Cleon's Unit Tier List (Update: 11/26/18)

[Cleon]

I think I should still bump them up to mid-6, and probably will move the Zombies up to there too. I think their tournament prowess reflect that spot, and not a 5. Zombies don't see much play, but they have a lot going for them (movement efficiency, special attack) to be a 5, I'd say.

I'm going to do my first update either later today or tomorrow. Several changes....most of which I was iffy in the first place when placing them, but some of which were influenced the more I thought about it with the discussion/feedback.

Three units I still am very lost on which I'd love to get some discussion going:

-Mezzo's
-Warforged Soldiers
-Eltahale

Although it seems people agree with where I put Eltahale, so she probably is accurately placed. It seems like Mezzos should be higher and Warforged lower. Maybe, Warforged a low-7? And, Mezzos a high-7 or even towards the bottom of 8?

Also considering bumping the Gorillinators up slightly. Them+Raelin is good against common squads.....it's just very hard for me to rate something higher than that being that it's 30pt. a figure that loses soooo hard to Q9, Q10, Dragons, etc. They also only have 2 attack, after all. Kinda reminds me of Aubriens - they always seem to have nice potential but the reality is they only have a base attack of 2, not 3, which is huge. Maybe the Gorillas will be the new top unit of the 3's...I'm comfortable with that.

I do have a question, too, about Samuel Brown - once he kills something with the 3-attack 5-range, how much range is his 4-attack? Is it 7 or 5? Also, I assume the attack ends after the attack of 4, and that he can't continue attacking.

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I do have a question, too, about Samuel Brown - once he kills something with the 3-attack 5-range, how much range is his 4-attack? Is it 7 or 5? Also, I assume the attack ends after the attack of 4, and that he can't continue attacking.

He has to end his movement after the first attack engaged, so the range on the second attack is only 1.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Astroking112

He has to end his movement after the first attack engaged, so the range on the second attack is only 1.

Oh, duh, I'm an idiot. I read that last part as if he ends his move unengaged.

Thanks haha

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Oh, duh, I'm an idiot. I read that last part as if he ends his move unengaged.

Thanks haha

No worries; it happens to all of us. I've made worse mistakes before for sure.

[Cleon]

Sorry for the postponing and delaying, meant to do the first large update weeks ago. I will do it later tonight once I get home.

I'm also going to do a Tier list that includes the VC units as well (in the VC forum), but it will take me quite a bit as I haven't played with all the units and especially the newest few waves/sets. But I am going to start working on that very soon. Probably after I give this one its first update.

[Cleon]

Finally finished the first update. I'll list the changes and some words about it below.

Units that moved a full Tier:

Moltenclaw: (Tier 6) 76 -> (Tier 7) 58. I wasn't sure where to put him, either tier 6 or 7, originally. But he seems like a pretty strong figure on most maps, and Greenscales are always a boost. Greenscales make every dragon better and push them up in value.

Syvarris: (Tier 6) 81 -> (Tier 7) 75. Not a huge increase but enough to bump him to the bottom spot of Tier 7. I just think he'll pretty much always kill his points worth as long as you stay far away, and can do far more damage on certain maps when you clog the opponent with other stuff to screen him. 9 range is noticeable, too. Nothing else in the game has more than 8 without Laglor, besides Deadeye Dan but he sucks.

Iron Golem: (Tier 6) 88 -> (Tier 5) 116. Yeah, I was overrating him initially. He's a beatstick and is really annoying for SA's to deal with, but he's still a slow moving single attack hero. Still, I think he's a solid tool for 100pt. I kept him up at the higher end of the 5's. Still really like this fig and its possibilities.

Blue Wyrmling: (Tier 6) 105 -> (Tier 5) 108. Taking into account that you never see Blue and it typically disappoints I've heard several say. Is the worst wyrmling, but, I still think Blue isn't bad. You can always bond with one, and bond from one, and I think that's useful. There are times where the 4 attack comes in handy.

Warriors of Ashra: (Tier 5) 108 -> (Tier 6) 90. I already said I was going to do this, and had a feeling they were about here back when I posted the first list. They're very spashable and I think they have that going for them, so I put them several spots higher than the Zombies (which also moved up). Also not bad running a lot of them if you compensate for range.

