the Warrior just seems to have the right mix of offensive and defensive cards, and many of them are cheap. His cards focus on movement and dice rolls, not Lore/card manipulation. Since we both protect our units well, getting a little extra edge in battle when an opportunity for a banner arises has really swayed the outcome of many of our games. A simple Strength, Run, Parry or Bonus Attack card has tipped the scales several times.

When we need to shortchange one Lore Master, we usually leave out Rogue or Wizard, and go with L2 Cleric/L1 Warrior. Since we both favor the Warrior, there are almost always 14 Warrior cards in the deck, so getting use out of him is not an issue. I'm sure against other opponents this would not be the case.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Fri, 31 August 2007 03:57
cebalrai wrote on Thu, 30 August 2007 06:04


Toddrew, are you really comparing cry havoc to the cleric nuke cards? Smile They're in a whole other league than anything in the warrior deck.


While not the original intent of my post, more just offering some rationale for taking a level 3 warrior (which also has the same effect as taking any level 3 lore master, something that I don't think gets mentioned enough - being able to start the game off with 3 lore tokens and three lore cards is enough to warrant a l3 of something), yes, I would put Cry Havoc! at l3 up on par with the Cleric Spells. I know you cringe when command cards are mentioned in conjunction with the lore cards, but used with a mounted charge or foot onslaught or advance or forward or blue banner or red banner (especially in CtA where red banners abound Wink ) or even a well timed small order card, it is devestating on the few to many units who receive the brunt of +2 hitting on 50 to 66% of the resulting faces.

Again, apologies that the following is a specific instance, but merely for illustration, not to "prove" anything. In fact, if I was limited to one overarching statement about all lore cards, it would be, given the right situation, most any card can be better than any other card. But, just finished playing a game
of CtA against a war council consisting of l3 warrior, 2 creatures (spider and hill giant) and l1 commander. My wc was l3 wizard, l1 warrior, l2 commander. The board was #10 Assaulting the Tourelles. A longbow archer and crossbow dwarves faced off on the right side from the ramparts against the hill giant. Arrows prevailed over boulders. A portal took out one of the king's allied blue cavalry. Arrows felled another unit. Down three nothing, the pennants watched the standards set up for a mounted charge after the Fireball wizzed past the king's allied red dwarf unit with nary a warted nose singed. Down three-nothing in the vp department, pennants responded with a patrol in the center aided by Cry Havoc! Rolling not to terribly well (nor needing to, rolling 6d and then 4d and 5d respectively for the red dwarves and blue cavalry [uphill at first, no less]) a bold dwarf foot soldier unit with three figures was taken out by the red dwarves, followed by the full strength blue cavalry taking two hits and two retreats, then the two strength cavalry being wiped out. Suddenly the lopsided game was back on even footing, with pennants controlling the middle.

Ironically, it was Hills Rumble that ended the game, but only after standards survived an Assault that came within two very attainable hits of ending the game. There happened to be a couple of one figure units hiding far back in the woods. Units that would have been safer outside of said woods, and could have been ordered out during the Assault Wink But, the card was an unexpected play, coming from a war council with no Cleric. It was a fun game, like the most enjoyable of battlelore games, one in which momentum rocked back and forth all the way to the terse finish.

[Updated on: Sun, 09 December 2007 17:07]

      
Roobarb
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1003
Registered:
May 2007
Re:maybe to powerful Sun, 09 December 2007 17:20
this kinda reminds me of the hoedown in 7brides for 7 brothers
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Sun, 09 December 2007 17:33
Maybe a new thread was warranted, but I prefer piggy-backing on older threads that have related content - short-cut to adding depth to the conversation Very Happy

The more games of BL I play the more I come to appreciate the subtleties involved in building a war council. The point I realized (and maybe it just took me longer than most Laughing ) was how the Warrior was tied more to the Commander than any other lore master was to another. I think, as of right now anyway, Field Command is the only lore card that references the level of a lore master other than the card's own. By having all the Warrior cards save two be independent of the Warrior's level, it is very helpful in leaving other wc levels available for boosting the Commander and receiving all the benefits associated with that choice.

With the Cleric especially, taking anything less than a level 3 seems to waste power. Taking a 3 cleric and 3 commander is always an option, of course, but brings in restrictions to temper the apparent power. I don't think I've played a game of this particular configuration yet, but I think it would be very interesting (and fun Wink ) to play one side L3 Cleric, L3 Commander vs. the other at L3 Commander, L1 Warrior, L1 Rogue, L1 Wizard (EDIT: there was a bit in here about what to do with the seventh level of a six level council, which you can see clearly, makes no sense Cool ).

