[Cleon]

Originally Posted by kevindola

I struggle with power raking criteria quite a bit, because the criteria all seem fairly ambiguous and each person isn't starting from the same ranking establishment which is 'what is the best performing army for figure X'.

You specifically also mention an army for the unit to succeed. But does that mean success is being measure by more than wins/losses? Personal opinions are going to vary pretty strongly about how the unit is successful.

Isamu is probably the best test case. Clearly Isamu is very good for his points, but also Isamu is rarely going to be a difference maker for his best army over, say, Otonashi. So something else must be going into the rankings besides 'impact to best case army'.

But let's start with a pretty interesting discussion: Knights vs. Heavies.

I think Heavies are the best bonding unit in the game. The short answer would be that I think disengage, 3 def and 5 move > 4 move, 4 defense and is more useful against other top rank armies. (intentionally ignoring bonding targets for quick discussion here)

But we also have to decide what the 'best army' is for each of these units and go from there. I personally think Heavies x3, Grimnak, Nerak, Marcu is one of the best 400 point army you can produce and better than any knight build at that point total. (Knights x3, Gilbert, Finn?) But maybe my opinion changes at different point values. What would you consider the 'best' army for Heavies and Knights?

I'll try to respond to each paragraph in order:

Let me clarify, I think my mindset is how the unit performs and how efficient it is when being used in the best armies possible. Heroscape is a game where you can add anything to your army, so I don't think it's accurate to rate the unit basing it on one single army, but rather, a list of very strong armies that use that unit. For example 4th Mass should be not only judged in an all valiant build (ex: 4thx5+Alastair+Eldgrim), but also in a suicide-Mass build (ex: 4thx4+Braxas). You should keep in mind weighing between both/all, because players are allowed to play both/all and have a good chance of success. Also doesn't have to be different 'types' of a faction, all valiant mass and 'suicide-mass' (as i call it) are pretty different, I also mean consider all the slight variants of, for example, top Gilbert/Knights builds (Gilbert+Knightsx5+Eldgrim, Gilbert+Knightsx4+Alastair, Gilbert+Knightsx3+Finn/Thorgrim+Krav, Gilbert+Knightsx3+Nilfheim/Zelrig, etc.).

There's a lot of weighing and balancing I try to keep in mind throughout. You also want to consider not just 500pt., but 450pt.-550pt., and 400pt.-600pt. It's difficult.

Isamu's a unit that I think will vary a lot between people's personal lists/views. My reasoning I've already said, but basically it's like a second chance at a win for virtually no points, and often, it works. That really convinces me he's a 10, at the top echelon.

I agree with what Orc says here, fillers kind of are their own thing:

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

Isamu is over Otonashi in that he is more efficient for his points. For fillers especially, best army doesn't really matter all that much.

I agree, Knights vs. Heavies is a very interesting discussion. Like I said I've always had in my head Knights are the way to go, but both are amazing and I like hearing cases for Heavies. I'll share some more thoughts on it later.

I think it's important to weigh the opinion-changes throughout the different point values for a definitive ranking, like I said above. That's why it's so difficult to rank the Gladiators, for example.

Hmmm @400pt., I think some would argue Gilbert+Knightsx4+Isamu? That might be what I would go with. Finn's great too. But like I said I try to not just look at what I think is the single best, but rather weigh an array of 'best' or 'strongest' armies for the unit depending on the point values.