How do you use Clashers?

Lone_Isle · Post by **Lone_Isle** » November 29th, 2006, 1:49 pm

Is it just me or does the Drake Clasher seem to be a redundant and overcosted unit which is counter-intuitively the least useful in the situations you'd expect it to be the best: namely maps with alot of defensive terrain and not much of the open space to make use of drake maneuverability?

Let's see: against elusive units like elves the clasher is probably not that much better a performer than a fighter, seeing as its strikes do less than a fighter and a fighter only has 1 less strike anyway. It's greatest weakness rears its ugly head when during the enemy turn, their most likely still-living archers or ranged units hit your clasher for no retal.

I don't understand the rationale behind the Clasher at all. It's basically a unit that lacks the drake advantages of mobility and ranged retaliation, with the usual drake weaknesses(cold, and ranged piercing, inability to make use of defensive terrain).
This means that about the only thing it's effective against is the horseman.

I know you won't agree with this assessment with a newcomer, but please teach me in what situation is a clasher clearly more superior than a burner or fighter?

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 29th, 2006, 2:00 pm

Well, +10% resistances to weapons is not that bad, is it?
It can also deal more damage than the Fighter, and has more variety in the damage type. It costs 2 more than the Fighter but has 4 extra HP.

Just saying it has its uses.

Post by **zookeeper** » November 29th, 2006, 2:01 pm

It owns mounted units and other drakes.

They also have +10% better physical resistances compared to the other drakes, and slightly more hitpoints than the fighter.

I guess I usually use it as the tank that can soak up damage for a turn without dying. I don't care much for the lack of mobility, since all the other drakes (and the saurian skirmisher) can compensate for that and help the clasher get where I want it.

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » November 29th, 2006, 2:05 pm

Then a burner? Every time you may want to protect a shaman or a burner from being killed by a melee striking unit. Or if you want to attack something weak to specific damage type (melee).

Then fighter? Damage. Fighter has 7 - 3 melee blade and 3 (or 4) - 3 fire ranged.

Clasher has 6 - 4 pierce and 5 - 4 blade which makes him useful against units weaker to pierce.

I guess it has slightly more hp (but im not sure). And it has 0% pierce resistances.

(I still think that those pierce resistances should be slightly upgraded)

Lone_Isle · Post by **Lone_Isle** » November 29th, 2006, 3:13 pm

the replies more or less confirmed what i said:

Then fighter? Damage. Fighter has 7 - 3 melee blade and 3 (or 4) - 3 fire ranged.

But which would you rather want against a unit with both a melee and a ranged attack?
Against a purely melee unit, wouldnt a burner suffice?

Clasher has 6 - 4 pierce and 5 - 4 blade which makes him useful against units weaker to pierce.

There are practically no units that are weak to pierce that isn't already weak to ranged.

It owns mounted units and other drakes.

Discounting the latter possibility, mounted units are rarely seen in great numbers, especially on the kind of map i mention, ones with alot of defensive terrain.
AND EVEN THEN; I would rather be using a burner against most mounted units which have no ranged.

They also have +10% better physical resistances compared to the other drakes, and slightly more hitpoints than the fighter.

I never understood this 10% resistance thing. It's totally useless against ranged units when you CANT retaliate.

I guess I usually use it as the tank that can soak up damage for a turn without dying. I don't care much for the lack of mobility, since all the other drakes (and the saurian skirmisher) can compensate for that and help the clasher get where I want it.

The problem too often is that it soaks up damage with nothing to show for it. And since it's the 2nd most expensive drake unit there is.... there often seems to be no point as using it to defend something else. AND EVEN THEN, its defense is no greater than any other drake since it has the drake disadvantage of 40% max defense.

Lone_Isle · Post by **Lone_Isle** » November 29th, 2006, 3:16 pm

really the more i think about this unit the more it irks me.

It has 2 attacks, a blade and piercing one. You will only ever use the blade one in 10% of situations, against a wose... but then a burner is way better.
Against an um.... I really can't think of anything that resists piercing but not blade... anyone?

Wouldn't it be much better to give clashers some kind of magical melee attack? One that does significantly less dmg than its piercing one but guarantees hitting units in high def % terrain?

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » November 29th, 2006, 3:30 pm

Clasher has already more attacks which makes it more useful against weak high defence units (mages on good terrain, Dark adepts,orcish assasins and so on). And besides the abillity to soak damage is important especially for drakes, who's units cost 1,5 as much as northerners , and they are expensive in comparison to other units. If i wanted a tank i would choose clasher over fighter because they have the same low defence (Fighter has a ranged attack and mobillity but is not as tough). Keep in mind that because clashers are so vulnerable to ranged attacks, you can choose, where to position him so that enemy archers will move on a uncomfortable terrain.

Did you try to read JW's guides? He explains well the possibilities where you can use clasher.

