It never really bothered me because that's pretty true about many other crusaders, as well. Not quite as "directly", but think of it in terms of ability synergy. Tiernan can propagate abilities and give himself tags, but if you want the best performance out of him, keep a crusader from the gold slot in the formation, and maybe use Eva to propagate his tags. Alacrity can buff DPS and speed, but if you want to make the most out of it, you need other crusaders around it to affect it's gender for maximum effect. The Twins needing human/females, Griz needing robots and/or propagation, Viktor needing dragons, leprechauns, and/or humans, Mindy being literally useless by herself, but the undisputed BEST crusader when paired with others.

The concept of a crusader being useless-to-modest by itself, but significant when supported by others, isn't exclusive to Tiernan. If you want both the GoR buff and angels, then Eva solves that problem pretty easily.

Respectfully, I still just don't see the issue. The whole point of challenges is to severely limit the player's selection of crusaders, which naturally affects potential synergy. Challenges are not free plays. They aren't SUPPOSED to have "viable builds". The whole point of a challenge is to cobble together something that passes for a formation using whatever scraps you have available. Sure, Tiernan gets neutered, but so do many other crusaders for similar reasons.

I think the reason it bothers you so much is because it's SO close to being not an issue. Katie is in that slot, others have the thing, she doesn't. It's maddeningly close, but juuuust out of reach. But again, that's the whole point. There have been plenty of times I've been doing a challenge and thought "Ugh, I just need that ONE crusader to complete this trick!" and "This ONE crusader not being available ruins my whole formation!" But then I accept it, acknowledge that's the entire point of challenges, and do what I can with what I have.

It just seems weird to me to ask the devs "Could you do this thing specifically to reduce the inherent challenge of challenges?" Like, if the idea for a new crusader worked on it's own, in a bubble, as a concept, then sure, yeah, I'd be totally on board. But justifying it with "Exclusively because I want to circumvent the whole point of what challenges are about" seems pretty hollow and...for lack of a less offensive word, entitled.

"One aspect of Challenges is to force players to use underused crusaders..."

...By severely limiting the player's selection of crusaders. If the best ones aren't available, use the ones that are available, even if you normally wouldn't.

"There is nothing "severe" about Challenges."

Sure. Losing access to 80% of your beneficial abilities in any game isn't "severe".

"Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by oversight."

Do not ascribe to oversight that which can be explained by intention.

The entire third section gave me a headache. "This is not about needing a crusader, it's about one crusader being reliant on another crusader having an ability that it doesn't have despite others of its ilk having what is needed." Or...y'know, "needing another crusader", for short. At the very least, needing a crusader that the challenge makes unavailable.

For "asking the devs", one simply changes the shape of the formation without affecting available crusaders or reducing the relevancy of the theme of the challenge, and the other enhances the theme of the challenge by allowing a crusader whose whole schtick is about being paired with robots as their mechanic. Katie having GoR isn't tied to the theme or concept of her character or the challenge, and the same applies to Tiernan's use of GoR not being relevant to his theme/character or the challenge. You're comparing one change that's effectively minor at best and another change that is thematically consistent to a third change that is neither. Sasha is allowed in the tank challenge "because she has a shield" for the same reason Xyg is allowed in the robot challenge "because Xyg is their mechanic". What thematic rationale is there for Katie to gain GoR in the context of the challenge that doesn't amount to "It's inconvenient"?

You say the thread is not about expecting a change, but rather if readers found the expressed issue "worthy of consideration", but consideration of what, if not change? If not change, then discussion? And if discussion, then to what end?