Citadel Lancers (CL)

Abilities:

Trample can help to do some extra dammage. It's quite situative, attacking a supported unit it's a fine ability. Your enemy can avoid it, if he doesn't support his untis in the range of the lancers. I don't feel like trample is an ability that gives you a reason to play the CL because it doesn't come to it's own enough times...

Charge does also extra dammage, helping to increase theyr dammage potencial even more. It isn't as situational as trample, but it isn't working for counters or for a second turn against the same unit. Better and more consistent than trample.

My opinion:

Against a supported unit, Citadel Lancers attack with 3+ (sword, double-sword, crown and flag!). That may be the highest dammage potencial in the game! Sure, Combined with theyr fine movement, it sounds like a must-unit for Daqan. Sure, they should be strong against an army uf undead leaded by the banshee. There should be a target and if the banshee is horrifying your CL get another round of Charge. But, unfortunately, I don't really use them any more. I tried them in several games, and I don't know if I had only bad luck with them or if they really underwhelm. I didn't get often a good spot for them. U want to get a regular attack on a supported unit in theyr range. It isn't so hard for my enemy to avoid that. So CL didn't really use the great dammage potencial.

There are two possible slots to deploy the CL, but generally I feel like they are liable in both spots:

cavalry-slot: Riverwatch Riders are the MUST unit in every Daqan army, CL can't hassle them

elite-slot: I tried some times cavalry focused Daqan armies with Riverwatch and CL. They didn't work very well. The dammage potencial isn't as huge as it would have to be to renounce on the strong defensiv units like Golems or Ironbounds. I was surprised that an army of Roc warrior, Riverwatch an CT, filled up with core-units didn't really work as I imaginded. So from time to time I deploy a unit of CL, but more to diversify mi armies then for theyr abilties. I think CL are far away of being a must-unit and even not so strong as they seem at the first moment.

Your thoughts about CL?

i cutted they right arm and placed the lance as shown on their picture. classic tjost.

I also don't play them that often anymore since my war is commonly focused on archers and CGs supported by Riverwatch. Depending on the mission I use Roc (if there are terrain issues) or golems/ironbounds (if they are necessary) otherwise I choose mages.

Using CL depends strongly on the goals of your enemy and your knowledge about how s/he is using her/his army possibilities.

If the goal of your enemy is to strictly defend OR attack quickly I would think about using an archer, CG, mage, CL, riverwatch combination. If your opponent has to defend think about using roc instead of mages.

I used them during the last game with a great success.

Their use cases are:

-breaking up a defense around VP (for instance, due to a terrain around you can't attack in the way the enemy unit is unsupported)

-for killing big baddies - Daqan often lack firepower for that

-Banshee-supported units :-D

-Banshee-supported units :-D

I was wondering when that was going to happen for someone. That's fantastic!

I was wondering when that was going to happen for someone. That's fantastic!

Not exactly, last time I rather killed the Banshee itself, while she was supported by Reanimates. But I imagine this could very well be the other way around.

I would derail discussion a bit, but for me, the unit I can't really find an application a lot of times are Ironbound. Not that they are bad - on the contrary, I like them quite a bit, but it's rather that in most situations I'd rather find another unit that would do the job better. E.g., if I want to hold smth, Golems would be my top pick instead.

I would derail discussion a bit, but for me, the unit I can't really find an application a lot of times are Ironbound. Not that they are bad - on the contrary, I like them quite a bit, but it's rather that in most situations I'd rather find another unit that would do the job better. E.g., if I want to hold smth, Golems would be my top pick instead.

I don't think you're giving enough credit to 4 attack dice. But that's just my opinion.

I used the Lancers to great effect the other day. But when competing against the OP Riders, and the Golems and Ironbound (both fill similar roles, but the golems work better for defense, while Ironbound provide a shield for attackers.) it can be difficult for the Lancers to see the light of day.

I don't think you're giving enough credit to 4 attack dice. But that's just my opinion

I don't say that they are useless or UP - it's just that I don't see a good use case for them. Which task are they better at than any other Daqan unit?

I can see that they become good with certain Lore (like, ignoring retreats) - but you first got to get one.

Or on the front of the battle line when they are supported from all sides.

Ironbound provide a shield for attackers.

What do you mean by that, exactly?

Lancers are basically one of the few Daqan hard hitting units with a great reach, allowing you to kill Chaos Lord without drawing a Runesword. Besides, unlike Golems and Ironbound they got a useful Command Card (Cavalry Charge), can keep pace with Riders, and the Knight keyword allows some powerful Lore cards to be used.

I mean that putting Ironbound in front of your heavy hitters like Rocs and citadel guards can be a good strategy, because they can soften everything up, and absorb some damage through armor 1. Not to mention you can theoretically order them every turn.

I would derail discussion a bit, but for me, the unit I can't really find an application a lot of times are Ironbound. Not that they are bad - on the contrary, I like them quite a bit, but it's rather that in most situations I'd rather find another unit that would do the job better. E.g., if I want to hold smth, Golems would be my top pick instead.

It's quite OT but I agree. If I only look for effectivity my Daqan Decklist would by in very most scenarios similar, something like

1 Roc Warrior (8)

2 Riverwatch Riders (12)

2 Golems (12)

2 Battlemages (10)

2 Citadel Guards (8)

Total Points: 50

Side board:

+ 1 command tent / + what's needed

+ 1 Riverwatch / - 1 Golem

- 2 Battlemages, - 1 Golem / + 3 Archers + 1 Citadel Guard

reason why:

- Roc is the most flexible hero in the game

- Riverwatch Riders may be the best Daqan unit at all

- Golems are the best choice to guard VP-hexes

- Cital Guard to fill up the list and 1st choice if you want to attack a building (double chance to cause a retreat)

the other units are ok but do not serve as good for the main duty:

- Citadell Lancers look at the Topic

- Ironbounds: good defense, good attack.They compete with Golems. In this slot I need a defender for my VP... Golems are 1st choice

- Siege Golem... May have his justification against undead. Imo lost against the Roc

There are two possible slots to deploy the CL, but generally I feel like they are liable in both spots:

cavalry-slot: Riverwatch Riders are the MUST unit in every Daqan army, CL can't hassle them

elite-slot: I tried some times cavalry focused Daqan armies with Riverwatch and CL. They didn't work very well. The dammage potencial isn't as huge as it would have to be to renounce on the strong defensiv units like Golems or Ironbounds. I was surprised that an army of Roc warrior, Riverwatch an CT, filled up with core-units didn't really work as I imaginded. So from time to time I deploy a unit of CL, but more to diversify mi armies then for theyr abilties. I think CL are far away of being a must-unit and even not so strong as they seem at the first moment.

Your thoughts about CL?

While I see how they might not fit someone's play-style, I don't think they are a bad unit by any means and I actually used them to great success in the past. In fact they might be one of my favorite troops, even if I also didn't recognize their value at first glance.

First of all, in my opinion the comparison with the Riverwatch Riders isn't really that fair, because they have a completely different focus. Riverwatch Riders are all about support and are pretty useless by themselves, but that's fine since the Daquan is anyway an army strongly focused on creating synergies between their troops to get the most out of them.

The Citadel Lancers on the other hand are one of the most independent troops in the whole game, if not the most, because without any kind of support they can increase their chances of inflicting damage up to 66% on each die all by themselves. It's huge! That alone gives them purpose. You can use them in areas of the board where you don't have a lot of troops or where your troops have been killed and they still don't lose their effectiveness... while ordering Riverwatch Riders in those situations would be a complete waste. Also, as already mentioned by others, they counter the ability of the Banshee to the point that you're almost happy she's there!

Yet it doesn't mean that the Citadel Lancers lack interactions. In fact they can benefit greatly from the Riverwatch Riders, because they both have a high movement value and can therefore easily surround an enemy troop and tear it apart. Even better than that though is the high number of Lore Cards that are related to them: 2x Valor and Vengeance, 2x Overrun and 2x Lightning Surge. That's 6 cards out of 20, more than 25% of the deck! No other troop comes even close to that. I also would like to point out how strong Lightning Surge is. You get to stun a bunch of troops, attack them without getting a counterattack while turning retreats into damage (even if the enemy unit isn't supported or surrounded) and also forcing the other player to spend probably way more lore than what you paid for the card to remove its effects.

Just for reference this is one of the most effective offensive Daquan armies I've ever deployed:

3x Citadel Lancers; 2x Riverwatch Riders; 2x Greyhaven Battlemages; 3x Citadel Guard; 1 Command Tent; 3 Lore.

There are two possible slots to deploy the CL, but generally I feel like they are liable in both spots:

cavalry-slot: Riverwatch Riders are the MUST unit in every Daqan army, CL can't hassle them

elite-slot: I tried some times cavalry focused Daqan armies with Riverwatch and CL. They didn't work very well. The dammage potencial isn't as huge as it would have to be to renounce on the strong defensiv units like Golems or Ironbounds. I was surprised that an army of Roc warrior, Riverwatch an CT, filled up with core-units didn't really work as I imaginded. So from time to time I deploy a unit of CL, but more to diversify mi armies then for theyr abilties. I think CL are far away of being a must-unit and even not so strong as they seem at the first moment.

Your thoughts about CL?

While I see how they might not fit someone's play-style, I don't think they are a bad unit by any means and I actually used them to great success in the past. In fact they might be one of my favorite troops, even if I also didn't recognize their value at first glance.

First of all, in my opinion the comparison with the Riverwatch Riders isn't really that fair, because they have a completely different focus. Riverwatch Riders are all about support and are pretty useless by themselves, but that's fine since the Daquan is anyway an army strongly focused on creating synergies between their troops to get the most out of them.

The Citadel Lancers on the other hand are one of the most independent troops in the whole game, if not the most, because without any kind of support they can increase their chances of inflicting damage up to 66% on each die all by themselves. It's huge! That alone gives them purpose. You can use them in areas of the board where you don't have a lot of troops or where your troops have been killed and they still don't lose their effectiveness... while ordering Riverwatch Riders in those situations would be a complete waste. Also, as already mentioned by others, they counter the ability of the Banshee to the point that you're almost happy she's there!

Yet it doesn't mean that the Citadel Lancers lack interactions. In fact they can benefit greatly from the Riverwatch Riders, because they both have a high movement value and can therefore easily surround an enemy troop and tear it apart. Even better than that though is the high number of Lore Cards that are related to them: 2x Valor and Vengeance, 2x Overrun and 2x Lightning Surge. That's 6 cards out of 20, more than 25% of the deck! No other troop comes even close to that. I also would like to point out how strong Lightning Surge is. You get to stun a bunch of troops, attack them without getting a counterattack while turning retreats into damage (even if the enemy unit isn't supported or surrounded) and also forcing the other player to spend probably way more lore than what you paid for the card to remove its effects.

Just for reference this is one of the most effective offensive Daquan armies I've ever deployed:

3x Citadel Lancers; 2x Riverwatch Riders; 2x Greyhaven Battlemages; 3x Citadel Guard; 1 Command Tent; 3 Lore.

It's nice that you are succesfull with this army-list. I would like if you ca tell more about you played it. As I told, I tried similar lists and I quitly failed with it. Your only damage dealer are the CL. They are fine, but not overwealming imo. The strengh of your decklist is obvious: you have a hard attack on a good range with Lancers and Riverwatch combined. But you have also some Troubles that I couldn't cover when I tried cavalry-based-armies. My experience was:

- You have no defensiv units and you have to guard your VP/tent with your Citadel Guards... CG are fine but they are an offensiv unit. You lose the biggest advantage of Daqan: the best defenders in the game!

- If you attack the enemy VP, you have no units to defend it once you got it. It will be hard to hold it...

- You spend 30 points for that CL/riverwatch-attack. There is no Plan B... and the damage potencial wasn't as huge in my experience as it would have to be!

- Your list is all about good movement and strong attack. The unit that combines it at its best is the Roc warrior... I think he's an auto-include in this list. You could just replace him for 1 CL and 2 lore... Roc is WAY stronger then CL!

