C3V/SoV-inclusive Power Rankings

[IAmBatman]

Grey is on the Discord and discussed this stuff over there and commented on it in his complainy post.

[Grey Waves]

Wow, I was definitely not expecting such a flurry of responses. I was completely unaware that it was Thanksgiving week until about 2 days ago - if I had, I would have waited until after this weekend to post. Oh well, nothing I can do about that now I guess.


I think in general people don't realise that you don't have to be a 'qualified' or experienced player to post in this thread and make suggestions. I literally only started playing competitive Heroscape 12 months ago, and my tournament record would hardly indicate that I'm anything more than an average-level player. But you don't have to have tons of competitive experience to recognise that some units in this thread are clearly ranked either too high or too low. Is there anyone who's participated in at least 3-4 tournaments that genuinely believes that Lilja is just as good as Rhogar Dragonspine? Or that Van Nessing deserves to be 4 (4!) subranks below Kaemon Awa? I can understand people feeling unqualified to discuss more philosophical-based rankings like whether Isamu is A+, or not wanting to comment on slightly more controversial nominations like cultists to B+. But in general I think there're a lot of potential nominations that people shouldn't feel uncomfortable making. And, even if you do make a nomination that other people disagree with, what's the worst that could happen? The Heroscapers community is by far the friendliest and most welcoming online community I've ever had the privilege of participating in. People aren't going to ostracise you if you think Stingers are overrated or something. If there's something you disagree with in the rankings, then post about it! No-one's going to think any less of you and even if the change doesn't end up going through, you'll still have fostered healthy discussion.


Going to put my thoughts on the Isamu discussion in spoilers because I feel like it doesn't fit in as well with the rest of this post.

Spoiler Alert!

The reason why I believe that Isamu fits better in A compared to A+ is that while Isamu's value for his point cost is extremely good, his 'overall' or 'net' value (i.e. what he is capable of doing on a game-to-game basis) is significantly lower than the other A+ figures. Let's do a quick comparison.

Major Q9 boasts incredible offensive presence whilst also being a massive tank. There are some armies he can solo; you have very little chance of winning a cheese event if your army doesn't have at least a semi-reliable way of taking him out.
Raelin provides the best defensive aura in the entire game. She makes ranged armies way better than they otherwise would be and also makes certain low-tier builds (i.e. half the armies at Scapecon) somewhat functional.
Deathreavers offer insane board control and, like Raelin, make many ranged armies much more viable than they otherwise would be.
Marro Warriors give you an ultimatum: you either kill them before the endgame, or, (unless you're running one of the few units that can claim to beat them in the endgame) you lose. They can also be a decent opening unit and can do massive amounts of damage if you happen to be holding Ulaniva.

In comparison:
Isamu can usually kill about 30-40 points worth of stuff. Very, very infrequently, this will win you a game that you otherwise would've lost.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Even though Isamu can claim to have the best value/point cost ratio in the entire game, the total or 'net' amount of value he can offer an army is far, far below what any of the other A+ figures offer. He's still a very good figure obviously, but to rank him alongside Q9, Raelin, rate and MWs is disingenuous imo. He fits much better in A alongside Marcu, another figure with high value for his point cost, but often only offers limited net value in any given game.

I don't believe that everyone is going to ascribe to the same philosophy of what makes a unit A+, obviously. However, I did want to clarify why I believe he fits better in A, since based on the replies a lot of people seemed to not quite see the distinction between 'value for point cost' and 'total/net value' that I wanted to draw.

Thank you to everyone who's offered genuine feedback on my nominations, even if it was nothing more than saying that they're good nominations. Hopefully a few others will chime in as the holidays come to an end and people resume their day-to-day lives.

[Knox]

Agree on Isamu. Another way of looking at the A+ figures should be: which figures would we ban (if we were banning figures) at a tournament? All the other A+ figures fit that category but not Isamu

[infectedsloth]

Originally Posted by Knox

Agree on Isamu. Another way of looking at the A+ figures should be: which figures would we ban (if we were banning figures) at a tournament? All the other A+ figures fit that category but not Isamu

The other figures aren't fillers, so you can't use the same criteria.

Fillers, especially micro point fillers people can agree on their power level, but still rank vastly different. He's fine anywhere from A to S, and potentially as low as A- if you're feeling particularly spicy.

[Chris Perkins]

Originally Posted by Knox

Agree on Isamu. Another way of looking at the A+ figures should be: which figures would we ban (if we were banning figures) at a tournament? All the other A+ figures fit that category but not Isamu

I'm not sure I agree with that.

There are several reasons to ban figures, but the 2 most relevant ones for this discussion are:
1) To alter the competitive meta to incentivize trying new things to avoid boredom
2) To improve a degenerate aspect of the competitive meta

If you're purpose of banning figures is (1), then yes the other A+ figures are probably higher on a ban-list than Isamu as Isamu doesn't drastically change what armies are brought.

If you're purpose of banning figures is (2), then you would probably ban Isamu before rats or Raelin, as those can be used to support much less competitive units while Isamu is basically just a walking variance box (which I would say is, generally, not a great thing in a competitive meta as variance undercuts the impact of superior strategy & tactics).

I also don't think that potential ban lists are a terribly great way to create power rankings, since the reasons for banning vary a lot and are going to frequently be impacted by the exact point total (or other rules, i.e. 'uniques only') of an event.

As has been mentioned before though, this is ultimately just a question of which metric does one use for deciding on finalized rankings, and Isamu is probably more affected by a different metric than most other figures, which is likely why he has so much contested debate about a ranking for a filler figure.

