Chorf sorcerer lord seems like a bad choice?

[Googley Eye'd Bastard]

Been enjoying the chaos dwarfs campaigns a lot but in learning them I kept restarting before I had a chance to really get into the generic lords, finally doing so I'm starting to question having a sorcerer prophet lord.

I say this because from my point of view there is no point in it, between the sorcerer and the overseer melee lord have 3 unique skill choices that effect but compared to the overseer their unique army skills are kinda crap to me at least. The sorcerer's are all buffs to himself mostly more magic charge/items/cooldown, perfect vigor and unbreakable (why though on a caster lord?), and the best one being 15% vigor reduction 5% replenish and centaur recruit rank, in my opinion that last one is the only skill worth taking as a stronger army as a whole is better then a slightly better wizard. In comparison the overseer casuality replenishment and spell resist for his entire army, reduced recruitment and upkeep -5% AND 20 armor for all chorf infantry and ammo, or movement range loot and and a 15% upkeep reduction for hobgoblins.

All these choices for the overseer provide massive benefits to the army and for the most part shape what his army will be in the long run, sure you miss out on spells which is important but you can always get a daemonsmith which is ALSO a better choice I think. The daemonsmith still gets all the spells a sorcerer will AND the same mounts, but they have the benefit of buffing and healing war machines and honestly this makes me feel like the sorcerer prophets are just a downgrade from the hero sadly and why would you want to have multiple casters in the same army taking up slots (other then abusing ash storm with a fire mage as well)

So yeah TLDR I'm wondering if anyone else feels like the chorf melee generic lord is way better then the caster lord because the caster hero is better.

[SpeaksTooFast]

Publicado originalmente por Googley Eye'd Bastard:

Thats were I counter argue that early game your second army is going to be almost entirely comprised of hob goblins with gorduz for cost effectiveness, pair that with with 15% from the skill and in my case the hob goblin landmark and you have a super cheap but still very strong army.

I agree with paring Gorbuz with an Overseer, their abilities complement quite well. But at that point you are unlikely to have more that 2 or 3 capacity for the Demonsmith heroes, if you want the passive buffs in the main army and need magic in your hobgoblin army then anything else would, IMO, be better served by the socr lord.

[SpeaksTooFast]

Publicado originalmente por gachi is manly:

It's just a throwaway lord you hire to help save a vulnerable town then dump him. Chorf sorc lords do work pretty well in that regard, especially if you don't have any other wizard available to aid the town that turn.

Lv1 metal wizards work great for this. Their default spell is quite good in settlement defense.

[Cuthalion]

A question. What's so cool about overseers?
My second lord is always an overseer and he hosts Gorduz+hobgoblin army, enhanced by a hero-mage and a castellan: cheap and strong. But hobgoblins do suck if not with Gorduz.
Other than that, I did not notice any immediate advantage of an overseer before a mage-lord - about same сгар as for other factions: a matter of choice, a matter of having a hero-mage or a melee hero at hand, etc...

[gachi is manly]

Publicado originalmente por Cuthalion:

about same сгар as for other factions: a matter of choice, a matter of having a hero-mage or a melee hero at hand, etc...

Well melee heroes are almost always outperformed by a melee lord in combat with some exceptions. Not to mention melee lords having better combat mounts.

Many races want to keep their generic wizards out of prolonged melee combat mostly anyways. Some lord wizard choices are pretty beefy and have monster mount options, but even then they're not the greatest in combat. However, both hero and lord wizards are pretty much on par for casting magic.

It's this disparity that can make melee lords a better choice than lord wizards in many cases. They're just better at doing what they do than their melee hero counterparts compared to lord wizards vs their hero counterparts. Especially once you factor in magical equipment making already tanky melee lords practically unkillable.

There's definitely a lot of nuances to this, though. Sometimes you just need a lord wizard since it's early game/hard to recruit more hero wizards for your particular race. Or lord level wizards are just plain awesome for certain races.

