500 Point Competitive Armies

[Dysole]

Taro > Roman Archers, eh? Roman Archers have a range 6 SPECIAL ATTACK of 6. There is no other attack like that in the game. Yes, yes, qualifiers, and yes, yes, 1 defense and yes, yes, 4 move, but Taro basically is a worse Raelin that only works on Samurai/Ashigaru. Of course, none of this has stopped me from bringing Taro or Roman Archers to tournaments.

Taro is a single attack 130 point unique figure who fits into a narrow niche and his abilities are not that wonderful. 7K is the only other figure to get an F rating on the pseudo official rankings. (Yes also was brought to a tournament; really you shouldn't be surprised I ran an army with Sudema and Dünd in it once) Common squads are powerful. Range is powerful. Therefore Roman Archers despite being one of the worst common squads in the game (Grok Riders are probably the worst) are still better than Taro.

BUT back to topic at hand. Kiova > Atlaga. In a vacuum, no. I think all things considered she's a better choice in an EI build (although Raelin is going to be the better choice than her because Raelin is almost always going to be the best addition). I am hesitant about EI at 110 (but oddly less so at 120). A bunch of EI, Raelin, and some range feels like it could be stupid good.

~Dysole, still working her way through bringing sucky units to tournaments (it does help sometimes when the tournaments are run according to different rules)

[TheTravelingScaper]

Originally Posted by Grimnak

I don't generally theoryscape like this, but I'm finding this conversation quite enjoyable.

As far as EI goes, in my honest opinion they are still so fragile that even at 110 points they'd fall like flies. There's too much range in this game to allow for such defensively weak and expensive units (much like MacDirks).

Back to Kiova, I still believe even after reading the arguments in favor of her that she's terrible and not really draftable considering Atlaga AND Raelin already exist.

As an additional note, however, I differ from much of the community in the belief that Hatamoto Taro is useless or an F. Granted, he sucks, but I still find him more usable than, say, Roman Archers. Now, the prototype version is even better and I'd honestly give that one a B or B-; but as far as either version of Taro goes, his boosts affect Kaemon Awa, an incredibly solid figure (and my personal favorite).

This is what i was kind of what I was trying to tell @Cleon ,I was never talking about sculpts when diving into rational deduction. I was suggesting that 1 persons bottom tier unit might be different than another's because its a matter of opinion. The ranking index gave that ranking because(here's how i think it happened)the majority of the community experiences the unit in that way or sees its problems which usually results in a C-. Now this Is actually another deviation,Hatamoto COULD EASILY see use in my games more often if he wasn't 2/2 5 life .That is literally his only weakness his defensive blunder.He doesn't suck at all the devs "Balanced"him because of how it can help with samurai counterstrike and ashigaru survivability
Hatamoto 130,Kaemon,250,Izumi 310,Kozuke 410 1Squad TSA 475 that Sahuagin to pat it out 500 ,Subjectively and comparatively speaking this army will not hold up to most armies made today but there are some games that can be won using it. (don't do tournaments you might need to mess with your army; your army is kind of like your car,if something breaks put a better part that does the same thing and possibly more in)
Oh and If this was a 800-900 point game a lot more TSA ,TS and Ashigaru would be Added with Kato.
Hatamoto is not really going to be used in tournaments at all ,so the way that most community members apparently see it(myself included) is that Hatamoto is only used in those casual games between you and your significant other in the dining room with nothing on the line. (certainly not gencon you'd probably be out of there round 1 of the tournament if we were looking at last years builds,sheesh)

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Grimnak

As far as EI goes, in my honest opinion they are still so fragile that even at 110 points they'd fall like flies. There's too much range in this game to allow for such defensively weak and expensive units (much like MacDirks)

They're not beefy, but their offensive prowess is remarkable. 30pt. less there're way more armies you can build around them. I'm not advocating you run x4 of them and go up against a 4th mass army. But at 110pt. you can run things like Imperium x2, rats x3, Q10, Isamu or Imperium x2, Krav, Raelin, Laglor @510. Also x1 of them is even more likeable.

You need to be careful with them (especially against certain armies) and properly space/bait movements, but landing multiple double attacks is incredibly deadly it's worth it to play extra safe with them.

MacDirks are fun. It's similar, they have a huge threat but are fragile, which forces interesting plays. They have less movement options, but have bonding and are a 4 squad. But ultimately in the real game, imperium are 60pt. more and are worse than macdirks imo.

