Just Nagash survives and no one else, so the only person Nagash cares for will win so its acceptable losses. Especially if it takes down Settra without Nagash putting in that much effort.

Permanent Flaming Attacks are often a downgrade, and I think people underestimate how bad they can be

Flaming Attacks can absolutely be useful. The problem is when they're permanently attached to a unit with no way to turn them off.

First, it's important to understand how resistances actually work, because resistance and weakness aren't symmetrical.

Let's take a unit with 1000 HP taking 100 fire damage per hit:

Normal : 100 damage --> 10 hits to kill
50% Fire Weakness: 150 damage --> ~7 hits
50% Fire Resistance: 50 damage --> 20 hits

So 50% resistance is effectively +100% effective HP, while 50% weakness is only around -33% effective HP.

This matters even with smaller values.

A unit with 20% Fire Weakness takes 120 damage instead of 100. That's nice, obviously, but it's not some enormous advantage. And 20% weakness is basically the standard situation : regeneration gives 20% Fire Weakness, and Kindleflame from the Lore of Fire also applies 20% Fire Weakness.

This is where Flaming Attacks can be genuinely good.

If you're playing the Empire with a Fire Wizard, for example, or using Archaon with Lore of Fire, Kindleflame can effectively give your army +20% damage against the affected enemies if your units have Flaming Attacks. Against regenerating units, you can get the same kind of benefit naturally.

So I'm not arguing that Flaming Attacks are bad by themselves.

I'm arguing that permanent Flaming Attacks are bad design mechanically, because the risk/reward is heavily skewed.

You sometimes/often get around 20% more damage in favorable situations, but when you run into meaningful Fire Resistance, you can suddenly deal much less damage, and that can completely change a matchup.

And there's already a solution to this : the Flaming Attacks banner.

You can equip it when Flaming Attacks are useful and simply not use it when they're detrimental. That's how the mechanic makes sense : Flaming Attacks become a situational tool instead of an unavoidable weakness.

Having permanent Flaming Attacks basically means accepting a small/moderate advantage in some matchups in exchange for a potentially massive, game-changing disadvantage in others.

That's the part I don't think is balanced well.

The healing reduction from Flaming Attacks is also pretty much a joke and doesn't really compensate for the downside.

It's even worse for missile units. Most units with regeneration are already good targets for missiles anyway, often because they're large and easy to focus down. So having your missiles permanent Flaming Attacks often gives you very little additional value against the targets they're supposed to counter, while potentially destroying their damage output against anything with significant Fire Resistance.

That's why permanent Flaming Attacks on missile units are especially bad most of the time.

EDIT :

The Title should be : "Why PERMANENT Flamming Attacks are not Good" since this is what I meant.

Since a lot of the replies seem to be arguing from general impressions rather than actually addressing the mechanic, I want to clarify my point and add some concrete examples.

I'm not saying Flaming Attacks are never useful. I'm saying permanent, non-toggleable Flaming Attacks are not inherently a strength. There are situations where you absolutely want them, which is exactly why the game has the Flaming Attacks banne r: you can choose when to use them.

The problem is when you cannot turn them off.

LegendofTotalWar has made basically the same point. In this video he says:

>"I have said this so many times before: Flaming Attacks are not a strength. At all."

https://youtu.be/ohfVYIt19jA?si=tN4fddy1l_yqBZfx&t=283

And he immediately demonstrates why. Azazel is struggling against Valkia, so Legend replaces a Talisman of Preservation with a grey/common Dragonbane item giving 35% Fire Resistance. That supposedly mediocre item suddenly becomes extremely valuable because Valkia has permanent Flaming Attacks. With the extra Fire Resistance, Azazel is then able to destroy her in a 1v1.

That is exactly my point : Fire Resistance does not need to be widespread across an entire roster to matter. One important resistant unit can completely change a battle if your best damage source is forced to deal fire damage.

Here is another example where bringing Flaming Attacks into a target with Fire Resistance creates a disaster for the player:

https://youtu.be/P_72ClxkgVg?si=Gs3WSCM2PrsWLqkQ

I also think the resistance/weakness math is being overlooked. Resistance and weakness are not symmetrical. For example, 50% Fire Resistance means +100% effective HP against fire, while 50% Fire Weakness only means about -33% effective HP. So the downside of hitting meaningful Fire Resistance can be much larger than the upside of hitting a typical fire weakness.

