New Undead Faction Line: Embalmer

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I dunno...it sounds like an interesting twist on RIPLIB. Maybe you could WML a lesser poison special? So, let's say it's a heal +2 and lesser poison (say, -4 HP), and then it levels up into heal +4 only or full poison.

[AI]

There are plenty of "strict RIPLIB" violations in mainline though.
Examples:
-Skeleton archer (loses impact melee for blade)
-Knight (loses either 1MP or its blade attack)
-Drake Clasher (loses firststrike or number of strikes)
-Woodsman (loses neutrality, though it's debatable whether that's RIPLIB)

Having to choose between two aspects of a unit seems acceptable to me.

[Aethaeryn]

I should probably add that one area where healers are particularly useful is in campaigns. While multiplayer is balanced faction vs faction, campaigns are balanced scenario vs player. Having healers available during a campaign makes it much easier to build up a supply of higher-level units, which tends to make the campaign more high-powered and exciting.

So, having a undead-healing unit which designers can borrow for their undead campaigns would be highly useful.

Yes, this could make an interesting hero unit in a campaign, an assistant to the main necromancer guy (though obviously removing the non-healing lvl 2 branch).

[michchar]

There are plenty of "strict RIPLIB" violations in mainline though.
Examples:
-Skeleton archer (loses impact melee for blade)
-Knight (loses either 1MP or its blade attack)
-Drake Clasher (loses firststrike or number of strikes)
-Woodsman (loses neutrality, though it's debatable whether that's RIPLIB)

Having to choose between two aspects of a unit seems acceptable to me.

but, the horseman can just level into the lancer, so it doesnt violate RIPLIB.
though, it is an interesting idea, but if i was using the embalmer for both purposes and then it leveled, i will get kinda pissed (if im far from the keep (which i usually am))

[irrevenant]

but, the horseman can just level into the lancer, so it doesnt violate RIPLIB.

He's referring to the Knight Levelling. It can level either into the Grand Knight (which is slower) or the Paladin (which loses Blade damage in favour of Arcane).

[michchar]

but im just talking about the entire horseman line. if someone is worried about RIPLIB, just do lancer, not knight...and anyways,movement doesnt really matter that much, as the grand knight can still get to places fast, just not as fast as it could before. paladins charge is still pierce, and thats the main reason for horses. however, both poison and heal is a useful ability, and you lose one or the other upon leveling.
as for skelly archer, people never use the impact, and people never use the blade either, so all it changes is its counter, and its counter doesnt even do anything in the first place, so its ok.
neutrality/lawfulness/chaoticness isnt really unbalanced, as they all have their strengths

[Velrei]

There are plenty of "strict RIPLIB" violations in mainline though.
Examples:
-Skeleton archer (loses impact melee for blade)
-Knight (loses either 1MP or its blade attack)
-Drake Clasher (loses firststrike or number of strikes)
-Woodsman (loses neutrality, though it's debatable whether that's RIPLIB)

Having to choose between two aspects of a unit seems acceptable to me.

but, the horseman can just level into the lancer, so it doesnt violate RIPLIB.
though, it is an interesting idea, but if i was using the embalmer for both purposes and then it leveled, i will get kinda pissed (if im far from the keep (which i usually am))

Perhaps a third version which retains poison and +4 healing could be used, and adjust the other two....but overall, it's not like the poison is terribley useful for killing units, so leveling would be kinda slow, on par with the shaman.

Otherwise, I think that the two options work quite well however, although they both need work, particularly the corpse crafter.

[Volde]

Maybe i don`t really understand what "RIPLIB" is but wouldn`t elvish shamans violate that too with one of their advancements loosing heal+4?

[Vendanna]

Maybe i don`t really understand what "RIPLIB" is but wouldn`t elvish shamans violate that too with one of their advancements loosing heal+4?

Not as long as one still has it.

Anyway I must say that the RIPLIB is more a "suggestion" more than a rigid law of how things must be created, after all, if units only increased its damage output most of them would be rather boring.

Also, the most common practice is that an "hybrid unit" specialices in one aspect while ignoring the other, so she is redirecting its full power to control its magic more than in heal.

Or so its like I see it

[thespaceinvader]

Maybe i don`t really understand what "RIPLIB" is but wouldn`t elvish shamans violate that too with one of their advancements loosing heal+4?

Nope. RIPLIB states that in any level up, at least one of the possible should have all stats equal to or better than the previous level. So options can lose things or have stats get worse, as long as at least one is the same as or better than the previous level. A good example is the Spearman's level up - two out of three of the possible advancements lose the ranged attack. But since the Javelineer keeps it, there's no RIPLIB violation. In the case you mentioned, the Druid keeps the healing, so no RIPLIB problems.

[irrevenant]

but im just talking about the entire horseman line. if someone is worried about RIPLIB, just do lancer, not knight...and anyways,movement doesnt really matter that much, as the grand knight can still get to places fast, just not as fast as it could before. paladins charge is still pierce, and thats the main reason for horses.

To clarify:
The principle behind RIPLIB is that there should never be a situation where a unit levels up and the player is now in a worse position. This is the case for the Knight so it is a RIPLIB variation.

That you could have taken a different branch several turns back doesn't negate that. RIPLIB is a per unit thing.