No difference between hero and lord?

[< blank >]

Find it weird that they are so similar.
Great game anyway. This series def is next of my fav to rome.

[Kapika96]

There's a pretty big difference.

One can lead armies, the other can't.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Lords can have armies, heroes can only join armies. Pretty major difference.

[SpaceGoatMage]

Heroes can also do various actions on the map that lords cant.

[Humble]

There are difference, not lot when come to combat, but Lord force on whole army stuff, while hero is more specialist, whatever it's healing, or assassin other hero, or block enemies army or weak enemies army while Lord is forced on buff army or travel on world map, but combat and magic role is similar, however.

[Ape-tier Buffoonery]

Typically some variants of leaders are better off being heroes rather than lords.

For instance wizards in my opinion make for better Heroes as opposed to Lords, since Wizards usually are more useful once they've got some skill points into the magic skills to actually cast them, but that means getting your Red (Battle buffs)/Blue (Campaign buffs) skills later.

Where as a pure melee hero makes a better Lord because I can put off their Yellow (Self buffs) since they're still good fighters on their own, in order to rush the Blue and Red skills. That way if I use Melee heroes I can just spec them to be melee beasts.

I'm usually torn on Hybrid lords/heroes. Typically they have 40m buffs to help other ranged units, so it's good to have your Lord stand in the back and help your artillery and ranged units and not be in danger. But sometimes the lack of melee ability hurts when you really need to throw someone tough at something tearing through your lines.

[Humble]

I agree it's kind of painful when come to wizard lord, better off they are hero to save point that way. Wizard lord need lot of point to be useful than warrior lord do.

[Diggy G]

Lords have larger dongs in general.

[Fendelphi]

Originally posted by Esoteric Reference:

Typically some variants of leaders are better off being heroes rather than lords.

For instance wizards in my opinion make for better Heroes as opposed to Lords, since Wizards usually are more useful once they've got some skill points into the magic skills to actually cast them, but that means getting your Red (Battle buffs)/Blue (Campaign buffs) skills later.

Where as a pure melee hero makes a better Lord because I can put off their Yellow (Self buffs) since they're still good fighters on their own, in order to rush the Blue and Red skills. That way if I use Melee heroes I can just spec them to be melee beasts.

I'm usually torn on Hybrid lords/heroes. Typically they have 40m buffs to help other ranged units, so it's good to have your Lord stand in the back and help your artillery and ranged units and not be in danger. But sometimes the lack of melee ability hurts when you really need to throw someone tough at something tearing through your lines.

On the other hand, Wizard Lords have so much magic power that they can destroy armies by themselves eventually. They are head and shoulder above the hero wizard variant.

Sure, army buffs are nice, but they often give something like 6-8 points of MA or MD a mild increase in damage per unit. Especially early game, where you mostly field low tier units anyway. Which, dont get me wrong, is nice.
But for me, they are never a priority on a caster lord, simply because you get so much more value with better spell casting. A melee lord will overall have much less impact on a fight, compared to a wizard lord. They are good for going up against enemy baddies and for pinning certain units in place, but for pure killing power, casters are just more powerful.

And once you have all the spellcasting you want, you still have enough points to get army buffs afterwards.
A lot of caster lords even gets to ride a big beast, so they can still do a bit of killing between spells.

[Dreagon]

Originally posted by Fendelphi:

Originally posted by Esoteric Reference:

Typically some variants of leaders are better off being heroes rather than lords.

For instance wizards in my opinion make for better Heroes as opposed to Lords, since Wizards usually are more useful once they've got some skill points into the magic skills to actually cast them, but that means getting your Red (Battle buffs)/Blue (Campaign buffs) skills later.

Where as a pure melee hero makes a better Lord because I can put off their Yellow (Self buffs) since they're still good fighters on their own, in order to rush the Blue and Red skills. That way if I use Melee heroes I can just spec them to be melee beasts.

I'm usually torn on Hybrid lords/heroes. Typically they have 40m buffs to help other ranged units, so it's good to have your Lord stand in the back and help your artillery and ranged units and not be in danger. But sometimes the lack of melee ability hurts when you really need to throw someone tough at something tearing through your lines.

On the other hand, Wizard Lords have so much magic power that they can destroy armies by themselves eventually. They are head and shoulder above the hero wizard variant.

Sure, army buffs are nice, but they often give something like 6-8 points of MA or MD a mild increase in damage per unit. Especially early game, where you mostly field low tier units anyway. Which, dont get me wrong, is nice.
But for me, they are never a priority on a caster lord, simply because you get so much more value with better spell casting. A melee lord will overall have much less impact on a fight, compared to a wizard lord. They are good for going up against enemy baddies and for pinning certain units in place, but for pure killing power, casters are just more powerful.

