Best summon?

PvK · #1 May 17th, 2004, 01:39 AM

Do Ether Warriors have zero fatigue?

I like a lot of them. Scorpion Beasts are good as Machaka, since you have fire gems and cheap FE mages to summon them.

Vine Ogres are extremely efficient, especially if you have druids.

Horde From Hell is great as Mictlan, for the flying demon leader.

The death summons from wight on up are extremely good, though the lowest one (5D gems, unit) is my least favorite. And I like Pale Riders as much as Behemoth, usually.

Succubi are very fun and potent.

Vampire Lord is rather good - he can call free vampires - immortal army after a while.

The higher-level ones are of course, quite impressive...

PvK

Graeme Dice · #2 May 17th, 2004, 01:40 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:

Quote:

But assuming that you had an astral 4, death 1 caster, and you also had a bunch of death 2/3 casters and you had either 90 death gems of 90 astral you are saying that you would rather the wights?? That seems crazy to me. The ether warriors are simply superior troops.

15 ether warriors can be killed by one or two properly equipped bane lords, so of course I'd rather have the wight based summons. The wraith lord choice is completely superior, since he's both immortal and has death 3 for soul vortex.

Huzurdaddi · #3 May 17th, 2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

15 ether warriors can be killed by one or two properly equipped bane lords, so of course I'd rather have the wight based summons.

So what you are saying is that any unit that can not be equipped is useless. Hence only commander units are worthwhile summons. Ok.

Sounds like the old SC argument I have seen many times on this board but whatever.

Heck you must think that this entire thread is useless.

HotNifeThruButr · #4 May 17th, 2004, 03:14 AM

Usefulness can't be measured by a head-on fight. A light infantryman, hell, even a militia, will probably kill a crossbowman in one-on-one combat, but that doesn't mean that he's more useful.

Bane Lords might be more useful against Ethereal units and such, but Ether Warriors are highly effective against magical beings and mundane soldiers.

Graeme Dice · #5 May 17th, 2004, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
Bane Lords might be more useful against Ethereal units and such, but Ether Warriors are highly effective against magical beings and mundane soldiers.

They aren't as effective against regular soldiers as a bane lord with jade armor, wraith sword, and flying boots. If you are having a lot of trouble against magical troops, then you can give one a moonblade for 5 pearls, which is much less than the cost of a single ether warrior.

The stats on even a garden variety, non-commander wight are nearly as good as those on an ether warrior, which doesn't justify their extreme cost.

[ May 17, 2004, 03:42: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Zapmeister · #6 May 17th, 2004, 05:23 AM

Quote:

The stats on even a garden variety, non-commander wight are nearly as good as those on an ether warrior, which doesn't justify their extreme cost.

Eh? What am I missing here? A wight costs 5 gems, which is approximately the same as the cost of an ether warrior, isn't it?

Also, summoning EWs is much more efficient as you get 15 of them in one mage-turn, compared to just the one wight (or is there another spell for summoning wights in bulk?)

Huzurdaddi · #7 May 17th, 2004, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Eh? What am I missing here? A wight costs 5 gems, which is approximately the same as the cost of an ether warrior, isn't it?

You are 100% correct.

But mr "normal troops have no use" does not do the math. He just flaps his lips, or rather just types without thinking.