Has anyone played out such battles? I would like to hear the results, as I attempt to get some of my own Very Happy

EDIT: wow, that is weird. I attempt to necromance a thread with over three months stink on it, and am beat to the punch by Roobarb and 13 minutes Laughing

[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 05:47]

      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Mon, 10 December 2007 00:08
Sooo, let me get this right: You are resurrecting this thread, asking how a lv. 3 Cleric will fare against an anti-Cleric council... Sure you can handle the truth? Twisted Evil
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1003
Registered:
May 2007
Re:maybe to powerful Mon, 10 December 2007 02:14
the truth is broken is in the eye of the beholder
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Mon, 10 December 2007 05:54
dbc- wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 16:08

Sooo, let me get this right: You are resurrecting this thread, asking how a lv. 3 Cleric will fare against an anti-Cleric council... Sure you can handle the truth? Twisted Evil


It was more to introduce my slow to recognize connection between the Commander and Warrior. The last bit was an effort to be germane, and actually, I am interested to know if some months on, how (if at all) people's perceptions of the Cleric have changed.

Besides, the Anti-Cleric wc is l2 Commander, l3 Wizard, l1 Rogue Wink
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Mon, 10 December 2007 09:17
toddrew wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 05:54

It was more to introduce my slow to recognize connection between the Commander and Warrior.

I know. I just couldn't resist. Very Happy

toddrew wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 05:54

The last bit was an effort to be germane, and actually, I am interested to know if some months on, how (if at all) people's perceptions of the Cleric have changed.

A valid point, considering how divided people have been.
Sadly not that many games have hit my table lately. Of the games that have, I have tried to avoid the Cleric, and been experimenting more with... the Warrior! (and Wizard).
It has taken me some time too, to recognize the subtleties of the Warrior and I now prefer him over the Rogue.
As regards to the "beeep"-Cleric cards, I have found them to be less of an issue since I started playing only in Epic mode. But there have been too few games with high level Clerics for me to reach a definite conclusion.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:maybe to powerful Mon, 10 December 2007 13:04
dbc- wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 01:17


I know. I just couldn't resist. Very Happy


Very Happy Very Happy

Quote:

Of the games that have, I have tried to avoid the Cleric, and been experimenting more with... the Warrior! (and Wizard).
It has taken me some time too, to recognize the subtleties of the Warrior and I now prefer him over the Rogue.


Me too! About the Warrior and the Rogue bit - initially I much preferred the Rogue over the Warrior. After playing quite a bit with various combinations involving the Warrior, I came to appreciate the flexibility that those lore cards allowed to use tactics that would normally be a bit riskier (ie, end up leaving units unprotected through support). Warrior & Rogue based councils with 2 or 3 levels in the Commander perform very well for me - whether it be L3 Commander, L2/L1 Rogue, L1/L2(to take a chance on Cry Havoc! and an improved Berserk) Warrior; or L2 Commander, L3/L1 Rogue, L1/L3 Warrior, to shift the strength away from command options and towards lore options; or the lower leveled options from the first and second, and use the 1 or 2 extra lore master levels to diversify by adding a Wizard, Cleric, or Creature(s)(L2 Commander, L1 Rogue, L1 Warrior, and 2 creatures is a trip Very Happy ).


Quote:

As regards to the "beeep"-Cleric cards, I have found them to be less of an issue since I started playing only in Epic mode. But there have been too few games with high level Clerics for me to reach a definite conclusion.


Having played the vast majority of my BL games on Vassal, I haven't had much opportunity to play Epic games to note whether there's a difference in facing a L3 Cleric there as opposed to the more restricted confines of a base game board. I have, however, played quite a few games of Adventure #8, A Burgundian Chevauchee, especially as p1, and come to hone tactics when facing a L3 Cleric when battling under the watchful eye of a War Council that is not considered Anti-Cleric (namely L1 Commander, L2 Warrior, L2 Wizard, L1 Cleric).

If I were introducing a player to BL, I would never, ever take an L3 Cleric. Against players with several games under their belts however, I could, in good conscience do such a thing Laughing The rare times I do though, are purely for novelty. I genuinely much prefer the game that WC's based around the other Lore Masters allow me to play.

[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 13:06]

      
Pages (6): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5  6 ]     
Previous Topic:Epic or CtA?
Next Topic:PDF- Compendia, 2007.12!
Goto Forum: