Sunk Cost Fallacy

[Molochmaschine]

I bought a Fyreslayers SC box with the intention of making them my main army (sold everything else. Currently army-less). The more I read about them though, the more it seems like they just can’t perform at the 1000pt level, where we almost exclusively play at my local shop. 

 

They’re also overwhelmingly expensive (at least for me right now) to build up to the 2000pt level. Especially when there are so many easy and relatively inexpensive options out there, like the Stormcast Vanguard 1k-Army-in-a-box for $200. 

 

Do I stay the course and keep shelling out a fortune for an army I can barely play? Is there hope for fyreslayers in small games? I’ve already spent the money for the box and the book, now I’m stuck. I guess I’m just curious as to what the rest of the world would do. I have a tendency to obsess about these things until it drives me insane, so any advice is much appreciated.

 

[Nin Win]

How about a sort of non-solution:  see any potential difficulty at 1000 points as a skill building challenge?

It's also possible that the reports of them being hard to use at 1000 points are from people with really competitive local scenes and it really isn't that bad.  I don't know for sure, but it's possible the situation isn't that dire. 

Then there's the painting/hobbying/lore side of things.  Something drew you to the fyreslayers.  What was it?

I'd also recommend sticking with the collect->build->paint->play approach and not expanding until everything you have has been painted and has been played.  I know lots of people like list crafting in advance, but it's possible that the implications of theory about what you might want to take won't be as clear until you've seen what you have on the table top already. 

[Kramer]

I would second @Nin Win. (It’s a bit of a personal gripe I admit but internet talk consist of way more people that would ever fit in the top 10 of any tournament judging armies by that standard. An army doesn’t feature in the top 10 gt list regularly? The army is unsupported and worthless. It does feature regularly? It’s way overpowered and needs a nerf now! And everybody copying the opinions they read without researching it themselves.

Its all so subjective. If you like the look and feel. Build the box, paint it, play it. See what works in your play group and what fits your playstyle. And then there is also skill. 

I say build them up to 1K and then make a experienced choice to build them out or restart with something else. But then you at least know it doesn’t work and you collected and build something you liked. 

[Molochmaschine]

Really appreciate the feedback, fellas.

 

I see the logic in what you're saying, and from that standpoint, they've really done what I want them to do. I liked the sculpts and the theme, as well as the lore, so maybe it's enough that I have a box of them painted for the shelf? I could always expand later. That, and they've taught me a HELL of a lot in terms of painting, and forced me to work with colors I don't usually touch, that alone seems like it was worth it.

 

As for competitiveness, I totally get what you're saying. It seems like everyone has has these serious, black-and-white attitudes about every aspect of this hobby. I guess I got too caught up in it. I'm gonna take them to a little tiny 500p game, get a feel for what they do, and then make my decision from there.

 

Thanks, guys! This has been a great help.

[blueshirtman]

2 hours ago, Kramer said:

Its all so subjective. If you like the look and feel. Build the box, paint it, play it. See what works in your play group and what fits your playstyle. And then there is also skill.

I think some armies are non subjectivly bad. Plus no amount of skill is going to help, when every r Slyer army starts with someone buying 60-90 aka 6-9 boxs. Am not saying the opposit is good, I happen to play a low count army, and I struggle to imagine a less friendly and fun to play army then my own.

I do agree though, that if someone doesn't really care about playing, what is in a starter box isn't that important.

2 hours ago, Nin Win said:

I know lots of people like list crafting in advance, but it's possible that the implications of theory about what you might want to take won't be as clear until you've seen what you have on the table top already. 

But isn't that done, by copying lists from people who already bought and tested certain builds? You don't have to check if unit X or Y works, or doesn't, because it is done by a slyer community around the world for you. One could of course decide that all the other people playing around the world are wrong, and the best way to play is to buy those multiple 10 man units of hearthguard and grimwrath berzerkers, but how offten are are lists build that way going to work. At this point you may as well pick an army based on looks or pick them at random.

[Nin Win]

Sure.  I just think first hand experience matters.p and sometimes it's hard to take in the factors when you're new.  And it might turn out that the units are a good match for what the other people are playing.

