Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Since all lizard heroes got access to good SE mounts, picking both is valid.
I know they were in WH2; but the last time I tried out Lizardmen, I think, was right before the Tehannauin (sp.?) DLC was implemented.
But if you had to choose one, which one do you prefer? ;)
But what if you had to choose one? I just don't want to run 2 casting heroes.
i would suggest maybe reconsidering your stance on only one caster per army though. lizardman caster heroes get fantastic monster mounts, so theyre basically a monster that casts magic which is one of the strongest types of units in the game. limiting your casters is more of a consideration when youre playing a faction whose casters have poor combat potential like empire cathay or high elves (outside of HE fire mage)
That being said it takes a lot longer to increase your capacity/recruit the Oracles so they are more of a late game QoL boost for most armies.
Except from the bug Oracle is better because Troglodon mount is a very good at hunting large entities. Trap enemy with your infatry and shoot with Troglodon