L2 lich idea

[joshudson]

Crazy idea, L2 lich.
Just have a standing frame for now

[Dragon Master]

hmmm....Looks like an undead baby
but seriously, I don't know if that has potential or not.

[JW]

I don't know if that has potential or not.

A Lich is a supposed to be a magic user that has found a way to defeat his own death. Having this as a level 2 unit makes no sense, and the graphic looks like a skeleton child.

[turin]

Why is he the height of a dwarf? And why does he have extremely over-saturated purple blobs on top of him?


Aside from these artistic problems, I just don't see the need, for MP or for a campaign, for a level 2 lich unit. If anything, I'd advocate removing the Lich from the Necromancer line, and make it only accessible by campaign decree.

[Dragon Master]

I don't know if that has potential or not.

A Lich is a supposed to be a magic user that has found a way to defeat his own death. Having this as a level 2 unit makes no sense, and the graphic looks like a skeleton child.

There really is no use for a level two lich as they are supposed to be highly advanced magic users with the magical capabilities to live incredibly long, if not forever. You can't just make one.

[joshudson]

The oversaturated purple is intended for TC.

Oh well, scratch that idea.

[Jetrel]

And this borders more on an idea, than a real art submission. Off to the ideas forum with it...

[DimWit]

NERF UNDEAD CAUSE I AM TURI... ERR I SAY SO

[irrevenant]

NERF UNDEAD CAUSE I AM TURI... ERR I SAY SO

Y'know, not only is that sort of comment disruptive, it actively drives potential supporters away from your position.

I would point out that:
(a) this suggestion had nothing to do with nerfing or improving undead - just adding a little diversity to the Dark Adept line.
(b) even if it did, indications are that undead are balanced and don't need to be nerfed or improved
(c) good reasons for refusal were given; Liches are very powerful and don't make sense at level 2.

There's nothing wrong with making a case for a particular position; if you feel strongly about this, do so. But relying on ad hominems actively works against your case.

[turin]

I suspect he's referring to my idea of removing the Lich from the Adept line.

If so - well, my response is that I really don't give a d*** about balancing. I don't do balancing - it's not my job. All I was saying was that the undead would IMHO make more sense if the Adept couldn't advance to a Lich. You might not agree with my. But it has nothing to do with balance.

[zookeeper]

I suspect he's referring to my idea of removing the Lich from the Adept line.

If so - well, my response is that I really don't give a d*** about balancing. I don't do balancing - it's not my job. All I was saying was that the undead would IMHO make more sense if the Adept couldn't advance to a Lich. You might not agree with my. But it has nothing to do with balance.

I sort of agree with that - the lich is supposed to be a rare and great undead leader, so having units randomly advance into them breaks the illusion a bit. Not that it ever happens when your AI opponent (in campaigns) has a necromancer / dark sorcerer (whichever was the one that advanced to lich), since they never get the chance to gather enough XP...but in an undead campaign for example it would be a bit odd (not that there are many undead campaigns around or that they couldn't have a campaign-specific restriction...). But I think this applies in some amount to something like grand magi as well, and perhaps some other units, too. I don't think this is a big issue however - in MP it doesn't matter any, and a campaign designer can restrict who can advance to a lich. I don't know whether this was the same problem you had with adepts advancing to liches, though.

[Thrawn]

I suspect he's referring to my idea of removing the Lich from the Adept line.

If so - well, my response is that I really don't give a d*** about balancing. I don't do balancing - it's not my job. All I was saying was that the undead would IMHO make more sense if the Adept couldn't advance to a Lich. You might not agree with my. But it has nothing to do with balance.

I sort of agree with that - the lich is supposed to be a rare and great undead leader, so having units randomly advance into them breaks the illusion a bit. Not that it ever happens when your AI opponent (in campaigns) has a necromancer / dark sorcerer (whichever was the one that advanced to lich), since they never get the chance to gather enough XP...but in an undead campaign for example it would be a bit odd (not that there are many undead campaigns around or that they couldn't have a campaign-specific restriction...). But I think this applies in some amount to something like grand magi as well, and perhaps some other units, too. I don't think this is a big issue however - in MP it doesn't matter any, and a campaign designer can restrict who can advance to a lich. I don't know whether this was the same problem you had with adepts advancing to liches, though.

Liches are merely former magic users who keep themselves and powers alive after death. Just because some things cause people to think that Liches are "rare and great undead leaders" (not sure what, though--there were merely decent troops In HOMM3, and even then they turned into something better, and weren't the upgrade. Even though WINHOMM3, it is not whatever thing that makes people think liches are superkick-ass and rare, so having it the way it is now seems fine, even from an invented realism perspective. (and getting things up to Liches in MP is a pain anyways, so I personally find this side-discussion pointless)

As to the idea in the thread: what exactly is the point of having a weaker Lich? it adds nothing that isn't there (adepts advance into two things anyways, so having a weaker third one would be needless)

[Ranger M]

As to the idea in the thread: what exactly is the point of having a weaker Lich? it adds nothing that isn't there (adepts advance into two things anyways, so having a weaker third one would be needless)

this is a suggested L2 unit.