[Kamose]

7 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

...at this point you may as well pick an army based on looks...

Well, the OP has no experience playing the army, so yeah; that's exactly what they should do. Choose your army based on love of the lore, look of the army, and general playstyle. If you think sweaty, naked dorfs chopping people up is awesome, then go for it! You can research their playstyle but without real experience it doesn't tell you very much beyond the basics i.e. Fyreslayers are prolly not for people who like gunlines. 

Loving the lore, the look and the feel of your army makes up for a lot of 'learning games'. Good luck! ?

[Clan's Cynic]

Fyreslayers, as you've no doubt noticed, suffer from being one of - if not the - most expensive non-classic army ranges. They were released in that weird No Man's Land between the reigns of the two CEOs which is why ten Vulkite Berserkers cost £35 despite ten Namariti costing £30. They're a kind-of-failed experiment in seeing if people would shell out absurd amounts of money for an infantry-heavy army, thus why we ended up with stuff like the Magmadroth just being sold alongside Vulkites in the Start Collecting(!) boxes for the same price as it cost standalone.  

They also seem to be another kind-of-failed experiment to see if mini-armies would work well, similar to how most of the classic armies were siphoned off into half a dozen different armies with often less than ten or so models. So what you end up with is a very expensive army with very little to it beyond 'naked dwarf infantry and 1-3 lizard centrepieces'. 

What every Fyreslayer player has to ask themselves is, do you want to paint up 30-90 of almost identical models? Even if you're not going for a hyper competitive WAAC list, 95% of your army is going to be naked Dwarf infantry. It seems like a really obvious question you'd already have sussed out, but I was sure I was going to roll with Fyreslayers until I realised just how tedious the whole thing would be, and this is somebody who played Imperial Guard for 14+ years. The reason I ask this is because, as you say, Fyreslayers are expensive and the last thing you want is to shell out all of that money to then realise "Oh... now I have to do all this."

I love Fyreslayer lore, I love the playstyle, I really dig the aesthetic, but personally I'm waiting for the range and options to be expanded.

Just a thought.

[Kamose]

All of those are really good points! I'm an Imperial Guard player as well and painting this army can be tedious. There are not a lot of conversion opportunities and the infantry is rather samey. The hereos are fun to paint though!

One thing I've done to relieve the the painting tedium is to change up skin tones and hair color. I keep the metallics and cloth the same but you can fun with lots of different hair colors and patterns. I have only one orange haired dwarf because I don't I don't care the color. But reds, greys, whites, browns, blacks, and blondes abound. Mine are still mostly "naked people" color but I've seen some lovely "fire elemental" skin tones too.

[blueshirtman]

8 hours ago, Kamose said:

Well, the OP has no experience playing the army, so yeah; that's exactly what they should do. Choose your army based on love of the lore, look of the army, and general playstyle. If you think sweaty, naked dorfs chopping people up is awesome, then go for it! You can research their playstyle but without real experience it doesn't tell you very much beyond the basics i.e. Fyreslayers are prolly not for people who like gunlines. 

Loving the lore, the look and the feel of your army makes up for a lot of 'learning games'. Good luck! ?

I liked the looks of KO very much, but if no one told me how much the army costs before investing I would have ended up with spending a lot of money on an unfinished army. And to be honest I don't know what is worse, having a bad army that is unfun to play with or have the same amount of money spend on a list no one will play against, because you don't have 2k pts.

 

8 hours ago, Kamose said:

Loving the lore, the look and the feel of your army makes up for a lot of 'learning games'. Good luck! ?

I have to disagree here. It may make up for it if the army is good or at least playable to a degree like lets say stormcasts. But when the expiriance after buying a start collecting is that to play you now need 6-9 box of dudes and 1-2 high cash huge models, and there is no going around it or when the army is bad no matter what you do with it, liking the army style or looks does not help at all.

The revers on the other hand can work. I hate how nurgle models look, they are ugly for me, and not in the hahaha fun ugly way, I don't like looking at them, because they make me remember stuff from when I was a kid. But I can imagine someone not liking the army fluff or carrying about models being painted, but playing it at a store for a few years. A good portion of people at my store play GW games that way.