[killtastic201]

they get a bale taurus mount with unbreakable, and perfect vigor, this means they can be quite the little multi-tool. generally though chorfs don't have unlimited hero recruits like some factions so the caster hero might not always be available, especially in the early game. in the late game, I think that caster lords are actually really great. in the late game once you get lots of lord recruit level boost buildings, you can recruit caster lords to any settlement the AI might attack soon. this is extra good because the chorfs don't have supply lines, so realistically you don't even have to disband them. you can have high level, unbreakable, perfect vigor caster lords with chaff/ no armies playing defense all over the place, with really decent lores of magic to boot.. it's like being able to mass produce a mini one man doomstack. thats something that the chorfs caster hero just doesn't provide.

[Googley Eye'd Bastard]

Publicado originalmente por Cuthalion:

A question. What's so cool about overseers?
My second lord is always an overseer and he hosts Gorduz+hobgoblin army, enhanced by a hero-mage and a castellan: cheap and strong. But hobgoblins do suck if not with Gorduz.
Other than that, I did not notice any immediate advantage of an overseer before a mage-lord - about same сгар as for other factions: a matter of choice, a matter of having a hero-mage or a melee hero at hand, etc...

Both the overseer and three special skills that are exclusive to one another, the sorcerer's 3 are 3+ winds per turn 10% item drop chance and -10% spell cool down, perfect vigor and unbreakable for himself, and 5% casualty rate 15% vigor loss reduction and +3 recruit rank for centaurs. Of those three the third one is the only good choice in my opinion your caster lord should never be in a situation where he needs unbreakable and perfect vigor sure he can harass back lines and archers but he still shouldn't be taking on elite troops and the magic is okay but in my opinion skills like this should be exclusively for making your army has a whole stronger.

In comparison the melee lord has skills that give 5% replenishment and 20% spell resist for his ENTIRE ARMY, another that gives -5% upkeep total and 15% cheaper recruitment plus 20 armor for all chorf infantry and 10% ammo including artillery, and lastly a skill that gives 5% movement 10% post battle income and labor stacked with 15% upkeep reduction for hobgoblins and leadership.

These 3 skills all benefit the overseers armys hugely and even effect what kind of army he will use, need a strong army with a bunch of beefed up dwarfs protecting a gun line and artillery barrage? Need a super cheap second army early on that can not only defend but harass and maybe even conquer a second front? where as the sorcerer only buffs himself and even the one skill that buffs the army isn't that good compared to the overseers.

Thats not even to mention that the sorcerer lord doesn't really bring anything unique to the table, the caster heros have all the same spell skills, mounts, and even have the advantage of buffing all your artillery and healing them which the sorcerer lord doesn't get.

You could argue that the melee lord doesn't get the bale taurus mount but I see why clearly, the bale taurus isn't meant for sustained heavy combat as it's melee defense is abysmally low and would only be a detriment for a melee lord.

[Professor H. Farnsworth]

Overseers shine the best with goblin labourer raiding armies.. That's pretty much the only function they serve - other than that they're not particularly good.

One could ask the question, why bring a melee lord when nothing hits your front anyway?
Daemonsmiths, Castellans, Tau'ruaks & Sorcerer Prophets holds the line just as well and bonus to you for having double casters for faster WoM to annihilate the enemy faster.

Now there's a lot of misconceptions it seems. A Sorcerer Prophet with Careful Casting and Thirst for Magic has 20% additional cooldown reduction taking a Flames of Azgorh from 31s to 25s (to 20s with the Tech on top). This is the best skill to get.
-15% Vigour Loss Reduction and extra Replenishment comes in second - it's just not that important when you can already rock 22% replenishment to have 5% extra and Vigour Loss Reduction sure - slows it down, but not by enough for it to make a difference.

On hobgoblin armies, you have no idea the wonders it does to throw in some Bull Centaurs and Flame Cannons. It makes it a fairly respectable army - even without Gorduz. More expensive yes, but you get an army that's actually capable of doing stuff outside playing back up.