[dok]

The point on Isamu is that he doesn't need to be game altering with any consistency to be A+, because he represents almost no investment.

The counterpoint I've put forward often is: imagine Otonashi cost 0 points - literally a free add. Would Otonashi be A+? I think the answer is very obviously yes, despite the fact that Otonashi is still terrible and almost never swings a game.

[IAmBatman]

She’s not a free add unless there are no start zone limitations and isn’t a free add if she’s detrimental, like in a 4th Mass build.

Otonashi costs almost no investment. That can’t be the only criteria, or Otonashi should also be A+.

[Leaf_It]

I and 3 others @Scaperedude @BodaciousBlood @BiggaBullfrog run a local tournament scene, It's been going since ~late 2016. Originally @The Dewk ran it, but he handed it over to Me and Bigga in August of 2017. Bigga actually kept (and I think still keeps) a running total of how many times each card is run at our events. Isamu hits the top of the list, and I don't think he'll ever be dethroned. When we do a ban list (which we are doing for this month) we always include Isamu. The current ban list is based in this tier list, but even if I were to create a ban list that wasn't based on this tier list, I would still ban Isamu. The biggest reason is that we see him so often. It hasn't been too bad recently, but I've loaned my Isamu out more than any other figure. He is used so much more often, and it's because he's so cheap. Him being cheap, 10 points to fill any army, that's fine, but he's also an actual threat.

There may be games where Isamu fails his vanish on the first roll, and kills 0 points. But there are also games where Raelin fails her defense roll, and dies to the first attack. It may not happen often, but there are also games where Isamu kills over 100 points. These games are so spectacular that they are told almost every time someone mentions Isamu. The notoriety is there. A 10 point figure should be almost insignificant 99% of the time. They should be a figure that you can safely over look. They should carry all of the threat of a single Blade Grut. And yet there stands Isamu, at the top of every tier list. Even if it's not the very top, no one can ignore him. Everyone knows it might happen to their game when they face him. Everyone hopes it'll happen if they're using him. Every spectator that's already finished their game, is watching with baited breath wondering just how far that little 10 point demon will go. Every Vanish is an injection of anxiety, as you pray that this isn't another game where he'll never fail a roll, and vanish into oblivion. He may not have the consistency of Q9, or the all around usefulness of Raelin, but he feels like he has the threat that they do. Players will go out of their way just to take a pot shot at Isamu, because of the potential threat he poses. He impacts the (meta)game so much more than even a 40 point figure ever could. He carries a feeling of foreboding that few other figures can match. He does all of that, for just 10 points. He deserves that A+ ranking.

[dok]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

She’s not a free add unless there are no start zone limitations and isn’t a free add if she’s detrimental, like in a 4th Mass build.

She's still A+ if she costs 0 despite corner cases where you wouldn't include her.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Otonashi costs almost no investment. That can’t be the only criteria, or Otonashi should also be A+.

The point was not that low investment equals A+, but that low investment means the bar for A+ is dramatically lower. Otonashi (the real, 10 point version) still falls short of that bar.

[Captain Stupendous]

Originally Posted by dok

She's still A+ if she costs 0 despite corner cases where you wouldn't include her.

The point was not that low investment equals A+, but that low investment means the bar for A+ is dramatically lower. Otonashi (the real, 10 point version) still falls short of that bar.

I agree with dok fwiw. There’s several valid methodologies for creating heroscape tier lists. It seems like Dok considers a unit’s impact relative to their point cost, with no minimum necessary impact. This is a perfectly reasonable method, even if it doesn’t align perfectly with the methods preferred by grey waves or others.

Also, I find the 0 cost otonashi example persuasive.

I think grey waves isn’t really arguing that isamu shouldn’t be A+, so much that any A+ figure needs to have some minimum level of impact on every given game (which would essentially preclude any 10 point figure from being A+).

[vegietarian18]

The 0 point Otonashi argument is really really dumb. You're right that the corner cases where you wouldn't include Otonashi are irrelevant. But the argument is super contrived and meaningless. 0 is a much different number than 10. Of course you'll always take something that's free. If Dund was 0 points he'd be A+, ergo Isamu is A+. There's no such thing as a free figure in Heroscape so 0 point Otonashi just doesn't matter.

I truly don't understand how you get to "because the figure is low investment that means the bar is lower". It honestly feels like post-hoc justification for the Isamu rank. That doesn't apply to any other figure in the rankings: Bol isn't an A because he's low investment but a little worse than Isamu, he's a B+.

[Captain Stupendous]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

The 0 point Otonashi argument is really really dumb. You're right that the corner cases where you wouldn't include Otonashi are irrelevant. But the argument is super contrived and meaningless. 0 is a much different number than 10. Of course you'll always take something that's free. If Dund was 0 points he'd be A+, ergo Isamu is A+. There's no such thing as a free figure in Heroscape so 0 point Otonashi just doesn't matter.

I truly don't understand how you get to "because the figure is low investment that means the bar is lower". It honestly feels like post-hoc justification for the Isamu rank. That doesn't apply to any other figure in the rankings: Bol isn't an A because he's low investment but a little worse than Isamu, he's a B+.

If the criteria for a rank is to consider the figures impact in relation to its point cost, then of course the bar is lower for a 10 point figure.

I think Doks argument is that isamus impact relative to his points is roughly the same as q9 or the other heavy hitters impacts, relative to their points.

Bol, even though he only costs 15, still doesn’t have the impact to point ratio that Isamu does.