Smoker wrote:We've seen warlords stack together before, but I cant recall anything that states their bonuses stack. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
The warlord bonus doesn't stack with multiple warlords. Other bonuses though will stack, like Wanda's bonus on all Decrypted stacking with Ansom's Chief Warlord bonus. (Summer Updates pg 33
Next to Wanda (lvl 8), Sylvia is probably the toughest character (lvl 7) on the ground, so her bonus is absolutely vital for GK atm. Fud is effectively a Lvl 10+ bodyguard right now (+7 from Sylvia, and 2 gained levels)
Oh yeah, that reminds me that Wanda's Decrypted armored red Dwagon currently serving as her meat shield from JS arrows is also getting her massive stack bonus, and is about to get Duke Antium's Warlord bonus.
The warlord bonuses definitely don't stack, and I don't think it works the way you think it does. I think the actions of chiefwarlords have demonstrated why:
They are almost always in front.
Now, we don't know how warlord bonuses stack yet, just chief warlords. But I'm sure it's a lot less, at least by half. If warlord bonuses stacked the same way as chief warlord bonuses, then chief warlord stacks would, as a rule, be in many cases THE WEAKEST stack.
If we assume Sylvia is level 7, and she has a +5 when Ansom is in the hex, in addition to her own plus 7 on her stack, her stack gets +12 leadership bonus compared to Ansoms +10. Logically, if this is how the system works, then Chief Warlords should actually hang back, and often let subordinates do most of the initial/heavy work except in low risk situations where they want to level.
Instead, we seem them in the foreground, fighting the fight for their rulers. This has been the case for every Chief Warlord we've seen except for Parson. The conclusion we have to reach is that being just a warlord does not give the same bonus' to stack.
One additional note, we don't know how attacks work with levels (and for that matter, if defense and hits get any bonus' at all). But I'm guessing leveling twice (we can assume he was low level at least, 1-2 if he's leveled twice in one go), might actually give more then just +1 to atk. Might be 2-3, for a heavy. I'm guessing though that he's a pretty tough hob right now, either way.
I was just looking for the thing about how warlord bonuses stack and here
it is. Looks like you can get a warlord bonus on top of a chief-warlord-is-in-the-hex bonus. Perhaps there is a bonus from having a leader
in your stack and a separate bonus from the chief warlord
(like the side bonus or the in hex bonus).
Now, I'm just throwing out a number, but this makes the math work: Lets assume that warlords only give half of their level to their stacks. So, to get somebody even equal to the chief warlords stack, you'd need somebody of the same level, and above him to get a higher bonus then his stack. And if your a higher level then the chief warlord, the thinking would then by why the boop aren't you chief warlord (which is of course ignoring strategy, which is Stanley's big flaw. Ansom offered him far greater power but Parson's proved already that leadership bonus isn't all that can win a fight, though even he see's the wisdom of commanding in the background and letting the higher level people give the bonus). So, if we do this, the math would match up to how people have been acting so far, and it all makes sense. Its why the chief warlord is often leading the fight, theirs is generally the baddest stack in the hex. Parson leading GK is the exception, but he's a very special case.
Also, if we look back when Parson is talking "Artifact bonus piled on the leader bonus"
, Leadership shouldn't have been that big a deal if warlords worked the same; Jillian is a 9, Ansom is a 10. +1 isn't that hot. If however it went from +4 (Jillian's 9 divided by half and rounded down) to +10, that'd be a more significant threat.
Now, we don't have any conclusive information either way, but I"m guessing that if two warlords in the same hex combined their bonuses, we'd again see very different behavior. I'm betting the bonus either goes to A: whoever is highest, or B: whoever is officially declared "in charge" of the stack. This may be automatically decided by the criteria of "A": "You don't give me orders commander. I'm a 9; your a 5."
Again, if they stacked, then we'd have people figuring that out by now. You'd see all warlord stacks, because the bonuses of them would outweigh the limitations of how many targets you could engage simply by near-juggernaut status. As is, I'm guessing the benefits of having multiple stacks who can coordinate and flank attacks with decent gains to troops is better then having one big strong stack that can be ultimately surrounded and chipped down.