Is the skaven master assassin useless?

[Tazor]

He is getting rekt by a slann mage priest. Just wtf. They 1v1ed each other the entire fight, no intervention. This is how it looks so far.

https://i.imgur.com/ZC54knx.jpg

[halogamb]

Originally posted by Ҡ乚乃..:

Originally posted by halogamb:

This

not really man, master assassin isn't good.

Master Assassin is great if you know how to use it. I've never had a problem using them because I understand their role.

[4FCG]

As I see them they are glass cannon foot characters, who sacrifice their defences and or raw damage for sneakyness and speed (speedy for something not mounted that is).
And are good at killing things that do not fight back.

If something can fight back, you best make good use of their bursty nature to deal a quick final blow. Putting one in a 1v1 against grimgor, wulfric or some lord on a big ol mount will get them killed real fast.

Just as the game makes clear, they assassinate not duel. If its supposed to kill characters 1 on 1 it will say duelist or something like that, or melee expert.

[Tazor]

Originally posted by halogamb:

Originally posted by Ҡ乚乃..:

not really man, master assassin isn't good.

Master Assassin is great if you know how to use it. I've never had a problem using them because I understand their role.

So far the only instruction I saw in here on how to use the assassin is going for small characters. Shoot slann priest with ratling guns and ignore the cavalry on the flanks.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Ҡ乚乃..:

Originally posted by halogamb:

This

not really man, master assassin isn't good.

Its hard to discuss whether they're good or not in the first place if we're talking about a role they're not meant for.

Its like if someone said "clanrats are weak units. Archers do more ranged damage". I personally think archers are overpowered as ♥♥♥♥ in campaign (at least elven and dwarven ones) and are generally superior units to clanrats, but if someone gave me that argument I wouldn't hesitate to point out that clanrats aren't ranged units.

Well that's what we have here in the other direction. Archer lord (or shuriken whatever) is weak because its not as good in melee (and its physical resist doesn't help against magic damage).

[Tazor]

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Originally posted by Ҡ乚乃..:

not really man, master assassin isn't good.

Its hard to discuss whether they're good or not in the first place if we're talking about a role they're not meant for.

Its like if someone said "clanrats are weak units. Archers do more ranged damage". I personally think archers are overpowered as ♥♥♥♥ in campaign (at least elven and dwarven ones) and are generally superior units to clanrats, but if someone gave me that argument I wouldn't hesitate to point out that clanrats aren't ranged units.

What's the purpose of the assassin then? Isn't he supposed to easily kill off unprotected enemy characters? He fails at that purpose.

[kekkuli]

Originally posted by Tazor:

Originally posted by halogamb:

Master Assassin is great if you know how to use it. I've never had a problem using them because I understand their role.

So far the only instruction I saw in here on how to use the assassin is going for small characters. Shoot slann priest with ratling guns and ignore the cavalry on the flanks.

That's pretty much it man, i mean assassin lords are capable of quickly taking out squishy man sized targets like casters or some heroes. In campaign i don't find them particularly useful personally.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Tazor:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Its hard to discuss whether they're good or not in the first place if we're talking about a role they're not meant for.

Its like if someone said "clanrats are weak units. Archers do more ranged damage". I personally think archers are overpowered as ♥♥♥♥ in campaign (at least elven and dwarven ones) and are generally superior units to clanrats, but if someone gave me that argument I wouldn't hesitate to point out that clanrats aren't ranged units.

What's the purpose of the assassin then? Isn't he supposed to easily kill off unprotected enemy characters? He fails at that purpose.

I don't really use them. I prefer 2 types of lords. Ones that fill a role I can't fill with units, and ones that are good in melee (because they become very powerful stacked with ward save). So I tend to lean towards warlock masters, because they have spells the warlock engineers don't have and cast them better and they're the best melee combatants on a doomwheel. Or ruins grey seers, they get the screaming bell mount and ruins magic (I remember it used to be their ugpraded warp lightning cost 4 and warlock engineers was 5, but I haven't recruited them recently and I think warlock masters went from 4 cost to 5 at some point. If they're still 4 they have the best ruins magic).

Assassins as far as I understand kill infantry units from ranged. So it gives you a lord that can safely contribute a decent number of kills against infantry and maybe cavalry. I don't think that's particularly useful.

But they could also be a tank lord. They start with physical resist, and physical resist gains more value the more you get. 80 physical resist to 90 is a 50% damage reduction. So, if you have the items they could end up as the best tanks against armor piercing melee units. Something warlock masters and grey seers aren't very capable of, and warlords don't have a ranged attack if you go in too hard and get them injured.

Imagine you make a ranged heavy stack. You have stuff like poison wind mortars, so you really don't want to just run into melee combat. An assassin lord gives you a pretty consistent source of decent damage, and because of the physical resist if you absolutely must engage in melee he should be fine (assuming you have the items to stack ward save). That makes him more generally useful than the warlord (who does nothing until he's needed in melee) or the casters (who can't tank as well).

So, I can see a role. Its not a role I particularly like though. The only ranged lord I tend to pick up is hunstman lords (cause they have bonuses to multiple unit types and empire's other generals are meh, although I like warrior priest lords better anyways). I used to pick up princesses because they had the ranged buffing skills, but incindiary archmages are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ op and I see no reason to ever pick up anything else on HE anymore.

