Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

Romans, Axegrinders, and Deathchasers are typically known as the best melee armies after the ones in the very top echelon of armies - Knights and Heavy Gruts, and Greenscales too but they're sort of a pseudo melee-range army. If I recall correctly Matthias (the god of melee) thinks the Dwarves are closer to the Knights and Heavies, while I think they're in the tier with the Romans and Deathchasers. Regardless, I think it's a very interesting debate comparing each to one another that I could see go many ways.

For me, right now, I think it's Axegrinders are the best, then Romans, then Deathchasers. But all are close. I think Axegrinders just have so much flexibility with their move it's hard to pass up so I lean towards them first. And I think Deathchasers I lean towards last because their a 3-squad, despite their 4 attack. But again all 3 are very solid and I could see an argument for any order actually. Romans and Deathchasers have MBS, which is great. Axegrinders and Romans have Mogrimm, which is great. Deathchasers and Axegrinders (vs. large/huge) have 4 attack, which is great. Romans can get a 4th attack dice from Marcus but it requires setup and is limited.

Each order I think has a decent argument:

-Romans > Axegrinders > Deathchasers
-Romans > Deathchasers > Axegrinders
-Axegrinders > Romans > Deathchasers
-Axegrinders > Deathchasers > Romans
-Deathchasers > Romans > Axegrinders
-Deathchasers > Axegrinders > Romans

What order do you think it is? Or in other words, which army do you think is best and which is worst?

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

Axegrinders > Romans > Deathchasers

Even accounting for VC units (of which Deathchasers probably beat out Romans due to new powerful bonded heroes), Axegrinders have a lot going for them.

Battle Rush makes up for the movement of Axegrinders, but DC’s lack defense while Axes don’t.
Shield Wall makes up for the base defense of the Axegrinders, but having less movement and mobility will take a toll here.
The biggest advantage the other two have are the costs of the squads, so you can fit another support into your army.

But realistically, its moot. I think Dwarves are pretty much on the same tier as Knights and slight worse than the Orcs.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

Ditto.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

-Romans > Axegrinders > Deathchasers

4 activations to 3 put deathchasers last.

Me-Burq-Sa gives the edge to the Romans. or does Me-Burq-Sa make them pseudo-range, and you are referring to non MBS Roman armies? (and DC for that matter)

Puny Horse have 3/3
 

What edge does MBS give that Mogrimm doesn’t also give? At least in part anyway.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

Mogrimm plays for both sides there, but he doesn't have the engagement requirement.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

Woops! Forgot Mogrimm was a Warlord.

Either way, Dwarves are epic.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

No doubt!

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

Romans or Deathchasers with MBS I wouldn't say is pseudo range. I think the Greenscales feel that way a lot, since they have a giant dragon that makes up the army, and it often feels like the Greenscales are not the main driving component....or not as much as the other melee armies and their squads. Maybe it just depends on the dragon; Nilf and Braxas definitely take the front seat, maybe Zelrig too. Moltenclaw probably not so much. With Charos it doesn't matter, in that case it's all melee.

Frequently I put the Greenscales alongside the other melee armies but also at times I don't. Likely because many times they come after the dragon in army building (for me at least), and also are more splashable than the rest. Not sure where exactly the Greenscales classify. Reminds me of Mohicans; are Mohicans a range or melee army?

Romans>Axegrinders>Deathchasers is interesting.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

I've had deathchasers run up on me, it's scary! Unfortunately I can't really decide as I don't have enough experience with all 3 to say.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

I love the deathchasers out of the 3 by far, that doesn't say they are the best, they just suit my play style. Romans have a great decent amount of options when it comes to what warlord they bring with them, though Marcus Decimus is the one that I would say helps them the most with the dual move bonus and adjacent attack bonus. They have an average to decent attack, some perks to help them with a little defense with the shield wall, and a 4 man squad. They are perhaps the best bang for the buck points wise.

Dwarves are great in some situations. They are pretty average with their stats. You can give them a decent move at sacrificing the bonding with their leader, they have some pretty good leaders to bond with, and do slightly above average against the big guys.

The Death Chasers. They have some pretty fun units to bond with as well. They can cover an average battlefield super fast with their rush especially combined with initiative. These guys are fast moving and great at killing most units. Where these guys fall behind the other two is that they are a 3 man squad, not 4, and they lack the defensive staying power that the others have a slightly better amount of dice.

All in all I do agree that Romans would be the best unit, followed by dwarves, followed by Death Chasers. They all have one weakness though. Ranged squads. Especially those ones with 4 man groups that can mow them down as they come.

Re: Romans, Axegrinders, or Deathchasers?
 

I don't own any Dwarves still so I'm biased against Dwarves as I've just never taken them to tournaments. And I've had a lot of experience with Deathchasers and Romans. Probably all of my best tournament runs have been with Deathchasers, and my first ever Gencon Main Event army was a Romans + Raelin + Marcus + MBS build. I probably make Day 2 with that build if I'm not 14 and really nervous in my 3-1 match. But anyways I'll make the case for those two being better than Dwarves.

MBS is really the X factor that makes the Romans and the Deathchasers good. Having a range bonder allows you to simultaneously slowroll and apply pressure on your opponent. Mogrimm isn't at all the same thing since he requires engagement.

Romans and Deathchasers are crazy cheap too though. Like that Roman build I took to Gencon in 2012 was Romans x4, Marcus, MBS, Raelin, Marcu and that's only 450 points. Deathchasers can do Deathchasers x4, Nerak, MBS and Raelin for only 400 points. The figure limit increasing especially hurts Romans since you can't spam the startzone with four or five squads of them. Deathchasers also get weaker with higher point totals in my opinion since their value is in battle rush and with more squads battle rush pushes each figure less far out of the start zone. They are good when they get the jump and blow up an opponent's offense and that happens more reliably at lower point totals. You can try to win attrition games with a build like Deathchasers x5, Raelin, Nerak, MBS, Ogre Pulverizer for 555 points and I don't think it's awful but in those situations I'd much rather be playing Knights or Heavies. But I don't think I'd rather be playing a 555 point pure dwarf build there though. Are there even good pure high point Dwarf builds?

I guess maybe the argument is Dwarves are better as a 2x squad with Darrak alongside some other interesting army pieces. But then I think you get into the problem with the 4th vs. 10th debate where massed 4th are clearly better than massed 10th but 10th do have build versatility that maybe allows them to fit in more competitive builds. But IMO those builds are usually propped up by the strength of the other figures.

Anyway, I guess my point is I think that Romans x5 MBS Raelin Marcus Marcu easily beats whatever the best Dwarf build is at 500 points.