OEAO's Legacy Power Rankings

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Given an option between bringing any army that includes Raelin, or any army that includes Q9, I think Raelin would be the safer bet. However, I don't think she is a whole grade better.

As far as Artifacts go, there are some other moves that seem odd...

Atlaga*(90, A-)
Still seems like a good sniper and with more heroes that bolt may be more useful, as well as 120 for other common clean up is fairly pricey in smaller armies.

Marcu Esenwein (20, A-) and Marro Warriors (50, A)
Don't see why these guys should be with the big boys. If you have 20 points left you should rebuild your army instead of throwing in a clean up figure.



Ashigaru Harquebus (60*, B-) not sure how they can be better when the startzones are smaller and points are less for the 200 point hero.


MacDirk Warriors (80*, C+) How?

Minions of Utgar (110*, A-)
and Sentinels of Jandar (110*, A-) again if the start zones are smaller, shouldn't they stay the same in value?

Tarn Viking Warriors (50, C+) again, how?

Khosumet the Darklord (75, C) ha, ha, ha. No.

It seems like you have a preference for Unique squads and fillers. I think if you are building an army that includes fillers you are building the wrong army for that point total. Also if you theory is that reverse the whip is the drive, I think you should look at the Bugbears and Mohicans. Those are tough units to use well. I think the Sacred Band is also undervalued if you know what you are doing. The Warforged are another tricky squad to get the most out of which may make them valuable if you know how to use them well.

A lot of stuff here, appreciate the input!

Raelin provides more value for her points than any other unit, and makes just about any army better for an insanely cheap price. She'd be an A+ at 90 points; at 80, she's a bargain. Q9 is great, but he isn't quite on her level (he's also not as efficient as Rats or possibly Marro Warriors).

Atlaga: a single-attack per turn, non-bonding hero with a once-per-game power that maybe swings a game doesn't belong on the level of A-'s. He's really not that efficient, and he's extremely squishy with a very short range. That said, he's not bad, but I don't think I bring him over, say, Concan, who has an amazing body (4/4 with 5 life for only 80 points).

MWs and Marcus are amazing. MWs are incredible in the hands of an amazing player; I'd rather give just about any other unit in RtW to my opponent than MWs. Marcu is incredibly efficient. 6 life with 4 attack is great, and, more than Isamu, is consistently worth the low investment.

Harqs by themselves are a nice alternative to 4th and 10th. Kato and Yari are bad, but 3x Harqs and Raelin at 260 is a surprisingly solid core.

MacDirks are very potent with Raelin and Alastair. They will quickly hit Heavy and Knight level stats. The potency of 6 quality attacks in a turn can not be understated. 3x MacDirks, Raelin, and Alastair is quite solid, and I'd take it over anything rated lower than B+, as well as some of the B+s.

Minions and Sentinels were never A- to begin with. The meta shift has no real effect on them (outside of the increase of Hounds, which wreck them).

Tarn are almost always worth the 50 points. They proved a cheap screen alternative for Rats. They give up Scatter to gain actual offensive relevance.

Khosumet should be a C, that's from an earlier draft. Good catch! Wasn't paying attention to the low units.

RtW isn't the only drive, but it is considered. HSBs and Mohicans are good, but B+ is very accurate for their power level. I already discussed the reasoning for SB in this thread. Warforged are ok, but really, they aren't as good as the other things, and they also are pretty easy to play, making them a bad choice for RtW. They're a strong B, but not a weak B+.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Don't see why these guys should be with the big boys. If you have 20 points left you should rebuild your army instead of throwing in a clean up figure.

I think if you are building an army that includes fillers you are building the wrong army for that point total.

I really don't understand this at all. Historically, this is inaccurate. Many winning armies in all types of events contain fillers. While an interesting army building theory, the results indicate otherwise.

If you peruse the results, you'll especially notice the prevalence of Marro Warriors.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

Excuse my ignorance - what is splashing?

[dok]

Marcu and Isamu are both hard to rank. Marcu is a questionable cleanup figure, and not great as an early game glyph grabber... both because of his eternal hatred. However, as long as the wound glyph is common in tournament play, Marcu is no worse than an A. I personally tend towards leaving Marcu at A.

Isamu is difficult for other reasons, some of which, like the length of rounds in tournament play, are really hard to consider in rankings. However, it's safe to say that probably no unit - not even Raelin or Q9 - blows up as far beyond its list value as often as Isamu does. I think A is fine for Isamu but A+ or S would be fine too. Really, where you rank Isamu in that range says more about the way you are deciding rankings than it does about how good Isamu is.

