Unit Debate #71 Nilfheim vs Quahon

[kevindola]

If you watched the Championship the answer was clear

Spoiler Alert!

Marro Warriors

[Foudzing]

Both are very similar but in my opinion Quahon is a clear winner for the fact that if ONE unit breaks your wall and get engaged with Nilf then you have to choose with using Ice Shards and if you miss, you are dealing no damage with Nilf this turn, or using just normal attack, to have more chance to kill the intrude but you have to accept that you will not kill anything else with Nilf. To me this is the most significant difference between the two and it goes in favor of Quahon.

Also I find it easier to shoot at multiples figures, while being in security, with Lightning Breath than with Ice Shrads, with Ice Shards you to be kinda like "in the middle of the fight".

Survavibility diff will be significant in like 5% of games, to me that doesn't out-balance the higher security of Lightning breath vs Ice Shards.

Move diff is not significant, like you will not use Nilf or Quahon to assassinate anything anyway and they don't have enough range to really play the "hit and run" game.
Figure size and form isn't significant too, like there is places Quahon can go and Nilf can't, and there is place where it's the opposite, highly depends on maps and how the "sweet spots" are designed.

And finally most people underestimate the Spiders build but it's really a powerhouse, Spiders are cheap and fast and hance excellent at blocking the things that could scare Quahon.
Also Lightning Storm and Entangling Web have EXCELLENT synergy, if you seperate too much your forces to prevent Lightning breath then you give good shots for Entangling web and a SINGLE lost OM usually means lose in a competitive game.
Sujoah who was trash-tier before Quahon becomes a nice Shark here as she's doing very well against everything Quahon is scared off.

In french tournaments Quahon +spiders build was very present and it always had a MUCH better showing than Zelrig+Greens or Nilf+Rats, Nilf+Greens+Rae was not brought because it's considered cheese but imo you need that kind of cheese to beat Quahon+Spiders an yet win is not guaranteed. If predator players gets lucky lightning sotrm or entangling web and is playing correctly, you'll lose no matter how well you play.

Quahon is definitely favored in the "mirror", Nilf+Rae+Greenies is probably better against raw melee like knights but to me that's overkill, as dragon + screen is already great enough vs melee.
And Quahon is obviously better vs screen + shooter ( the mirror) her lightning breath is like designed for that, and vs ranged squads because higher range and fast spiders. Anyone who played Nilf+GSW+Rae knows it's quite a hassle to play vs ranged squads: you have to come to the ennemy while being quite slow because rushing to opponent is way too risky, it's difficult to use all auras, to shoot at multiple stuff etc... Quahon build doesn't have all those problems or they are at least greatly reduced.

[OEAO]

I think I’ve posted here already, but I’m still in on Nilfheim. After seeing a lot of people play him, I just think that people fundamentally misunderstand/misuse him. He shouldn’t be getting engaged. Period. If he does, just disengage. The whole point of him is to take multiple shots when safe, and run when not. He kites better than just about any other figure in the game; 6 move flying lets him be where he wants, when he wants.

Quahon is a lot more forgiving to aggressive play and mistakes, which makes him a better choice for a lot of people. Nilfheim is still the strongest figure in the game when you make every correct choice; it’s just that making every correct choice is incredibly tough.

[Chris Perkins]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

I think I’ve posted here already, but I’m still in on Nilfheim. After seeing a lot of people play him, I just think that people fundamentally misunderstand/misuse him. He shouldn’t be getting engaged. Period. If he does, just disengage. The whole point of him is to take multiple shots when safe, and run when not. He kites better than just about any other figure in the game; 6 move flying lets him be where he wants, when he wants.

Quahon is a lot more forgiving to aggressive play and mistakes, which makes him a better choice for a lot of people. Nilfheim is still the strongest figure in the game when you make every correct choice; it’s just that making every correct choice is incredibly tough.

Are you basing that off Nilf + Greenscales v. Quahon + Greenscales, Quahon + Spiders, or both?