- I think your enemy may quite easy play a around your strategy. He choses the unit in reach of the CL and if it is supportet or not (for example with Uthuk, I would try to give you only berzerks as legal target, and you have to do some though decisions)... but if he has to attack and you get your attack against his strongest units, yes he'll get a problem!

Sure it's a fun decklist to change the meta. It might be strong against an undead-minion army and the banshee also. But I couldn't play it really succesfull...

It's nice that you are succesfull with this army-list. As I told, I tried similar decklists and they quitly failed. Your only damage dealer are the CL. They are fine, but not overwealming imo. The strengh of your decklist is obvious: you have a hard attack on a good range with Lancers and Riverwatch combined. But you have also some Troubles that I couldn't cover when I tried cavalry-based-armies.

You raise a lot of good points. I would like to clarify that I've never took part in any tournament and therefore I'm not aware of what's the meta like or just even if there is one. My opinions are based exclusively on - I would say - a good number of plays (69 so far) among friends. I would also add that every list should largely depend on the scenario you're going to play and that I'm absolutely not claiming that this is an effective list in any given situation. That being said, I think I've something to add and I would like to respond to some of your points.

First of all, I realized I've should have included the LoreDeck list in my previous post, because a lot of the strategies and tactics that made that list successful were based on the lore cards. That's also why I had those 3 Lore in the list, but the argument for the Roc Warrior is very good and it could be easily followed. Anyway, basically I took the Hernfar Guardians Lore Deck and modified it like this: -1 Defend the Realm, -1 Spotter, -1 Machinations of War, -1 Blinding Light, + 1 Valor and Vengeance, +1 Overrun, +1 Battle Cry, +1 Stalwart Defenders.

Therefore the Lore Deck would look like this:

2x Plunder, 1x Defend the Realm, 2x Wall of Steel, 2x Valor and Vengeance, 2x Healing Hands, 1x Rally Cry, 2x Overrun, 2x Lightning Surge, 1x Battle Cry, 2x Stalward Defenders, 1x Intercede, 1x Portal, 1x Runic Assault.

You lose the biggest advantage of Daqan: the best defenders in the game!

While I absolutely agree that the best point holders of the Daquan faction are in fact the Rune Golems, I would at the same time argue that the strong defense of the faction comes more from the Lore Cards than its units anyway and that one might be fairly successful in holding a spot with other units (especially with the Knight keyword, like Citadel Lancers and Citadel Guards) by relying on the Spells. In this deck list there's a total of 9 cards that can replace Immovable and allow you to ignore retreats. That's almost 50% of the Deck! 2x Wall of Steel , which are actually not sure but can be pretty effective anyway, 2x Valor and Vengeance (for Knights), 1x Rally Cry , 1x Battle Cry , which doesn't make you ignore retreats but it's just as effective if not more, 2x Stalward Defenders , one of the best cards at our disposal, and lastly 1x Intercede .

Now I realize that depending on the Lore Cards to do something that a passive ability can otherwise do is not always the way to go, but I still think it's a valuable option if you want to trade some defense for some extra offense. This makes us however strongly dependent on lore and that's why the Grayhaven Battlemages are in this list.

- If you attack the enemy VP, you have no units to defend it once you got it. It will be hard to hold it...

Again, the idea here is to use the Lore Cards to defend the point. Also the Golems are pretty slow and it can easily take 2 or 3 orders to bring them on the spot, so you might be forced to defend it with other units anyway.

- You spend 30 points for that CL/riverwatch-attack. There is no Plan B... and the damage potencial wasn't as huge in my experience as it would have to be!

In my experience the damage potential of this list is pretty solid. I don't know if that was good luck on my side or bad luck on yours, but based solely on the statistics the strategy should work. 3-4 dice with 66% chance of damage on each is pretty good and, I would argue, far better than having half the chance and rolling one die more, for example with the Ironbounds.

I've no doubts about that, but I think the same could be said for any other list. There's always a way to play around a strategy, otherwise the game would be broken. Still I didn't understand what you mean with "he choses the unit in reach of the CL and if it's supported or not". Would you mind to explain it?