FWIW I really like Marcu, while Isamu is one of my bottom 3 least favorite units in the game.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by dok

Marcu and Isamu are both hard to rank. Marcu is a questionable cleanup figure, and not great as an early game glyph grabber... both because of his eternal hatred. However, as long as the wound glyph is common in tournament play, Marcu is no worse than an A. I personally tend towards leaving Marcu at A.

Isamu is difficult for other reasons, some of which, like the length of rounds in tournament play, are really hard to consider in rankings. However, it's safe to say that probably no unit - not even Raelin or Q9 - blows up as far beyond its list value as often as Isamu does. I think A is fine for Isamu but A+ or S would be fine too. Really, where you rank Isamu in that range says more about the way you are deciding rankings than it does about how good Isamu is.

FWIW I really like Marcu, while Isamu is one of my bottom 3 least favorite units in the game.

I would disagree on Isamu in that I've also seen Marcu do the same thing thanks to his incredible stats. Marcu has a high potential ceiling (not quite as high as Isamu's), but his floor is also quite a bit higher than Isamu's. Marcu will generally do at least something, and 6 life is fantastic with Wannok. Also, Marcu is awesome with Ornak (not a factor in Marcu's rating, but certainly a nice bonus).

I am interested what you mean in the bolded. I mainly look at efficiency and consistency: how efficient is this unit for its cost and how swingy of a unit is. I try not to look too heavily at opportunity cost, but it is inevitable.

For example, I view Airborne and Cyprien as A-'s because they just aren't quite consistent enough. At their peaks, they're borderline A+. At their lows...

FWIW, Wannok is also the reason why I moved Otonashi and Kyntella up to B.

[lefton4ya]

I think we need a completely separate ranking based exclusively on RTW format, in which case the "more complicated" units that are normally B- to A- would be ranked highest. Look at Gencon and other RTW tournament results from the last 6 years and pick out the units in the most winning armies.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by lefton4ya

I think we need a completely separate ranking based exclusively on RTW format, in which case the "more complicated" units that are normally B- to A- would be ranked highest. Look at Gencon and other RTW tournament results from the last 6 years and pick out the units in the most winning armies.

Hmm. An interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure how you'd compile it, especially for any units that haven't really been used (the KoM are constantly theorizing about new usages for units, especially splashes).

Also, armies are often comprised of some better and some worse units in RtW. Just being present isn't indicative of power; often times, it's to weaken the rest of the army.

[vegietarian18]

I agree with Marro Warriors up to A+: they are very good and definitely the most undercosted unit in the game

I do not agree with Blade Gruts at A- but it is the Orc rankings

MBS is the best bonding hero in the game and should obviously be A. Good call

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I agree with Marro Warriors up to A+: they are very good and definitely the most undercosted unit in the game

I do not agree with Blade Gruts at A- but it is the Orc rankings

MBS is the best bonding hero in the game and should obviously be A. Good call

MBS is the best for his price; Grimnak is better overall. Chomp with the aura is amazing.

Blades are a weak A- FWIW. 3x Blades with Grimnak is actually super efficient though for 240 points, a bargain. Their 6 move is underrated, allowing them to be one of the best tethers in the game, and Grimnak is Grimnak. Noting this, they struggle against Q9, but can handle just about anything else. 5 attacks per turn is good.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

MBS is the best for his price; Grimnak is better overall. Chomp with the aura is amazing.

Blades are a weak A- FWIW. 3x Blades with Grimnak is actually super efficient though for 240 points, a bargain. Their 6 move is underrated, allowing them to be one of the best tethers in the game, and Grimnak is Grimnak. Noting this, they struggle against Q9, but can handle just about anything else. 5 attacks per turn is good.

I'm going to raise your Grimnak and give you a Charos! Seriously, though, I still don't think Charos+Greenscales has been beaten at my house...

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

I'm going to raise your Grimnak and give you a Charos! Seriously, though, I still don't think Charos+Greenscales has been beaten at my house...

Wasn't thinking about Greenscales! Nilf is the best bonding hero in that case.

Charos/Greens is alright. It's worth noting that that's another matchup where dropping to Blades from Heavies is devastating. Heavies, Knights, and Romans have a fairly easy time dealing with that army, but Blades get wrecked. Heavies/Knights/Romans vs Charos/Greens is probably 65/35, but Blades vs Charos/Greens is probably 20/80, even with whatever else you're getting with the saved points.

[vegietarian18]

Charos is definitely underplayed with Greenscales but B+ is probably right. He protects his Greenscales instead of his Greenscales protecting him, which is cool and different. But it's kind of a one dimensional army because he's melee too