And Fire Resistance is not limited to a couple of innate roster traits either. It can come from items, skills, traits, technologies, characters and faction effects. You don't need 20 resistant units in an army for it to matter. Sometimes the one unit that matters most is the resistant one.

So again, my argument is not:

"Flaming Attacks are always bad."

It's:

"Permanent Flaming Attacks that cannot be toggled are often more of a liability than a bonus."

If I can choose when to use fire damage, great. That's what the banner is for. If I'm permanently forced to use it, then a situational tool has become a built-in weakness.

Also, the point of this post isn't to ask for a rework of the mechanic or anything like that. It's simply to explain how it actually works, because a lot of people in the comments genuinely seem to treat permanent Flaming Attacks as an inherent upgrade, when they really aren't.

And if you're going to disagree with that, the bare minimum is to bring actual arguments and evidence, not just a feeling or an impression —especially if you've only been playing the game for two weeks.

I attempted a Thorgrim Campaign where i planned to turtle with 2.5 Provinces and scale up until i got enough money and armies to solo the map and crush the end times.

Well, the Lahmian sisterhood kind of crushed that dream because the second I met them they declared war on me and attacked a Bult Up Worlds Edge Archway reinforced with a Runelord and 3 Longbeards(shields) and 3 Quarrelers to around 21 Units the Sisterhood attacked it and I fought it manually since it was a defeat.

Since it was a settlement battle it had a lot of chokepoints and the one where the bulk of the enemy came from was held by 2 Longbeards and 3 quarrelers and they were supported and buffed by my Runelord, I naively believed that they could hold of a Lahmian Handmaiden seen above and some Skeletons while I microed another front.

Well, I was wrong not 30 seconds later and i noticed that some of my quarrelers were rapidly losing health and when I searched for the flying unit that must have sneaked past me i noticed that two of my longbeards were routed and my Lord was about to flee as well.

So, I paused had a little crash out because WTF they are not armor piercing on the unit card. So, I took a closer look and low and behold 25 ap attack + Okkams Mindrazor to buff that by 50% to ~38 ap.

For Comparison Longbeards with Greatweapons who can be recruited at the same Building level (at tier 3 but Lahmia can get them at tier 2 through a special building) have 26 ap weapon damage just one more than unbuffed Handmaidens and Empire Greatswords have 25 ap.

Their States are roughly on Par with Chosen (Great Wepons) (slightly better combat stats but worse Armor and Leadership) and whilst at first their 32 model count might seem low but each model has 208 Hp and regeneration whilst in mele. But hey maybe they balanced it through a massive upkeep like 600 souls/Gold a turn? Nope 275, Hammerers cost 300 and are worse in basically every stat except armor and morale. Add to that they are Undead so their relatively low morale is only an issue if they are losing a fight, they won’t, and debuff enemy Mele Attack by 8 and Morale through fear and have a Physical resistance of 20% (why they have that I don’t know no non Lahmian vampire has that one and it’s not a faction specific trait).

They have the statline of a Level 4 Settlement unlock at level 2 for Lahmia and 3 for all the other vampires.

edit: Ran it through a spelling checker.

My friend requested for an Archaon illustration earlier, thought it'll be appreciated here

(I know I couldn't make it very accurate and made him skinnier accidentally 😢)

Edit: thanks for the support everyone ❤️ I'll try to improve in the future, also I absolutely love all the cute and funny nicknames xD made my day honestly!

I'm playing as Bretonnia and something strange just happened in my campaign.

Two characters suddenly appeared in the forest, and both of them are shown as Lords. One of them is Daniel Culdec,

The weird thing is that I can't click on them, select them, interact with them, or do anything with them at all. They just stand there on the campaign map.

They also have a strange symbol/icon above their names that I haven't seen before. Unfortunately, I can't hover over the icon or interact with it, so I have no idea what it means.

The tooltip says:
"Twój bohater: Lord" / "Your hero: Lord"

Has anyone encountered this before? Is this some kind of bug, hidden mechanic, quest/event, or mod-related issue?

.I've attached a screenshot showing exactly what I'm seeing.

Any idea what these two characters are and why I can't interact with them?

Gave us a feature countering Vlad (escalating wounds) and then made it useless against him... and i'm yet again fighting this bastard every turn!

Was that you Mitch?!!!

Apart from my obvious skill issue - how can I deal with armies of 400 three gold chevron Glottkin that have infinite health and terror route everything I have??!!

They have multiple stacks across the empire