4th>10th

[scorpionslayer]

i think they are both good squads, but i have done a few battles between the 4th and 10th and the 4th won every time i probably should do more battles to be certain but reguardless my zelrig and major Q10 would incinerate them both.

[Dumb Dwarf]

I still say versatility wins out. Just because an all valiant army is currently viable in the meta-game, does not mean that it will always be so.
What would happen if there was a majestic fire type ability that targeted valiant instead of common?
What if Sir Hawthorne or a unit like him was a little more available (I am assuming that he isn't valiant.) What if there was a 10 point filler unit with great stats, but their drawback was a high probability of changing sides.
What if they make a unit that changes an opponent's card's personality? Such as Bjorn the Drunken Viking who with his special ability of Taunt can change can change any cards personality to Wild.

Granted these are extreme, but hopefully Heroscape is still a growing game. I realize the trend is that new units make old units better and not worse, but this is not always the case.

DD

[The B.I.V.]

Well, sure, anything could happen, Dumb Dwarf! By the same token, something could happen to make the 10th less versatile. I don't think hypotheticals really have any bearing on the current arguement.

Brandon

[Dumb Dwarf]

It has all sorts of bearing, the people who state 4th are better for the most part base it on the 4th being in an all valiant army. I also agree with them, in an all valiant army (or at least one that can become all valiant relatively quick), the 4th really do shine. However, the 10th can be grouped with any other unit currently in the game. Hypothetically speaking, the odds of a cool non-Valiant unit coming out are a lot greater than a unit that is cool, but has the restriction of making all disciplined units suck (and what are the chances that this unit will be valiant). So as long as you have the points you can throw the 10th into any army and they will not lose any of their potential.
DD

Edited for typo

[Onacara]

Originally Posted by The B.I.V.

True, but they suck worse as ranged units than the 4th because of their defense. Valiant 4th are always going to have better defense (whether in Melee or ranged) while the 10th will only have an equal amount of Defense in melee.

No, they (the 10th) are better at melee than range due to their lack of defense at range. True, the 4th lose WTF if forcing a melee encounter with an opponent, but if they let the enemy engage them, they don't lose anything. The only advantage the 10th has over the 4th is the fact that they can engage the enemy in melee. It's a very slim advantage, though and the 4th are better overall.

Brandon

But again..the 4th only work in an all valiant army so again you are limiting your choices as far as the rest of your build goes.

[seawolf898]

Hmm, personally I think the 10th are better. However, in an all 10th vs 4th the 4th would probably be better. Just a thought though, why not use them together as defenders? They can stand in a row alternating 4th then 10th then 4th and so on. They could all fire when the enemy is too far away, and if anyone breaks through, the 10th can double over as the cleanup. Also, no matter who gets attacked, 4th or 10th, it's beneficial. If they attack the 10th, then the 4th get the valiant defense bonus; if they attack the 4th, the 10th can keep attacking or get in range. So why don't they just work together instead?

[killercactus]

Originally Posted by seawolf898

So why don't they just work together instead?

Because the benefit of having just one card to place Order Markers on greatly outweighs the other benefits.

Plus, the 4th wouldn't be valiant then. It just makes more sense to use all 4th.

[Carnival Man]

The all-valiant bonus is their only disadvantage/limitation...based on that the units are of equal value when part of a larger army build. But I would think an all 4th army would always have the advantage over an all 10th?

[The B.I.V.]

Originally Posted by Onacara

But again..the 4th only work in an all valiant army so again you are limiting your choices as far as the rest of your build goes.

Yes, but really, that's true of most units. Any unit you choose to build around you have to ask: who's gonna work best with this unit? For the 4th, the answer happens to be "valiant units" but for others, (including the 10th) the answer will be different. But the fact remains, everything doesn't work equally well with everything else. Whichever unit you choose to build around is going to be "limited" (in some respect) by the units it does and doesn't work well with.

So, yes, the valiant requirement is slightly more restrictive, but I think it's negligible (for the most part). Not arguing, just saying...

Brandon

[Einar's puppy]

For the record, there are quite a few Valiant units. I bolded units that work well in a 4th mass army. Even if the unit doesn't have a great power ranking, there are quite a few options for a friendly game build. In a tournament setting, sentinels, knights, and Charos all do very well with the 4th mass. You have options, it just comes down to which champion do you use, and how many squads do you use.

* 4th Massachusetts Line
* Acolarh
* Alastair MacDirk
* Chardris
* Charos
* Concan the Kyrie Warrior
* Eldgrim the Viking Champion
* Finn the Viking Champion
* Jorhdawn
* Kyntela Gwyn
* Knights of Weston
* Sgt. Drake Alexander
* Sgt. Drake Alexander (SOTM)
* Saylind the Kyrie Warrior
* Sentinels of Jandar
* Sir Denrick
* Sir Dupuis
* Sir Gilbert
* Templar Cavalry
* Thorgrim the Viking Champion

[Windy_City_Hawk]

Originally Posted by The B.I.V.

True, but they suck worse as ranged units than the 4th because of their defense. Valiant 4th are always going to have better defense (whether in Melee or ranged) while the 10th will only have an equal amount of Defense in melee.

No, they (the 10th) are better at melee than range due to their lack of defense at range. True, the 4th lose WTF if forcing a melee encounter with an opponent, but if they let the enemy engage them, they don't lose anything. The only advantage the 10th has over the 4th is the fact that they can engage the enemy in melee. It's a very slim advantage, though and the 4th are better overall.

Brandon

I couldn't explain it better. Props to Brandon.

Lets also consider that the 10th only have a 5 Movement. IMO we must base the comparison on the stats of the units, not on a situation that MAY OR MAY NOT favor one unit over the other!

[Windy_City_Hawk]

Originally Posted by Einar's puppy

For the record, there are quite a few Valiant units. I bolded units that work well in a 4th mass army. Even if the unit doesn't have a great power ranking, there are quite a few options for a friendly game build. In a tournament setting, sentinels, knights, and Charos all do very well with the 4th mass. You have options, it just comes down to which champion do you use, and how many squads do you use.

* 4th Massachusetts Line
* Acolarh
* Alastair MacDirk
* Chardris
* Charos
* Concan the Kyrie Warrior
* Eldgrim the Viking Champion
* Finn the Viking Champion
* Jorhdawn
* Kyntela Gwyn
* Knights of Weston
* Sgt. Drake Alexander
* Sgt. Drake Alexander (SOTM)
* Saylind the Kyrie Warrior
* Sentinels of Jandar
* Sir Denrick
* Sir Dupuis
* Sir Gilbert
* Templar Cavalry
* Thorgrim the Viking Champion

Let's not forget Captain America! In mixed games he is an EXCELLENT partner for the 4th. Increases Defense AND Offense, and he makes a great defender for anyone stupid enough to charge them!