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » November 29th, 2006, 3:32 pm

Lone_Isle wrote: Against an um.... I really can't think of anything that resists piercing but not blade... anyone?

I think you mean resist blade but not piercing. Any cavalry units for instance have blade resistances and negative pierce resistances. Of course - other drakes as well. Clashers pierce attack is also slightly stronger than fighters.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » November 29th, 2006, 3:52 pm

Lone_Isle wrote: I never understood this 10% resistance thing. It's totally useless against ranged units when you CANT retaliate.

Eh? Resistance has nothing to do with retaliation.
Whether or not you can retaliate, the resistance will help you survive more. Who cares if your Fighter can throw 2-3 (at night, it should be that) against an Elvish Archer, if your Fighter gets killed?

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » November 29th, 2006, 4:07 pm

Gus wrote:
Lone_Isle wrote: I never understood this 10% resistance thing. It's totally useless against ranged units when you CANT retaliate.
Eh? Resistance has nothing to do with retaliation.
Whether or not you can retaliate, the resistance will help you survive more. Who cares if your Fighter can throw 2-3 (at night, it should be that) against an Elvish Archer, if your Fighter gets killed?

That means if an Earcher has 8 hp he will probably not attack in the day, afraid of being hit 2 times and killed. That means there are lesser units that attack the fighter with ranged. Elvish fighter would probably attack clasher with ranged, but he wouldn't do the same with fighter, as he would get damage in exchange.

JW · Post by JW » November 29th, 2006, 4:26 pm

Obviously you are thinking about this in the entirely wrong way.

Clasher: 6-4 Pierce, 7-4 Strong, 9-4 Strong in daytime = 36 damage for a level 1 unit.

Any other questions?

Did you realize that the only other units that deal as much damage as the Clasher are the Wose, Burner, and Horseman (only when he charges)? For 19g, a potential 36 damage is a BARGAIN, not to mention the additional lifespan he'll receive.

Your argument about ranged attacks is useless. If I have a 4-3 ranged attack on a Horseman, or an 8-4 attack on a Horseman at day, which do you think I'll choose?

Answer: the one that kills it so it doesn't have a chance to attack me next turn.

Honestly, you really need to change your perspective drastically if you can't see the value of the Clasher.

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » November 29th, 2006, 4:29 pm

Or maybe just compare it to other units.

Xandria · Post by **Xandria** » November 29th, 2006, 9:20 pm

Gentlemen, mind the upgrades of the Clasher as well! If I manage to get this chap a level-up, he'll get this absolutely terrific halberd that does some whopping 19-2 pierce or the like, with first strike... or, it can become the only unit that has all of impact, blade and pierce, getting some 5 spear attacks - take *THAT*, pointy-eared-guy-hiding-in-a-fricken-forest-and-shooting-pointy-sticks-at-my-draconic-majesty!

Airk · Post by **Airk** » November 29th, 2006, 10:33 pm

Martinus wrote:
Gus wrote: Eh? Resistance has nothing to do with retaliation.
Whether or not you can retaliate, the resistance will help you survive more. Who cares if your Fighter can throw 2-3 (at night, it should be that) against an Elvish Archer, if your Fighter gets killed?
That means if an Earcher has 8 hp he will probably not attack in the day, afraid of being hit 2 times and killed. That means there are lesser units that attack the fighter with ranged. Elvish fighter would probably attack clasher with ranged, but he wouldn't do the same with fighter, as he would get damage in exchange.

I don't really think this is a realistic situation. If the archer has 8 HPs left, the archer is probably not sticking around in battlefield area anyway, unless your opponent really thinks he can use that extra damage to swing the fight - in which case, the situation is close enough that you want the extra damage and hitpoints on the clasher.

The ranged damage on the fighter is laughable, frankly. It's not magic - it doesn't hit particularly often, and even under the daylight, you're looking at somewhere between 4 and 8 damage, on average. That's paltry. Is it better than nothing? Sure, I guess, since you can toss it out against a unit that you otherwise wouldn't attack at all for fear of retaliation, but in terms of actually winning battles, it's just barely even noticable.

And, well, for a unit that'd you'd definitely want to use your pierce attack against instead of a ranged attack or blade attack, the Elvish Scout line leaps to mind. There are probably others. Heck, most units with ranged attacks are more vulnerable to being attacked by a Clasher than to being attacked by a fighter, because units with ranged attacks tend to be light in the melee department. (There are exceptions, but they're usually high(er) level units). You won't want to use the Fighter's ranged attack because, well, it's unlikely to be better than whatever your opponent is hitting back with, and your defense is guaranteed to be bad, so those ranged units are best hit as hard as you can in melee. Hence...Clasher.

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » November 29th, 2006, 10:36 pm

Believe it or not, but i encountered many situations where a ranged wounded unit attacked my all-melee unit just because it was sure not to take any counter damage. Besides, if its attack is strong it can wound the melee unit enough, so that it is killed by another unit right away..