Marrden Hounds: (Tier 5) 109 -> (Tier 6) 107. I'm still not convinced with these guys, but I know several people think highly of them, so I bumped them up to the next tier. They could move up some spots, I'll have to play some home games with them. But I don't think they're above a Tier 6, though. Too many downsides to them. That's just me.

Units that moved within the same Tier:

Blastatrons/Gladiatrons: 13/14 -> 25/26. Basically, it competely depends on the hex/fig limit. If it's 16 or 18, then they're probably at the top of tier 8. If it's 20+, then they're a strong 9. (Point limit also should be considered, but if it's 450pt.+ I think they're fine. Lower point tournaments (~400pt.) they're not as strong. But I try to weigh point differences with every unit). So I met in the middle and basically put the average - bottom of Tier 9.

Krav Maga Agents: 12 -> 14. I'm going back and forth on whether to put the Krav right above or below Knights/Heavies. Decided to put them below because Phantom Knights are such a hard counter, and PK's aren't uncommon. If PK's didn't exist I would definitely put them above.

Phantom Knights: 24 -> 19. They're really splashable and pretty much never bad. Near-completely map independent, from what I can tell. Krav counter, common range counter, and not bad outside of facing those. PK's are just good. Decided to bump them up.

Nerak the Glacian Swog Rider: 21 -> 24. Decided to move Nerak down slightly. I've seen a lot of people play Orcs with Raelin and no Nerak, and not so often Nerak and no Raelin. Still, a great figure, and playing both or only one, in all 3 cases, still works. Just figured the units (now) right above him feel more powerful (KA, Laglor, Braxas, Greenscales, PKs).

Samuel Brown: 49 -> 63. I had in my head that he basically always has a double attack, but then I realized you have to kill the first unit. Again, haven't memorized this figure since his release lol i guess because he was the last figure and so few people use him. But yeah, at 60pt. he's a solid hero. Opens more options for Mass which is always a big plus.

Sacred Band: 57 -> 62. A slight bump down. I think what makes the Roman's shine is their great bonding options, and if you want to add something else that's not disciplined, you don't need crappy Parmenio to do so. Still, Sacred Band + Marcus + Valguard is solid, and there's still 10th and Airborne available to add. Wish Parmenio was a better figure...

Warforged Soldiers: 59 -> 72. Taking your guys' word for it...wasn't sure when I first rated them but still figured they were a Tier 7. Moved them to the low end, probably where they belong.

Mezzodemon Warmongers: 61 -> 46. Same thing as the Warforged. Am still lost on the Mezzo's but seeing others' feelings and their success in recent years I'm comfortable putting them at the top of Tier 7.

Mimring: 73 -> 69. Similar to Molten claw. Greenscales just always open doors for a dragon and I can't ignore potential army builds with them, because 3 attacks of 3 + a ranged special to bond with is great, even though some dragons you never see with the Greenscales. Shouldn't forget about Arrow Gruts, but I want to try him with some Greenscales next time I play. Anyways, I think he deserved a small bump.

Ashigaru Harquebus: 93 -> 76. Yeah, the more I think about it and play with army builds in my head, the more I like them. They might be the most underrated/underused unit in the game, or one of. You never see them outside Kato, and you rarely see Kato+Ashigaru. But outside Kato might be the way to go. With Raelin+Harqx3 as a base you can make some pretty sick armies. Not as good as 4th or 10th, but probably a lot better than what we usually think of them. I think you're right Dysole. Put them at the top of 6, they're likely a 7, but I want to play some games first.

Tornak: 100 -> 89. Not much to say, just a solid figure that bonds with solid squads. Grimnak always puts him in the shadows, but Tornak isn't bad. Both at the same time if you have the points is nice.

Othkurik the Black Dragon: 101 -> 81. Same thing as the other two, he's a dragon and has Greenscales potential. I think he's the worst dragon but still not a bad figure, and I think Othkurik+Greenscalesx2 is a nice little force to add to an army.

Zombies of Morindan: 107 -> 97. Same with the Ashra, I was conservatively placing them at first. They're a pretty good and efficient squad to be that low, wanted to solidify their 6-rank. Put Ashra higher, felt their splashing ability and versatility gave them the edge.

Sonlen: 132 -> 110. Sonlen's better than I usually think of him as. The old take on him was: yeah, he's pretty good, but he's expensive and that keeps him from hitting more armies. But, that was more when he first came out. Stingers/Q10 were definitely in the spotlight when SotM released. Now that the Hydra exists, I think Sonlen might be an unsung strong hero. Sonlen+Hydra+Raelin is nice and I haven't seen it before. I think he might be a 6.