Interesting points. I also never played official turneys, also only with friends so far I see that you got a real good synergy with the lots of cavalry lorecards. So it might be a good idea to Keep some points open to get your cards played faster. I tried that kind of army some times, and as I didn't feel very good with it, I haven't played it for quite a bigger period. Seems to be worth to give it another try with your ideas!

I've no doubts about that, but I think the same could be said for any other list. There's always a way to play around a strategy, otherwise the game would be broken. Still I didn't understand what you mean with "he choses the unit in reach of the CL and if it's supported or not". Would you mind to explain it?

When I fought with a look alike army, for example my enemy moved just 3 units of Berzerk s Harvesters on his first turn. I didn't want to attack an unsupported Berserk Harvester unit, because they are able to cause huge damage to my CL, and I didn't want to risk a 1:1 Change between the units. At the same time I didn't have much better to do and I didn't want to let the berserks to advance neither... so at my very first turn I didn't know how to play against...

I had yesterday a battle against a Daqan Player with 3x Riverwatch and 2x CL. He played the Scenario with the two buildings and double Lorepoints at the beginning; I played Uthuk, the scenario with the blood fields and the extra movement. With Uthuk, I was second Player and on my 1st turn attacked his VP with Obscenes (Roc had to retreat), same on his front building with a unit of harvesters and I occupied my VP with another unit of harvesters.

So he had to attack my obscenes on his VP (he did with his Roc) and he had only my harvesters as targets in range. He didn't really want to attack my harvesters in the building, but he had to. like I was winning 3 to 1 VP per turn. Knowing that on my very next turn I may strike back with wounded Harvesters, Obscenes, Rippers and/or my Chaos Lord... the game ended quite clear with 17:6.. main problem for Daqan was the same I had when a played a similar list: your Opponent decides which legal Targets you have with your Riverwatch/CL-attack. Next turn you get the counterattack of the big threats that may eliminate a big part of your cavalry. And there are no units of the Daqan player that may hold key hexes like VP, as he spent all points for offensiv units...

I still see heavy problems with the Daqan cavalry list...

We played a few times with CL and they rocked all the time. They have one of the highest damage output for Daqan army and lots of mobility.

As I've mentioned before, don't overlook the Knight keyword. Yes, that means that you also have to take Citadel Guards, but they are also a formidable attack unit.

We played yesterday with the following army:
2 x Citadel Lancers

2 x Archers

2 x Citadel Guards

1 x Riverwatch Riders

1 x Roc

2 x Rune Golems

1 x Command Tent
1 x Lore

Uthuk wasn't able to do much... And we were able to utilize lore cards to full extent.
I also think that with Knight-oriented deck you might want to exchange Golems for just more Citadel Guards - yes, chances are you're not getting Valor and Vengeance or Stalwart Defenders, but I would probably tolerate it.

Actually, Uthuk player was playing the same scenario
I think an all-cav army is a nonsense. 5 cav units is definitely an overkill. I'd probably stick with 3, max 4.

The fact that your opponent sucked at playing cav army with 2 CL, doesn't mean CL suck

Actually, Uthuk player was playing the same scenario

I think an all-cav army is a nonsense. 5 cav units is definitely an overkill. I'd probably stick with 3, max 4.

The fact that your opponent sucked at playing cav army with 2 CL, doesn't mean CL suck

Your list is well-balanced an no cav-only-list (as you mentioned also). Never meant CL generally suck. But the Daqan-cav-list that was also discussed in this thread... I had problems to play it myself and I see similar problems when I play against it.

On the other hand, I find it a tough decision to deploy CL when I can get Riverwatch Riders instead. I think Riverwatch are the best unit in the lines of Daqan and I always deploy at least 2 of them... so often it lacks of a free slot for CL. From time to time I Play them as 1-of. Because also the CL are one of the Units that really want to get the Bonus dice of the Riverwatch.

Why do you want to change the Golems for CG? Just to save some points (only reason to do that)? I like Citadel Guards, but they are an offensiv unit. They have no ability that helps them to guard a VP. To guard a key-hex there is nothing over Golems in the hole game imo (only legends).

