The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

I must a admit, though, what I like best is the photo of your opponent in despair. Priceless.

I feel kind of bad about that. The guy in that pic is one of the greatest heroscapers around, and has done a lot for the game, but every time I see that pic, I crack up too. I'm not even sure if that's what he's doing in that photo, since my rats haven't even engaged his sentinels yet, but it certainly looks like it. Supergeek took an excellent photo either way.

Since you like the hive, one weird control army that I've been kicking around in my head but haven't gotten a chance to try yet is this:

Hive 160
Raelin 240
3x Stingers 420
2x Deathreavers 500

On a slightly long map like Embattled Fen, I could see this one doing fairly well in an hour long game.

[Sarpedon]

Yes, Jexik, on an elongated map that army would do well against most. The one I proposed was designed to win by attrition as well. I'm not sure whether 3 or 4 squads (or more) of Stingers is best. I've never tested it, though perhaps I should send such armies (using proxies) head-to-head when playing with my friends. Either way, I have found the Hive to be very effective if you're playing for a points win or long tactical victory: the longer the game lasts, obviously, the more value the hive (re)produces.

[SuperflyTNT]

I tend to agree with that - the exception is the RaeliBlastaGlads, where they're essentially army neutral and are tough to beat with any given army.

Personally, I think my winningest armies are those that are less usual like those that employ Theracus, Deathwalker 7000, and other figures that have a surprise aspect to them.

Gencon will be very interesting this year since the new wave will be out and playtested by the masses, so we may see some new champions emerge over the tried-and-true standards we've seen over the last 2 Gencons.

[Sarpedon]

Greetings, everyone.

I've thought about how I, a self-proclaimed competitive player, view units. Perhaps this tool will help non-competitive players better understand the mindset of competitive players such as myself. I believe the units can be placed into three general categories (which form a new Axis of categorization that can be considered along with Spider Poison's power rankings) that I will discuss below. Of course, I don't expect that every competitive player will agree, but, perhaps, many will.

Competitive units: These are the units that you would draft to take to a standard (Non-Marvel, 500-point, 24-hex. starting zone, ROTV maps) trournament if your life depended on you finishing in the top four. I realize it's too hypothetical, and a bit silly, to say "if your life depended on it", but I just wanted to emphasize how extremely competitive you would want your army to be. This by no means excludes non-elite (A-, B+, B, etc.) units. However, it means that, if you use non-elite units, you will almost certainly want to combine them with some elite units (Raelin, Stingers, etc.). The key point is that "competitive" does not mean only A+ and A units.

Obsolete units: These are units that, as things currently stand, cannot form (a worthwhile) part of a competitive army. In other words, rather than choose a squad of Samurai Archers, you'd draft a squad of Marro Stingers: you get far better value. New units (and sometimes even previous ones!) have made these unplayable. Obsolete units may become competitive in the future (read Gladiators), but they are not at this time. It is here where most players may disagree as to which units should be included. This is definitely a gray area and not "carved in stone".

Dead-in-the-water units: These are units that are just not competitive (remember, we're discussing with regard to average tournament maps). A good example are the Obsidian Guards. Even if they were given a hero to bond with, how often would they get to use their lava throw (which is in-and-of-itself a very short-ranged attack)? They would just not be better than other units available no matter what.

Now, different competitive players would place different units under these categories. However, there would be far more similarities than differences. Currently, these categories can be stacked to form a pyramid graph. The Dead-in-the-water units are the majority followed by the obsolete units with the competitive units on top.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

Currently, these categories can be stacked to form a pyramid graph. The Dead-in-the-water units are the majority followed by the obsolete units with the competitive units on top.

I suspect that if it is indeed a pyramid that you have it backwards. I would say there are perhaps 3-4 units that have no place in any competitive 500 point, 24 hex army with the only lock belonging to Hatamoto Taro. In competitive HS there are many, many ways to skin a cat. At the OVAH tourney, one of the armies that actually won in the first round to advance was Spartacus, Retiarius, Crixus, Dund, Isamu. Obviously that's a radical departure from what we typically see, but I would imagine half or more of the units in the game have been in a top three finishing army at a tournament somewhere.

As for obsolescence, I'm just not sure who I would consider obsolete. You mention the TSA, but I can envision armies and scenarios where I prefer them to the Stingers, who cannot make their counterstrike obsolete even though they are the better ranged threat. In short, I don't really think of either Dead-in-the-Water or Obsolete as categories when I'm crafting an army for a tournament. I'm far more likely to think in terms of the concepts that gamjuven mentions in his initial post, particularly the metagame and what I'm likely to face.

~Aldin, respectfully disagreeing

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

I tend to agree with that - the exception is the RaeliBlastaGlads, where they're essentially army neutral and are tough to beat with any given army.

Personally, I think my winningest armies are those that are less usual like those that employ Theracus, Deathwalker 7000, and other figures that have a surprise aspect to them.

Gencon will be very interesting this year since the new wave will be out and playtested by the masses, so we may see some new champions emerge over the tried-and-true standards we've seen over the last 2 Gencons.

Funny we had a tourney in DFW one time that featured the top 2 players battling it out. Both players had Zettian Guards in their army and used them to precise effectiveness.

[Sarpedon]

As I said, not all competitive players would agree. If Grungebob and Aldin are competitive players, then you can see that I was right about that. There is no doubt that examples can be cited where armies composed of C units did very well. Heck, even Hatamoto Taro might do well in a game. However, is he any less of an F-rated unit because he shone once?

The purpose of my post was to illustrate how some competitive Heroscapers (might) see units. If you don't, that's fine. However, if nothing else, it gives those who don't (see it that way) a better understanding of the mindset of those of us who do (see it that way).

[Einar's_Strategist]

I would have to agree with Aldin, as the majority of the units are neither obsulete or dead in the water. one dead, and very few (Khosumet & Anubian wolves, and Wolves of Badru (my opinion) obsolete. so yeah, it's more of an inverted pyramid.

[ellak96]

Is This a Good Army
Finn
Thorgrim
Knights x1
Ae
Crixus

[gamjuven]

Originally Posted by ellak96

Is This a Good Army
Finn
Thorgrim
Knights x1
Ae
Crixus

If this is a serious post I shall have to ask you to read the first post and then see for yourself. I'll say you are near the right track with this army, but it needs work.

[Ullar MASTER!]

Hey thanks alot. This is alot of help for me now i can put heros together in a good formation. And i got my answer for order markers i thank you for this.

[Spartacus Maximus]

This is great. I found it very helpful