Tandros Kreel: 144 -> 132. I still don't like Tandros but he's 7 life 4 def for 120. His abilities aren't as impressive as I'd like them to be, but his survivability is strong. Just wish he had some synergy with someone.

Deathstalkers: 154 -> 149. Again, not convinced about the double spaced figures (Hounds and them......I think everyone agrees the cavalries blow ). Too many problems that worry me. But they did pretty well at GenCon before and if many people think they're higher now, maybe they are. The bump from 4 to 5 I think is easier than pushing the Hounds much higher (some feel the Hounds are like Tier 7), so I'm more open to these guys. Are they a 5?

Drow Chainfighter: 169 -> 156. Yeah, he's a pretty good filler. Put him right above ol' Dumutef, as I think I'd rather take the Chainfighter over Dumutef as a filler, and using the Dumutef outside of just a filler I don't think is any higher in power than where I have him. Shout out to Matthias.

Gorillinators: 177 -> 172. Dysole convinced me enough to give them a bump. Even though they suck, they are a ranged squad (can't say the same about Roman Archers lol) that have Laglor/Nakita possibilities and can do decent against other commons in situations. Congratulations, Gorillinators, you have now graduated at the top of your Class.

Khosumet the Darklord: 185 -> 190. I have a soft spot for Khosumet because I like the Anubians a lot, and I think it's cool to not explode from the D20, but he's pretty terrible. Maybe even a 2. 75pt. for a 3 def 3 life figure that needs to be adjacent to things to attack/enhance hurts.

Dund: 188 -> 182. I forgot that Skahen helps Dund, and can use Dund's ability as a combo. Gave him a boost.

Red Skull: 3 -> 2. Red Skull is bad. I think Sudema and Runa are a bit underrated and their fragility doesn't completely shun them, but Red Skull is too expensive for me to give a defense for. Also his manipulation ability only works with other unique heroes, which I didn't realize before.

[OEAO]

Looks pretty solid.

Disagree on Nerak. No one that plays Gruts takes Raelin, Nerak is the better choice. Partially because of value, partially because of how the point limits and formats tend to pan out. It's been years since a Raelin-Gruts build has performed well, as in before I started going to GC in 2012. Nerak has been in three of the four Heavy builds I've won GC events with, as well as being in the two Blade builds I've made Day 2 with. Just like Knights, no need for Raelin; makes the army slower, less adaptive, and more predictable.

Also, rereading your first post, why do you think that letters are more subjective than numbers? You've basically just combined D and F tiers into Tier 1 (with moves of course), and the rest pans out all the way up to A+ being 10. It's fundamentally still the same. The tier breakdowns could be cereals or fruits for all it matters, doesn't really matter the designators, just the order.

[Dysole]

Couple advantages I see.

Letter grading has a finite set of tiers whereas if we decide we need 11 or 12 tiers or even 9 tiers, it can be adjusted more easily.

Connotations around letter grading are different. I've heard people argue that because C is average, more units should be a C than any other.

~Dysole, chiming in her 1 3/4 cents

[Cleon]

I don't really like the Letter grading system that's been established for a number of reasons, I find it a bit subjective...

-Do the Letters just represent ordered tiers, or do they portray a score out of 100, for example, is an A- meaning 90-93 score and an A is 94-96, or are they just the third and second tiers after the most powerful? I've assumed the latter, but I can't help but feel others and part of myself assign and assume numbers in the grading, because the school system that we've been atoned to is ingrained in our minds when scoring something.
-Most of the classic power rankings are more centered around the 'playable' units in competitive play, and fall off in accuracy, I think, after like B/B-. I think this was just a natural development over the years, but basically it kind of became 'Is this unit good or competitive and seen in tournaments? Then it's a B+ or better. If not? Then it's B/B-. If it's really bad, then it's dismissed as below B-.' That's how I feel it turned into. I wanted to make it more meticulous and not dismissive as basically only three types of units.
-I think there's a similar flow or categories, yes, between mine and the letter grading, but I wanted to spread out the units a bit more over the tiers, as I feel it better reflects there power. The original is too top half heavy and oriented, I'd say. And I don't think that reflects the game truly.
-Furthermore, the 'center' or 'average' power in the original rankings is a bit weird. For mine it's a 5, and in a median-style look, probably a high-5 or mid/low-6. But for the original, I think it's anywhere throughout C+ to B+, depending on how you look at it and are calibrating a schooling grading system that we grew up with (or are still in).