[Grimnak]

I just can't see the EI even killing 110 points in an even somewhat competitive game. But we'll agree to disagree on that one

[TheTravelingScaper]

Originally Posted by Cleon

They're not beefy, but their offensive prowess is remarkable. 30pt. less there're way more armies you can build around them. I'm not advocating you run x4 of them and go up against a 4th mass army. But at 110pt. you can run things like Imperium x2, rats x3, Q10, Isamu or Imperium x2, Krav, Raelin, Laglor @510. Also x1 of them is even more likeable.

You need to be careful with them (especially against certain armies) and properly space/bait movements, but landing multiple double attacks is incredibly deadly it's worth it to play extra safe with them.

MacDirks are fun. It's similar, they have a huge threat but are fragile, which forces interesting plays. They have less movement options, but have bonding and are a 4 squad. But ultimately in the real game, imperium are 60pt. more and are worse than macdirks imo.

I'm going to tear this down part by part.

They're not beefy, but their offensive prowess is remarkable. 30pt. less there're way more armies you can build around them. I'm not advocating you run x4 of them and go up against a 4th mass army. But at 110pt. you can run things like Imperium x2, rats x3, Q10, Isamu or Imperium x2, Krav, Raelin, Laglor @510. Also x1 of them is even more likeable.

Exactly,In terms of what you said prior,static values probability and statistics ,Macdirks are more noticably favorable units than EI. The versatility makes them more so because as you said you can build more armies around them(but building armies around 1 type of unit with no deviation can be a risky stratagem)

You need to be careful with them (especially against certain armies) and properly space/bait movements, but landing multiple double attacks is incredibly deadly it's worth it to play extra safe with them

.

Well of course, for basically every army that's been made there has been a counter proposed to that strategy. You just need to alter your standard strategy midmatch to reinstate your role as a army designer with the design made to win.

MacDirks are fun. It's similar, they have a huge threat but are fragile, which forces interesting plays. They have less movement options, but have bonding and are a 4 squad. But ultimately in the real game, imperium are 60pt. more and are worse than macdirks imo.

Again with the whole Worst thing. If we were to go by the logic of static numbers and probability, The Ashigaru Yari would be absolutely terrible in comparison ) . Heroscape was always said to be mostly strategy with a touch of luck not the other way around.(thank God we don't roll d20s to move in this game) what the logic here should be with this mindset is this : 1 squad of EI is less likely to kill their points worth in 1 game than 1 squad of Macdirks (yes it is more points I know) but when it comes to killing points in small point games up to 600 you normally should not throw 140 towards 3 figures who cannot efficiently take out normal threats.(you should put 140 towards 3x rats,Marcu or Othkurik if you are looking for efficiency and reliable probability). Even at 400pts 1 squad in an army at such a small increment would be 7/20 of your army.7x20=140
20X20=400 Even if you rounded that to 8/20 or 160 you would have already wasted 2/5 of your army on units that have the logical probability of being countered by a unit that outclassses them in melee,d20 destroys or outranges them.

[Cleon]

Dude when you compare units in a competitive environment it's assumed you're playing 400-600ish point armies, 24 hex (sometimes lower, even as low as 16), tournament maps/glyphs, and the field consists of at least pretty solid to top tier armies. Most tournaments are also 4-5 rounds. When you're ranking units, you're looking at the unit as how it will preform in that kind of environment and used in an army where it can excel or try to reach its potential.

I'm not comparing one squad of Imperium to one squad of MacDirks, I'm comparing Imperium in an army that utilizes them strongly to MacDirks in an army that utilizes MacDirks strongly, in a competitive environment. I also really just commented on the MacDirks because they're a similar feeling as the Imperium.

The post I made was mostly theorizing about if they were 110pt anyways. Comparing them at 140pt. makes the Imperium a lot worse than at 110pt., obviously.

Ashigaru Yari is a whole different squad; they're a swarming squad that's best used in a Kato army with Harquebus, and often with Raelin. The army is a decent army, probably a B to B+ type of army as a whole. Don't really know what you're getting at here, if you were comparing them head to head or what.

I don't see why I can't use the words 'worse' or 'better'. Yes, there are situations that sway units' values. But when you rank units you're assuming an environment of what I stated in the first paragraph and how well a unit will do in that environment while trying to maximize its potential with a suitable army. I can confidently use the word 'better' if a unit is ranked A comparing to another (somewhat similar style,) unit that's ranked C-, because it is better in nearly all situations in a competitive tournament. If I was comparing an A unit to an A- unit, then obviously there's more debate and more situations where the A- unit would be more favorable.