If I want to snipe characters on skaven though, its so easy. I wouldn't waste my lord slot when there's assassins to kill them and jezzails to snipe them and hellpit abominations for the monstrous ones. There's like 20 different ways to kill that slaan in under 10 seconds, and none of them require a lord slot.

[halogamb]

Originally posted by Tazor:

Originally posted by Cacomistle:

Its hard to discuss whether they're good or not in the first place if we're talking about a role they're not meant for.

Its like if someone said "clanrats are weak units. Archers do more ranged damage". I personally think archers are overpowered as ♥♥♥♥ in campaign (at least elven and dwarven ones) and are generally superior units to clanrats, but if someone gave me that argument I wouldn't hesitate to point out that clanrats aren't ranged units.

What's the purpose of the assassin then? Isn't he supposed to easily kill off unprotected enemy characters? He fails at that purpose.

I don't know how you gauge success because I easily destroy foot heroes and lords with near mind numbing ease with him. Stick him with any unit of clan rats and he will absolutely mulch through most low-mid tier infantry without taking any damage. He is a duelist and acts as single unit overpowering support for any infantry unit. This is pretty easy to see considering he is just a better version of the hero assassin, and that is understood to be what the hero does too...the lord does it better though since he has more AP, MD, Armor, Leadership, and Charge Bonus. Stalk on in to that mage, or hero, or lord chilling, before they know what's going on you've taken out a third of their health before they've gotten more than one attack off.

[YMFTCTB]

Originally posted by Ҡ乚乃..:

Originally posted by halogamb:

This

not really man, master assassin isn't good.

as a skaven player, i really disagree...

[FiftyTifty]

The assassins are instrumental in taking out Saurus lords. Without them, Skrolk has no way of winning any territory in Lustria.

[YMFTCTB]

Originally posted by Richard Innmouth Janet Enmasse:

The assassins are instrumental in taking out Saurus lords. Without them, Skrolk has no way of winning any territory in Lustria.

if that were the case (which it may be, i havent tried) then skrolk would be impossible without dlc, which shouldnt be the case due to him being a base game lord

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Richard Innmouth Janet Enmasse:

The assassins are instrumental in taking out Saurus lords. Without them, Skrolk has no way of winning any territory in Lustria.

Of course there's always good play, cheese, etc to consider. If you just have more stuff than your opponent, you don't even need to kill saurus lords because you'll wipe the rest of their army. Skrolk + plague priest + plague monks/clanrats will also beat a saurus lord easily. You can wait to fight them till you have plague monks, which you can get really early.

But aside from all those strategies, just plague their capital. My fight against itza was against a 1/4th hp stack+garrison and my entire army had frenzy.

Needless to say, it was not a challenging fight, and I managed to deal with a 1/4th hp Gor Rok and saurus scar veteran from the garrison without too much trouble. I did in fact not have an assassin lord.

[FiftyTifty]

Maybe if you're playing vanilla on normal. But with Better AI 2, even on normal? Nah Skrolk gets eradicated. He plays like a Kurd in Syria.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by Richard Innmouth Janet Enmasse:

Maybe if you're playing vanilla on normal. But with Better AI 2, even on normal? Nah Skrolk gets eradicated. He plays like a Kurd in Syria.

Your comment was still wrong though. Skrolk has a way to win territory in lustria without assassins. All he has to do is not mod the game to cripple himself or buff his enemies.

Also don't most of those mods affect the campaign map? If I can get to a stack of plagueclaw catapults and plague monks without dying, I can beat any number of saurus warriors in battle easily. If they like primeval glory or something and I'm fighting a stack of dinos + a stack of saurus, then recuiting 2 assassin heroes isn't going to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ save me, so I still don't see how your comment is true. Not to mention, I'm still perfectly capable of just plaguing the dino army.

I will admit I have not played that mod. I may or may not be good enough to win on that mod. But if you give it to someone like legendOfTotalWar who basically cheeses this game for a living, I'd bet 100000:1 odds he could figure out how to beat lizardmen without recruiting an assassin, especially on normal difficulty.

I've done it on him on very hard btw, including before plague was a thing (although itza was weaker back then). The fact the faction didn't have a 0% win rate on legendary before eshin was added implies that you don't need asssassin lords.

I'm sorry if this sounded a bit harsh, but I am so sick of seeing the "my strategies are the singular way to beat the game. I'm the only person smart enough to win. If you claim to win without my strategies, you're a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ liar because its not possible" post so many times. And its so stupid, honestly as many stupid things as there are on the forums I think that sort of post is still top 5. And your posts are on the line of saying that.

[halogamb]

Originally posted by Richard Innmouth Janet Enmasse:

Maybe if you're playing vanilla on normal. But with Better AI 2, even on normal? Nah Skrolk gets eradicated. He plays like a Kurd in Syria.

Not gonna lie, Better AI 2 is absolute garbage and the owner of that mod is significantly less than savory. The only AI mod worth using was Advanced AI, and that has long since been discontinued. Vanilla is leagues better than Better AI 2.