Quote:
Boron said:
First i didn't want to sound know-it-all, i hope you didn't get this intention from my post  .
|
Not at all. Erm... sorry I gave the impression that I got that impression, I guess.
Quote:
I am personally no big fan of SCs. Problem is that you never can't design your SC to survive all possible threats.
|
Well, yeah. Thugs are always expendable, SCs... not so much. Especially since a true SC often calls for a unique artifact or two. I think that's another loose guideline for drawing the fuzzy line between thug and SC.
I don't really like SCs either, unless I know precisely what sort of opposition I'll be facing. Still, if you've gone to the trouble of securing some of the more powerful unique artifacts, you owe it to yourself to give them the most survivable chassis you can find.
Quote:
I said Arlabests, not X-bows  . An Arlabest does 17 ap damage, a X-bow only 10.
|
14 in the unmodded game, but that extra 4 AP damage is still pretty significant.
So even with a robe of invulnerability the Arlabest should do some damage.
Quote:
But what's more important and that makes me normally rather dislike SCs: The enemy will also have mage support or thugs.
If the enemy has a combination of high damage troops and anti-SC mages you can't protect vs. everything.
|
Not always true. No SC is utterly indestructible, all can be stalled until turn 50, all can be easily paralyzed with Petrify and, yes, all are tremendously susceptible to Drain Life. Those two spells aside, though, there are still SCs that are virtually immune to lower-end mages and unspecialized, general-purpose thugs, save in vast numbers.
With the right chassis and the right combination of unique artifacts, you can field a regenerating, lifedraining, self-reinvigorating, elemental-immune, magic-resistant monstrosity. There will still be counters, but your opponent will have to put some thought into them in order to be cost-effective.