And once you have all the spellcasting you want, you still have enough points to get army buffs afterwards.
A lot of caster lords even gets to ride a big beast, so they can still do a bit of killing between spells.

Do caster lords get that much more WoM? I'm pretty sure they share most of those skills with the heroes which makes them equally good at magic.

[Dragon Master]

Heroes can do all sorts of things, like assault garrisons, steal technology (temporarily increase your research rate), assault units, search ruins, block armies, stop enemy armies from replenishing after a battle.

They can also do many things in your army. Increase the armies movement range, increase chances of finding magic items to give lords/heroes, increase the replenishment of your army after battle.

Lord's can't do most of that, but they can recruit and lead additional armies and heroes cannot.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Dreagon:

Originally posted by Fendelphi:

On the other hand, Wizard Lords have so much magic power that they can destroy armies by themselves eventually. They are head and shoulder above the hero wizard variant.

Sure, army buffs are nice, but they often give something like 6-8 points of MA or MD a mild increase in damage per unit. Especially early game, where you mostly field low tier units anyway. Which, dont get me wrong, is nice.
But for me, they are never a priority on a caster lord, simply because you get so much more value with better spell casting. A melee lord will overall have much less impact on a fight, compared to a wizard lord. They are good for going up against enemy baddies and for pinning certain units in place, but for pure killing power, casters are just more powerful.

And once you have all the spellcasting you want, you still have enough points to get army buffs afterwards.
A lot of caster lords even gets to ride a big beast, so they can still do a bit of killing between spells.

Do caster lords get that much more WoM? I'm pretty sure they share most of those skills with the heroes which makes them equally good at magic.

They can, if you level up their magic. They can get an additional reserve pool and a faster recharge rate.

[Aleera]

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

They can, if you level up their magic. They can get an additional reserve pool and a faster recharge rate.

So do heroes. Some legendary lords however get the recharge rate as a passive. The only difference a mage lord has over some of their hero variants, that they can get 3 lvls into a spell. Meaning a base 35% miscast on overcast chance, while the hero only gets 50% on the spell itself. For instance, Skaven engineers.

The biggest problem with some of the legendary lords, is when they get several yellow lines and you just won't have enough points to make them proper. Looking at you Mannfred.

[Fendelphi]

Originally posted by Dreagon:

Originally posted by Fendelphi:

On the other hand, Wizard Lords have so much magic power that they can destroy armies by themselves eventually. They are head and shoulder above the hero wizard variant.

Sure, army buffs are nice, but they often give something like 6-8 points of MA or MD a mild increase in damage per unit. Especially early game, where you mostly field low tier units anyway. Which, dont get me wrong, is nice.
But for me, they are never a priority on a caster lord, simply because you get so much more value with better spell casting. A melee lord will overall have much less impact on a fight, compared to a wizard lord. They are good for going up against enemy baddies and for pinning certain units in place, but for pure killing power, casters are just more powerful.

And once you have all the spellcasting you want, you still have enough points to get army buffs afterwards.
A lot of caster lords even gets to ride a big beast, so they can still do a bit of killing between spells.

Do caster lords get that much more WoM? I'm pretty sure they share most of those skills with the heroes which makes them equally good at magic.

Most caster lords(cant say all, since it has been a long time since I played Bretonnia) have several skills that boosts both power reserves and regen above what is available to a hero caster(f.ex. greater arcane conduit, which passively gives both a large reserve and regen, while the hero only gets Arcane Conduit, which provides less and is an active ability(has a duration and cooldown)).
Just to clarify, "most"(see above) caster Lords gets both Arcane Conduit(active ability) and Greater Arcane Conduit(which is more powerful).
Another example: Most heroes only provide 15-25 to power reserve as passive skills(not counting traits or items).
Most caster lords can add 30 or more through passive skills.

Several caster lords also have heavy discounts on certain spells(in addition to the regular spell discounts), further reduced cooldowns or other such benefits.
Some also has bound spells(for instance, all Archmages have access to a bound Chain Lightning, so that is 2 free casts of a very damaging vortex spell, on top of their regular casting).

Very few wizard lords can put 3 points into spells. In fact, it is the hero wizards who often needs to put 3 points into each spell to get the most out of them. Meaning that the Lord saves points(they basically skip 1 step and goes to the last tier with just 2 points).