The 4th Massachusetts Line are a better squad than the Marro Drudge going into a typical tournament, there's really no debating that.

[TheTravelingScaper]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Dude when you compare units in a competitive environment it's assumed you're playing 400-600ish point armies, 24 hex (sometimes lower, even as low as 16), tournament maps/glyphs, and the field consists of at least pretty solid to top tier armies. Most tournaments are also 4-5 rounds. When you're ranking units, you're looking at the unit as how it will preform in that kind of environment and used in an army where it can excel or try to reach its potential.

I'm not comparing one squad of Imperium to one squad of MacDirks, I'm comparing Imperium in an army that utilizes them strongly to MacDirks in an army that utilizes MacDirks strongly, in a competitive environment. I also really just commented on the MacDirks because they're a similar feeling as the Imperium.

The post I made was mostly theorizing about if they were 110pt anyways. Comparing them at 140pt. makes the Imperium a lot worse than at 110pt., obviously.

Ashigaru Yari is a whole different squad; they're a swarming squad that's best used in a Kato army with Harquebus, and often with Raelin. The army is a decent army, probably a B to B+ type of army as a whole. Don't really know what you're getting at here, if you were comparing them head to head or what.

I don't see why I can't use the words 'worse' or 'better'. Yes, there are situations that sway units' values. But when you rank units you're assuming an environment of what I stated in the first paragraph and how well a unit will do in that environment while trying to maximize its potential with a suitable army. I can confidently use the word 'better' if a unit is ranked A comparing to another (somewhat similar style,) unit that's ranked C-, because it is better in nearly all situations in a competitive tournament. If I was comparing an A unit to an A- unit, then obviously there's more debate and more situations where the A- unit would be more favorable.

The 4th Massachusetts Line are a better squad than the Marro Drudge going into a typical tournament, there's really no debating that.

Ashigaru Yari is a whole different squad; they're a swarming squad that's best used in a Kato army with Harquebus, and often with Raelin. The army is a decent army, probably a B to B+ type of army as a whole. Don't really know what you're getting at here, if you were comparing them head to head or what

In a somewhat transparent synergy way the EI and Spearmen are quite simliar. Quality and functionality are very different based on which you field when utilizing an army based strongly around either. Heres where i see similarity bulk quantity of swarming force(EI or Yari both melee in this case) Kiova and Kato (both figure heads that greatly benefit/and in some cases bond with a good portion of the army (Raelin could be fielded in either one and it helps boost either one defensively as she could be a buffer, glyph grabber or game closer depending on her use.

The 4th Massachusetts Line are a better squad than the Marro Drudge going into a typical tournament, there's really no debating that.

Yes this is true because in order for Drudge to be fully utilized they need plentiful amounts of hydrogen dioxide (water) and without that novelty that greatly reduces their playabilty from the real of mainstream to situational at best.

I'm not comparing one squad of Imperium to one squad of MacDirks, I'm comparing Imperium in an army that utilizes them strongly to MacDirks in an army that utilizes MacDirks strongly, in a competitive environment. I also really just commented on the MacDirks because they're a similar feeling as the Imperium

Theres a reason I put it 140 and this was exactly it. EI are a common squad. Google defines a squad as a small group of people having a particular task. If anything 3 people arent going to slay a dragon and snap the necks of 12 robotic rodents right? you gotta make the squad bigger a small number of soldiers assembled for drill or assigned to some special task, especially an infantry unit forming part of a platoon. so you can accomplish that task. Because this is the second definition: a small number of soldiers assembled for drill or assigned to some special task, especially an infantry unit forming part of a platoon. The EI form a small part of your ulterior motive. At that point once you have your 400 you just have to find a way to make it work

I don't see why I can't use the words 'worse' or 'better'. Yes, there are situations that sway units' values. But when you rank units you're assuming an environment of what I stated in the first paragraph and how well a unit will do in that environment while trying to maximize its potential with a suitable army. I can confidently use the word 'better' if a unit is ranked A comparing to another (somewhat similar style,) unit that's ranked C-, because it is better in nearly all situations in a competitive tournament. If I was comparing an A unit to an A- unit, then obviously there's more debate and more situations where the A- unit would be more favorable.

You can use worse or better they just sound inherently wrong because that one person in some random part of the world could say DW9K is the worst In the game because he only owned a MS2 and some Vampires then 7 months later he got a MS1 he fielded him for the first time and he plays him every chance he gets. And to make a long story short,his opinion quickly changed.. Now you could pick a BoV map with,Lava,Snow,Shadow, some kind of specialty piece and with those it brings Situational units that wont go anywhere else. The ones that are A to A- , they are rated so because they aren't situational at all can hold up there own and help the other units in most of the armies they are built around. The lower the grade i believe the lower the tactical use goes ,the higher the amount of times the unit might need to rely on some kind of situation to be fully utilized and less units it benefits or benefits it.

