How to play Undead

Tony Almeida · Post by **Tony Almeida** » January 6th, 2007, 11:41 pm

George Mason wrote:
muxec wrote:What about something like this for "Age Of Heroes" era?
Wow, that sounds like an awful lot of work.

Thanks for volunteering for the job!!

What a saint.

Airk · Post by **Airk** » January 9th, 2007, 3:57 pm

Doc Paterson wrote: There is no real comparison between a unit that does a Drake Clasher 7-3 at night, and one that does it 19-2 MAGICAL.

While I don't argue that Adepts do a ton more damage to drakes than archers do, at the same time, the Magical means very little against them, since their overall defense is so terribly poor.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » January 9th, 2007, 10:20 pm

Airk wrote:
Doc Paterson wrote: There is no real comparison between a unit that does a Drake Clasher 7-3 at night, and one that does it 19-2 MAGICAL.
While I don't argue that Adepts do a ton more damage to drakes than archers do, at the same time, the Magical means very little against them, since their overall defense is so terribly poor.

Saurians? Duh?

Airk · Post by **Airk** » January 10th, 2007, 4:35 pm

F8 Binds... wrote:
Airk wrote: While I don't argue that Adepts do a ton more damage to drakes than archers do, at the same time, the Magical means very little against them, since their overall defense is so terribly poor.
Saurians? Duh?

....

Dark adepts don't do 19-2 against Saurians.

Maybe that's nitpicking, but it's fairly clear that Doc was talking about drakes the race and not drakes the faction in his post.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » January 10th, 2007, 4:40 pm

Well, he was explicitely talking about the Clasher, indeed.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » January 10th, 2007, 7:58 pm

Well, as far as I know, although doc was reffering to the clasher, Airk was reffering to drakes as a faction, not a race, hence the use vs saurians. Explained? Also, I wasn't reffering to damage, Airk. Only the use of magic vs drakes. Are you reffering to drakes alone, and no saurians? He should be recruiting some skirmishers to kill your adepts. If not, your victory comes a little easier.

edit: well, maybe I was misunderstanding. note i didn't see the "clasher" until later right before i wrote this post. Still, adept's magic is useful vs saurians. sorry for the misunderstanding....

Gus · Post by **Gus** » January 10th, 2007, 8:05 pm

Look, don't read more in this than there is: Doc said "19-2 MAGICAL", but, as Airk said, the "MAGICAL" (capital letters from Doc, btw) is only a small advantage sometimes (and can even be detrimental in the case of 20% def), so it is not really a good argument in this case. Magical does help with Saurians, but it is detrimental/useless/marginally helpful, depending on the terrain, against Drakes.

Post by **Doc Paterson** » January 10th, 2007, 8:42 pm

If you do manage to engage attack a Drake at night, it's almost definitely going to be on 40 percent defense, probably a village. We were doing damage comparisons, so I emphasised the MAGICAL because that added ten percent is very significant, total-damage-wise. There's a big difference between hitting 70 percent of the time (adept against drake on village), and missing almost half the time (archer, against Drake on a village).

Note that the most likely outcome of 2 adepts (19-2, x2) attacking a Drake on a village is the drake taking 57 damage (3 hits).

Again, I'm perfectly happy with players using more skells than adepts; It makes my life a whole lot easier.

krotop · Post by **krotop** » January 17th, 2007, 11:00 am

toms wrote:To kill infantery, you need adepts, or...ghosts. Yes, a ghost can be nice. Resistance against impact(wose, infantery) and against fire (mage).

When you have only 18HPs, I think 10% resistance to fire can be considered as a weakness, for it is not enough to save your ghost's ass against burners or mages (greatest damage dealers of the game at distance) and even orcs archers (very good at night).

Post by **F8 Binds...** » January 18th, 2007, 2:22 am

krotop wrote:
toms wrote:To kill infantery, you need adepts, or...ghosts. Yes, a ghost can be nice. Resistance against impact(wose, infantery) and against fire (mage).
When you have only 18HPs, I think 10% resistance to fire can be considered as a weakness, for it is not enough to save your ghost's ass against burners or mages (greatest damage dealers of the game at distance) and even orcs archers (very good at night).

Are bats any better? Look here- ghost isn't meant to take on burners and mages.

krotop · Post by **krotop** » January 18th, 2007, 11:52 am

I feel that your message is adressed to me F8 Binds. I don't quite understand because we do say the same, as far as I understood. Ghosts don't resist fire, so it's no that good to tell they can as toms did (unless I didn't quite understand his message).

And no, bats aren't better either to attack Heavy Infantary or to defend against burners or mages. The least bad for defending are adepts or archers and if you ask me, better flee during day. To attack HI, as toms said adepts can. I agree also that ghost can, in some cases, damage HI too, but you must get warned that you may be hardly countered by a mage or 2 if you hadn't been well positioned and that ghosts DON'T resist fire.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » January 18th, 2007, 10:29 pm

krotop wrote:I feel that your message is adressed to me F8 Binds. I don't quite understand because we do say the same, as far as I understood. Ghosts don't resist fire, so it's no that good to tell they can as toms did (unless I didn't quite understand his message).

And no, bats aren't better either to attack Heavy Infantary or to defend against burners or mages. The least bad for defending are adepts or archers and if you ask me, better flee during day. To attack HI, as toms said adepts can. I agree also that ghost can, in some cases, damage HI too, but you must get warned that you may be hardly countered by a mage or 2 if you hadn't been well positioned and that ghosts DON'T resist fire.

They resist it 10%. Low, but it's there. I use ghosts to finish units, as they have good level ups.

sitenuker · Post by **sitenuker** » January 19th, 2007, 12:21 am

Gus wrote:Look, don't read more in this than there is: Doc said "19-2 MAGICAL", but, as Airk said, the "MAGICAL" (capital letters from Doc, btw) is only a small advantage sometimes (and can even be detrimental in the case of 20% def), so it is not really a good argument in this case. Magical does help with Saurians, but it is detrimental/useless/marginally helpful, depending on the terrain, against Drakes.

MAGICAL should never be detrimental, the description says that magical attacks always have AT LEAST 70% chance of hitting, if it doesn't work that way then it needs to be fixed.

Tmoiy · Post by **Tmoiy** » January 19th, 2007, 1:47 am

sitenuker wrote:MAGICAL should never be detrimental, the description says that magical attacks always have AT LEAST 70% chance of hitting, if it doesn't work that way then it needs to be fixed.

The description (on my copy, at least) says that magical attacks always have 70%. I think the flavor of magical is that since the mage is using magic to target her enemy, terrain is ignored, though there is still a chance of the magic failing. So yes, magical is occasionally slightly detrimental.

Imp · Post by **Imp** » January 19th, 2007, 2:05 am

sitenuker wrote:
Gus wrote:Look, don't read more in this than there is: Doc said "19-2 MAGICAL", but, as Airk said, the "MAGICAL" (capital letters from Doc, btw) is only a small advantage sometimes (and can even be detrimental in the case of 20% def), so it is not really a good argument in this case. Magical does help with Saurians, but it is detrimental/useless/marginally helpful, depending on the terrain, against Drakes.
MAGICAL should never be detrimental, the description says that magical attacks always have AT LEAST 70% chance of hitting, if it doesn't work that way then it needs to be fixed.

Why not? Magic is already pretty powerful as it is. Imagine the rebalancing of the mages-woses...