I'm curious because I definitely agree that Nilf is better than Quahon when both are brought with Greenscales. I'm less sure of Nilf's dominance when Spiders are added into the mix though. They just make such a better screen (more of them, better move, + remove the occasional OM). Right now for the C3V meta I'm leaning towards Quahon + Spiders being a bit stronger just because of the strength of the screen, acknowledging that Nilf + Spiders would be better if they bonded.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Chris Perkins

Are you basing that off Nilf + Greenscales v. Quahon + Greenscales, Quahon + Spiders, or both?

I'm curious because I definitely agree that Nilf is better than Quahon when both are brought with Greenscales. I'm less sure of Nilf's dominance when Spiders are added into the mix though. They just make such a better screen (more of them, better move, + remove the occasional OM). Right now for the C3V meta I'm leaning towards Quahon + Spiders being a bit stronger just because of the strength of the screen, acknowledging that Nilf + Spiders would be better if they bonded.

Well, I wasn’t so much commenting on armies. It’s more a response to everyone saying that Nilf’s special isn’t as good because of engagements, which I just really don’t see.

As for matchups, I’m not convinced that Spiders are better into Bonding Melee. The Heavies matchup is better, but I don’t think the Knights or Dwarves matchups get any easier with Spiders. Spiders Quahon should, in theory, struggle with big things. I also don’t know how Quahon handles 4th and 10th, who Nilfheim handles well. I would suspect that the Quahon matchup into 10th is worse, even if Spiders are better than Greenies into 10th.

[Chris Perkins]

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I also agree that Nilf's attack, by itself, is the stronger.

I do think though that the extra squad of spiders that you can get (paired with sometimes removing an OM, not reliable but fantastic when it happens) is generally better into bonding mele, including Knights/Dwarves. Adding the extra 3 figures to the screen (for same cost) helps it last longer and the better move lets you plug holes in the screen faster.

Against 10th / 4th, Quahon does give you the possibility of using one of your spiders to chain an attack into the 10th / 4th without Quahon getting into WTF range. I don't think this is usually a good idea, but it's a nice tool to add that Nilf doesn't have.

[kevindola]

It sounds like the argument is that the engagement weakness isn't relevant because a perfectly executed Nilfheim player should never be in a position to have Nilfheim engaged?

I somewhat get the theory (although I still doubt I agree), but I haven't seen that in practice at all with Nilfheim in deep round tournament games. In both the semifinal and Finals matchups against Nilfheim of the recent VCheese tournament, (which I think is ok to cite since that tournament is what restarted this discussion), Nilfheim was able to be engaged in the midgame (various reasons apply). And in both games, the choice would have been to take the 4v3 attack single Ice shard or disengage. In at least one game, disengaging to get those 3 attacks would have also required moving out of Raelin's aura, and giving up optimal positioning. Also in both cases, Nilfheim had already been wounds by ranged attacks, and just take another wound (albeit 50/50) is not a lightly taken decision.

So I think it's more than just having to decide if you take the disengage or not, it's also loss of positioning if you want to avoid that chance of losing your triple attack. (I'm not going to go back and look, but I know I saw @Knight of Scape in the recent Utah live online event playing Nilfheim and getting single engaged, and having to make a decision. I don't think it was because he was playing especially out of a standard playstyle) [I think against someone with a knight build (vegie's dad maybe?) and against dok's Cathar]


As an aside

Spoiler Alert!

some of this bears on an interesting side discussion I've often thought of when ranking figures. The following is just an example and not necessarily correct: If a perfectly played Nilfheim army is better than a perfectly played Quahon army, but if 90% of the players with their playstyle (non perfect) will win more games with the Quahon army, because an above average played Quahon army is better than an above average played Nilfheim. Then which should be considered better when ranking? It came back to mind as orc mentioned he sees a lot of Nilf armies being playing wrong. And I just got to thinking, if at high level tournaments there are a lot of times the unit is played wrong, should the unit get dinged for being difficult to play perfectly?