Some could even argue A- is the average, if you more look at the letter system as saying which units are 'playable' or not (which I think many do); more thinking that A+ and A are above average tiers, A- is average, B+ and B are below average, and B- and lower are dismissive. But I suppose you can look at my rankings in that way, only looking at what's assumed 'playable' in a competitive environment. But again, I think the original rankings were too top half focused, and that's probably why I'm mentioning this.

All in all, there are similarities between the two and I don't hate the original grading system and will still chime in on it, but I prefer my reworked system. The two don't translate perfectly between each other, and I hope mine is viewed in a similar but different light. I just find it more accurate this way, as the original, in my opinion, is a bit misleading (and that might have inherently developed that way just as the game (and metagame) developed and sets were released; the original rankings and system was first posted in early 2007).

But because there's a lot of similarities between mine and yours, I think that says both are pretty accurate in ranking the power of the units in heroscape.

[OEAO]

Sure I guess, interesting points but I don’t really agree with any of them. You’ve moved some units up and some down, changing breakpoints. 1 could still be A+, 2 A, etc.

And of course average is subjective and has no real bearing on what the tiers stand for. They’re just breakpoints, and lettered tiers are how every competitive game I’ve played has been broken down into (Scape, Summoner Wars, X-Wing, etc, and I know at least some of the Smash games use Letters).

[Cleon]

I guess I wanted to establish a new but similar system because I felt a lot of the original rankings were too top-half-oriented, and also that I disagreed with a lot of unit's placements. So to kill two birds with one stone I made my changes and also made a system that spread the units more in a manner I think that better reflects their power, and better analyzes the bottom half or weaker units more. If I had kept the Letter system then I think there would be a vast number of differences and overall shifts that it would be hard to discuss as the same system. Because of that I didn't want to use the same notations (and for reasons I mentioned), in case it mislead people to think it's the same system/discussion as the original.

In short, I felt it was time to rework the old system to a new one, and that would better reflect how I look at the game. I'm not opposed to discussing and contibuting in the original(s), I'll discuss in both.

For Smash, the tiers are usually just represented by letters ordered alphabetically, not like the schooling system with pluses and minuses and including the 5 - A, B, C, D, and F. Depending on the game, some tier lists have tiers that go to G or H, and also include E. For Smash 64, there are 4 tiers - S, A, B, and C. They often put the top tier for the top character(s) as S or SS, I guess depending on how much the character(s) is viewed as broken. (Assuming) like you did with yours with Raelin.

Summoner Wars community heavily started as simply a lot of the Heroscape community players that were interested in both it and scape, or jumped over from scape. So it makes sense that the same thing was used. I know there's a lot of SW players that never played scape, but at the start, the SW community was a lot of us scapers. (Not sure what the SW community looks like now, i haven't played in years and recently sold a lot of my stuff...)

Never played X-Wing so I can't speak on that. (I heard it's really good though)

[Cleon]

Gonna post my VC list soon in that forum, check it out if you're interested.


So one thing I'd like to discuss is the 3 Tier-8 melee squads/armies. I think Knights, Heavies, and Greenscales are a gap better (hence being in tier 9), and I think Nagrubs+TKN is right below (it's like between 7 and 8 ), but what do people feel the order in power is between the Romans, Axegrinders, and Deathchasers is?

I went with Axegrinders>Romans>Deathchasers, but I can actually see an argument for any order of the 3. I typically think of Deathchasers as the worst of the 3, being that they're a 3 squad, but that 4-base attack is really nice. Also, strong bonding options. Romans might have the lowest top-potential but they're more versatile and have a really solid matchup spread imo. Axegrinders are hard to shy away from because of how strong they are in matchups pertaining Large/Huge things, which is common to get matched up against (Q's, Dragons, Greenscales+Dragons), even moreso in lower figure/hex count formats (16-18 ). They have less bonding options (still great, so can't really count it against them), but are strong without any heroes too, very splashable. Can't say the same for the other 2.

All 3 are close in power to me. What do you guys think? Dwarves, Romans, or Deathchasers?