A lot of people seem to be acknowledging strong offensive power of the Citadel Lancers. I wonder how they would do in a death-match scenario where dealing damage was more important than holding VP hexes.

A lot of people seem to be acknowledging strong offensive power of the Citadel Lancers. I wonder how they would do in a death-match scenario where dealing damage was more important than holding VP hexes.

Let's do some calculates an compare with other quite good offensiv units:

Ironbound or Obscene have an attack 4 with 5+ damage =

average 1.333 damage and 66% chance to cause an retreat

Flesh Ripper Brutes have an attack 3 with 5+ / 4+ when target unit is wounded

average unwounded 1 damage and 50% chance to cause an retreat

average wounded 1.5 damage and 50% chance to cause an retreat

CL stand-alone against unsupportet unit without charge : 3 dices with 5+ =

average 1 damage and 50% chance to cause an retreat

CL stand-alone against unsupportet unit with charge : 3 dices with 4+ =

average 1.5 damage and 50% chance to cause an retreat

CL stand-alone against supportet unit with charge : 3 dices with 3+ =

average 2 damage and 0% chance to cause an retreat

Conclusions:

1. CL CHARGE may be compared with the flesh ripper brutes bloodthirst-ablity. Both offer a 4+ damage (instead of 5+) with a restriction (CL restriction: no bonus dice for counter or for a second attac against the same unit). Both abilties are strong, I think trample may be even a bit stronger

2. CL TRAMPLE offer even a 3+ damage (with charge), but only if the unit is suported. It may be strong, the damage-potencial seems to be the highest in the hole game. IF YOU GET a legal target... Trample is very situative and in my opinion weaker then CHARGE

3. The abilities are strictly concentratet on the first own attack. If attacked or in a second turn, they are very fragile and vulnerable

4. If you can combine Charge, Trample and a bonus-dice of Riverwatch Riders, you have more damage-potencial then any legend (average 2.666)!

5. Main problem in my opinion is, that the enemy player may quite easy play around them. CL are kind of one-hit-wonders... they get serious Problems, once they are in the infight. Playing against them I try to give them only unattractiv targets for theyr first attack and attack them by myself when they came in reach. But if they get the right spot, they may have huge Impact.

6. In many situations i prefer the attack of Obscenes or Ironbounds with less damage potencial but a higher Chance to cause a retreat (and avoid a counter-attack or getting the VP thanks to a retreat). Obscenes as Ironbounds also have a strong defensiv ability but a quite a poor movement compared to the Citadel Lancers...

7. Even with the best cirunstances, CL may not kill the entire enemy unit with it's first attack... so generally they will suffer a counter and still fighting next round

Your list is well-balanced an no cav-only-list (as you mentioned also). Never meant CL generally suck. But the Daqan-cav-list that was also discussed in this thread... I had problems to play it myself and I see similar problems when I play against it.

On the other hand, I find it a tough decision to deploy CL when I can get Riverwatch Riders instead. I think Riverwatch are the best unit in the lines of Daqan and I always deploy at least 2 of them... so often it lacks of a free slot for CL. From time to time I Play them as 1-of. Because also the CL are one of the Units that really want to get the Bonus dice of the Riverwatch.

Why do you want to change the Golems for CG? Just to save some points (only reason to do that)? I like Citadel Guards, but they are an offensiv unit. They have no ability that helps them to guard a VP. To guard a key-hex there is nothing over Golems in the hole game imo (only legends).

In that particular scenario, my VPs were on the 4th line, so I expected a lot of struggle. In fact, none was seriously contended. Probably partially to the fact those were the Golems, but.

The command tent got ransacked, though. So I might have replaced them to get rid of it. I just felt a bit greedy of 6 pts units doing nothing.

CG are an offensive unit, but as I said, they have that Knight keyword. So, with a Knight-centered Lore deck, I'd like to have more knight units. And then, having 2xStalwart Defenders and 2xValor and Vengeance can make for it (also account the surprise factor).

If I was to keep a command tent, and drop RG, I might consider replacing archers with mages. But in that particular scenario, archers did just well.