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by kevindola

It sounds like the argument is that the engagement weakness isn't relevant because a perfectly executed Nilfheim player should never be in a position to have Nilfheim engaged?

I somewhat get the theory (although I still doubt I agree), but I haven't seen that in practice at all with Nilfheim in deep round tournament games. In both the semifinal and Finals matchups against Nilfheim of the recent VCheese tournament, (which I think is ok to cite since that tournament is what restarted this discussion), Nilfheim was able to be engaged in the midgame (various reasons apply). And in both games, the choice would have been to take the 4v3 attack single Ice shard or disengage. In at least one game, disengaging to get those 3 attacks would have also required moving out of Raelin's aura, and giving up optimal positioning. Also in both cases, Nilfheim had already been wounds by ranged attacks, and just take another wound (albeit 50/50) is not a lightly taken decision.

So I think it's more than just having to decide if you take the disengage or not, it's also loss of positioning if you want to avoid that chance of losing your triple attack. (I'm not going to go back and look, but I know I saw @Knight of Scape in the recent Utah live online event playing Nilfheim and getting single engaged, and having to make a decision. I don't think it was because he was playing especially out of a standard playstyle) [I think against someone with a knight build (vegie's dad maybe?) and against dok's Cathar]


As an aside

Spoiler Alert!

some of this bears on an interesting side discussion I've often thought of when ranking figures. The following is just an example and not necessarily correct: If a perfectly played Nilfheim army is better than a perfectly played Quahon army, but if 90% of the players with their playstyle (non perfect) will win more games with the Quahon army, because an above average played Quahon army is better than an above average played Nilfheim. Then which should be considered better when ranking? It came back to mind as orc mentioned he sees a lot of Nilf armies being playing wrong. And I just got to thinking, if at high level tournaments there are a lot of times the unit is played wrong, should the unit get dinged for being difficult to play perfectly?

Well, I'll start with your aside first, because I think it addresses the rest of the post as well. To do that, we need to discuss the role of player skill in HeroScape. Basically, it's not just that a great player needs to be playing Nilfheim, they also have to be playing near-perfect (it's impossible to play a perfect HeroScape game) every single game. Now, that's much easier in an online format where you only have to play one game a week, whereas it's much tougher when you have to do that 4-5 rounds in a row with no breaks. Therefore, it's not just 90% of players would do better with Quahon; even a player in that 10% will likely have an off-game (off-game defined not as playing terribly, but merely playing good or ok, which is usually not enough with Nilf).

I lost to Nick the Ant (a top player) in the finals of General Wars 2018 after playing 4 great games in a row. I scrubbed out in the finals because I was too aggressive with Nilf. I should have won the last game from a matchup-standpoint, but instead put Nilfheim in a bad spot. This caused me to lose a close game I would have otherwise won. Nick played great and capitalized on my mistakes. Now, the easy out would have been, "I would have won had my dice with Nilf been a little better", which is definitely true... but also missing the point. Nilf played excellently is an A+ figure, but it's just way too hard to do that 4-5 rounds in a row.

To talk about Nilf is fundamentally to talk about how to analyze a map. Most people have a tough time really understanding what's happening with a map; I know I'm still working on this. Nilf and Concan are the two figures I've played the most in the past two-three years, and both of them continuously challenge me to better analyze the map.

As for above, I didn't get to see those games unfortunately, so I can't comment on those specific scenarios. However, if repositioning would require leaving Raelin's aura, then was the army set up correctly in the first place? I don't know, but that's my first question. I also want to clarify that sure, sometimes the restriction hurts; it just should hurt less than it does.

Well, rereading, that's kind of a jumbled mess. Hope that makes some level of sense... This is why I record audio...

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Chris Perkins

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I also agree that Nilf's attack, by itself, is the stronger.

I do think though that the extra squad of spiders that you can get (paired with sometimes removing an OM, not reliable but fantastic when it happens) is generally better into bonding mele, including Knights/Dwarves. Adding the extra 3 figures to the screen (for same cost) helps it last longer and the better move lets you plug holes in the screen faster.