[Cleon]

Dude I have no idea on most of what you're talking about. I play the game competitively and have been to a lot of tournaments so I view the game in that kind of way most of the time. I really like discussing/debating rankings and tournament logistics (players, maps, armies, glyphs, etc.) and such. I'm really not a casual-based or scenario-based type of guy (and it's fine for those who are more into other styles to enjoy the game in different ways).

I just don't think we're gonna get anywhere in further discussing this.

[Grimnak]

Different topic since I'm into this theoryscaping now (and I haven't been able to play in awhile).

How do you gentlemen feel about including Khosumet in a Wolves of Badru army (500 points, of course)? My gut instinct is that he shouldn't be included as he's way too overpriced, but maybe someone is willing to argue in favor of Khosumet's inclusion?

[TheTravelingScaper]

Originally Posted by Grimnak

Different topic since I'm into this theoryscaping now (and I haven't been able to play in awhile).

How do you gentlemen feel about including Khosumet in a Wolves of Badru army (500 points, of course)? My gut instinct is that he shouldn't be included as he's way too overpriced, but maybe someone is willing to argue in favor of Khosumet's inclusion?

He costs 5 points less than one squad of the Badru wolves... how is that overpriced??Not to mention he gives them an additional attack die for being relentless. Your best bet however if fielding Khosumet would be to use Anubians, Badrus, and Dumutefs in conjunction to utilize all of their strengths effectively. Dumutefs boost attack by 1 for all adjacent devourer Class figures and Anubians would be boosted by khosumet's Unleashed Fury Enhancement. Only problem with this is it would most certainly be a virtually all melee army unless you had a higher point cap.At this point I can viably see: 2X anubians 150 2x Badru 310 , Khosumet 385 ,2x Dumutef 435 1x Mezzodemon Warmongers 500. This is really what i could efficiently see for this configuration using two each of the Common Wolf /Fiantooth units.(All the wolves/fiantooths are relentless so they get Khosumets Atk +1 personality bonus).Problem being 65 points are unspent,mezzodemons were the first choice here due to range. TSA could be a healthy alternative to fill that in as well.

[Grimnak]

He technically costs a bit less than a squad of wolves, but I find it's next to impossible to A.) keep Khosumet alive and B.) keep the Wolves (of Badru) near Khosumet. And come to think of it, the Wolves' primary strength is in their Pounce Special Attack, which doesn't benefit from Khosumet's buff.

I tried playing Khosumet with them once because of the bonding but I'd rather have the Werewolf Lord to be honest (or two).

But in all honesty, Khosumet is extremely overpriced. His stats, life, AND ability are all garbage (most Relentless units are, making his ability pretty lame). Plus, he can't stand toe-to-toe in a fight, which he needs to be considering all Relentless units are melee. 75 is a lot for that; I'd maybe consider 50 points but even then, that's a stretch (for me - again, this is all personal opinion).

[flameslayer93]

I don't see anything wrong with incorporating Khosumet into a Wolves of Badru Army. Since he is the cheaper bonding option for them, he still has the synergy for that. He can find a use as a backup to the Werewolf Lord, and he has the movement to catch up with your puppies.

Werewolf Lord 140
Badrus x3 380
Khosumet 455
45 pts filler

In this example army, Werewolf Lord can be a useful leadoff unit. When he does go down, you can still get all 3-4 attacks per turn. Just be sure to use the Werewolf Lord to do the heavy lifting. Additionally, by the time the Werewolf Lord does go down, you won't want to attempt many more pounces. This may lead to triggering Khosumet's attack bonus.

Now, the other question. Is Khosumet worth it, when you could reasonably fit another squad of Badrus? I think that's up for debate. Personally, 12 Badrus won't get me anywhere 9 can't. Once the Werewolf Lord dies, your still stuck to 3 turns an OM. I'll suck up the sucky unit for another unit, people still throw Eldgrim into Knights armies and all.

Maybe another consideration to make is that Khosumet is (slightly) cheaper, and as a result opens up another unit option for a 500 point army. At 45 points, Sonya Esenwein is actually quite useful to finish the cleanup duty. The 4th squad of Badru would limit you to 40 points, and no combination of units equaling to 40 points is particularly synergistic with the Badru core.