With Mannfred, you really should just pick a few core spells you want to use(1 to 3 spells from each lore of magic), and have a vampire or a necromancer accompany him to utilize his insane power reserves and regen.

[Humble]

Caster Lords is just same as hero but for some reason wise spent point, Hero do better, and more forced it, while Lord had to force on his or her army (I don't know why it's had to be called lord if female leading, should be called lady?)

Caster Lord don't do often had better than Hero do, because spell just same.
Even so, there is not much major spell changed on battle, very few spell do that in right certain do change major battle, but not much, like wind of death or high damage spell or even summon, but most case spell only do buff army or healing in limited and slow way, that don't change major battle, just little tiny bit. Depend on who lord and faction, some are not even worth it to put point, like Vlad and isabella, I rather let Necromancer do magic and you could max out with some remain point left while I always try make vampire lord yellow (combat force, not magic), blue and red, if vampire lord go down so was rest of army, and I can't had that, and I don't want undead get low leadership so they don't get self damage when leadership is low during battle, this is importian for vampire army to had some red buff and blue buff, it's must had. Magic is not. Red buff help Auto battle less lose and win more, not magic.

[Ape-tier Buffoonery]

Originally posted by Fendelphi:

Originally posted by Esoteric Reference:

Typically some variants of leaders are better off being heroes rather than lords.

For instance wizards in my opinion make for better Heroes as opposed to Lords, since Wizards usually are more useful once they've got some skill points into the magic skills to actually cast them, but that means getting your Red (Battle buffs)/Blue (Campaign buffs) skills later.

Where as a pure melee hero makes a better Lord because I can put off their Yellow (Self buffs) since they're still good fighters on their own, in order to rush the Blue and Red skills. That way if I use Melee heroes I can just spec them to be melee beasts.

I'm usually torn on Hybrid lords/heroes. Typically they have 40m buffs to help other ranged units, so it's good to have your Lord stand in the back and help your artillery and ranged units and not be in danger. But sometimes the lack of melee ability hurts when you really need to throw someone tough at something tearing through your lines.

On the other hand, Wizard Lords have so much magic power that they can destroy armies by themselves eventually. They are head and shoulder above the hero wizard variant.

Sure, army buffs are nice, but they often give something like 6-8 points of MA or MD a mild increase in damage per unit. Especially early game, where you mostly field low tier units anyway. Which, dont get me wrong, is nice.
But for me, they are never a priority on a caster lord, simply because you get so much more value with better spell casting. A melee lord will overall have much less impact on a fight, compared to a wizard lord. They are good for going up against enemy baddies and for pinning certain units in place, but for pure killing power, casters are just more powerful.

And once you have all the spellcasting you want, you still have enough points to get army buffs afterwards.
A lot of caster lords even gets to ride a big beast, so they can still do a bit of killing between spells.

I mean you can spin 8 MA/MD as mild but I can assure you a level 6 Melee lord who put his 4 levels into the Red Bar to boost his army of Swordsmen, and 1 level into 10% more movement speed vs a Level 6 Wizard lord who put his 5 levels into 10% movement and 4 into Spells, at best he's unlocked a 25% cooldown to his base lore spell, and 3 new spells or 25% cooldown, 2 spells and the passive while casting.

In that hypothetical the Lord would just rush your Wizard while his Swordsmen steamroll your own Swordsmen. At best you'll be able to weaken a few units of Swordsmen with your low level magic, but definitely wont win that battle.

If we bump their levels up to say 20, if the Wizard has put all his points into spells, it's 16 points total (2 for opener, 1 passive, (3 spells x 2 points each), 1 mid tree point, (2 spells x 2 points each), 2 passives, 1 finisher = 16. That leaves 3 extra points so +10% speed, Immortal and 1 point for a mount.
Compared to a Melee Lord who uses 11 points to get to the end of the Blue tree for a total of 23% upkeep reduction, with 9 points left over, 1 into Immortal, 1 into a Mount, Which leaves 7 so you can get two Red line skills 3/3 to boost his army. If both leaders have the same mount then the Melee lord still wins by default.

Unless you're playing on Small sizes (Since magic is broken OP on small) or specifically going for a magic build (Like a bunch of Necromancers boosting Manfred's WoM to keep casting death magic), magic can help you win battles but cheaper, stronger armies win wars.

Obviously this goes out the window when talking about Mage LL's but then it's sometimes even worse for them because they usually have some really useful unique yellow skills. Tbh when I'm forced to use a Mage LL or Generic leader of some sort, I'll rush 1 damaging spell and then go down the Blue/Red tree depending on if my units need the Red buffs or not asap.