Against 10th / 4th, Quahon does give you the possibility of using one of your spiders to chain an attack into the 10th / 4th without Quahon getting into WTF range. I don't think this is usually a good idea, but it's a nice tool to add that Nilf doesn't have.

That is a good point on the extra squad, but I'm not sure that being closer to bonding melee is good. I haven't played the matchup, so I'll concede that I don't have a really strong opinion one way or another.

As for WtF, that would be a nice trick, but the Spider has to live in that position from the previous round to do that. If the Spider could move first, that would be an extremely powerful tool to maintain 7 range at all times.

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

He shouldn’t be getting engaged. Period. If he does, just disengage. The whole point of him is to take multiple shots when safe, and run when not. He kites better than just about any other figure in the game; 6 move flying lets him be where he wants, when he wants.

Quahon is a lot more forgiving to aggressive play and mistakes, which makes him a better choice for a lot of people. Nilfheim is still the strongest figure in the game when you make every correct choice; it’s just that making every correct choice is incredibly tough.

Well you can't say "just disengage period" just like it's the right play anytime, if a Viper engaged you have a 15/16 chance to kill her with ice shards and then focus other stuff are you really going to take a 1/2 on a disengage, maybe lose the sweet spot, maybe lose height maybe have to get back so you can't get other vipers etc... All that for that 1/16 chance to miss?

Well that's extrem situation, but it's just to show that your thinking of "just disengage period" is just plain wrong.

But anyway in any case if opponent figure engage Nilf, Nilf player have to think, sometimes ice shards is still the right play, sometimes 6 normal attack is the right play, sometimes disengage is the right play. But in every case Nilf is forced to take risks or lose firepower, while Quahon is still guaranteed to blast off full firepower.

And for the "Nilf shouldn't be getting engaged" well Quahon neither... You are just stating the obvious here but sometimes engagements are just not avoidable, initiative switches exist you know...

I agree Nilf Can be SIGHTLY more difficult to play than Quahon but anyway Nilf has been out for like 15 years already, he's like top 5 most played unit in the whole game, people know how to play him near perfection especially people in this thread who are almost all tournaments winners. If he needs more play than 15 years at like top popularity to be played at full potential well then his "high-skill cap" is working against him here and I agree with Kevindola, the fact that Quahon is easier to play is more a strengh than a weakness for her in my opinion.

Imo to judge an unit the best way is just to look at results and from what I saw Quahon had MUCH better results than Nilf, both in online and offline, and pretty much no matter the build, since she's out.

[Piratebunny]

Niflheim gets to roll multiple times giving him more opportunity to hit harder if need be whereas with Quahon you only roll once for his special attack if I understand it correctly. Of course, the extra range with Quahon is nice if you do get a great roll and it doesn't have to be in a straight line necessarily. I'm not the most experienced player but Units tend to be in a perpendicular ~line rather than a parallel ~line in relation to your unit. Conclusion: Situational I think I would take Niflheim but chain lightning is so cool that I think the cool factor would win me over.

[OEAO]

First of all, I never said “just disengage period”, I said “just disengage”, which does have a different connotation. Sure, sometimes the disengage is a bad play. I don’t care so much about the exceptions, I care about the rule, and the rule is “just disengage”. So while your interpretation of my statement is “plain wrong”, the rule isn’t “plain wrong”.

As for the rest, I’m not going to argue with your perspective on how to value things. You think outcomes matter (which I’d love to see sources on, by the way); I don’t. You think that a large portion of players have mastered Nilfheim just because he’s been played a lot and has been around a while; I disagree. Again, if you can show me meaningful data, then I’d love to see it. Otherwise, just saying that Quahon has performed better really isn’t enough. What tourneys? Who was playing what? What were the matchups? Maps? Glyphs? Army building restrictions? Even that doesn’t paint the full picture, because it’s assuming people always play at the same skill level from one game to the next, which is fundamentally false. There’s just too much I take issue with here. It’d probably be better to just move on from it, but those are my thoughts.