[kenshin620]

6 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Fyreslayers, as you've no doubt noticed, suffer from being one of - if not the - most expensive non-classic army ranges. They were released in that weird No Man's Land between the reigns of the two CEOs which is why ten Vulkite Berserkers cost £35 despite ten Namariti costing £30. They're a kind-of-failed experiment in seeing if people would shell out absurd amounts of money for an infantry-heavy army, thus why we ended up with stuff like the Magmadroth just being sold alongside Vulkites in the Start Collecting(!) boxes for the same price as it cost standalone. 

Yea I think one of the biggest problems with warhammer for the past 10 years or so, and nearly anyone agrees with this, is the super arbitrary pricing. It is really ridiculous when the START COLLECTING boxes are great deals, but mainly due to a particular element of the box costing 80-100% of the SC box already. They even directly point out that fact on the official GW store themselves!

Such as the Carnosaur box which costs the same as the SC box: " This miniature is also available in the great-value Start Collecting! Seraphon box, including a set of Saurus Knights, a set of Saurus Warriors and an exclusive Warscroll Battalion."

Gee at that point, mind as well not sell the carnosaur separately! Save money on cardboard boxes.

[blueshirtman]

Yeah, that is strange. Now I don't know much, from personal expiriance at least, about WFB. But from what old timers were telling me in form of horror stories about needing 20 boxs of witch elfs to get half an army, it is what droped the number of new players to 0 in our area. When a new playered heard how many models and how much he has to spend on a core of any army, they were just picking up other systems or ccg.

With Shadespire, which sadly no one plays here, it seems a lot better, even if you want to buy every expension it comes at a lot less then even a start of an army.

[kenshin620]

24 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Yeah, that is strange. Now I don't know much, from personal expiriance at least, about WFB. But from what old timers were telling me in form of horror stories about needing 20 boxs of witch elfs to get half an army, it is what droped the number of new players to 0 in our area. When a new playered heard how many models and how much he has to spend on a core of any army, they were just picking up other systems or ccg.

With Shadespire, which sadly no one plays here, it seems a lot better, even if you want to buy every expension it comes at a lot less then even a start of an army.

One massive issue in WFB was the change of "Full ranks" from 4 man to 5 man. Thats why many boxes came in 12-16 men, perfect for 4 men ranks. But then 5 men ranks ruined that so people needed more. Then 8th rolls around and introduces the "Bus" Meta where many units were reliant on having +40 models since anything under that would crumple to extended combat (outside of elite units like chaos warriors, who also ironically had a massive marauder nerf from the ridiculous 7th edition 7pt Great Weapon Khorne variety).

AoS to an extent is sort of suffering from as well this with many units having horde discounts and horde bonuses, though few units need to go beyond 30 models at least.

[SuperHappyTime]

Also probably doesn't help that Fyreslayers were one of the few armies to receive an all-around points drop for the whole army, so now you need even more models than you did a year ago.

It's also severely limited in the choice of models, Vulkites, Hearthguard, Aurics and enough heroes to make Bonnie Tyler say "No thanks, I'm good".

But unless things have changed, I'm pretty sure Vulkite are still one of the best battleline around right? Maybe you need to look toward building a GA Order list?

[Kramer]

On 28-4-2018 at 9:13 PM, blueshirtman said:

I think some armies are non subjectivly bad. Plus no amount of skill is going to help, when every r Slyer army starts with someone buying 60-90 aka 6-9 boxs. Am not saying the opposit is good, I happen to play a low count army, and I struggle to imagine a less friendly and fun to play army then my own.

I do agree though, that if someone doesn't really care about playing, what is in a starter box isn't that important.

But isn't that done, by copying lists from people who already bought and tested certain builds? You don't have to check if unit X or Y works, or doesn't, because it is done by a slyer community around the world for you. One could of course decide that all the other people playing around the world are wrong, and the best way to play is to buy those multiple 10 man units of hearthguard and grimwrath berzerkers, but how offten are are lists build that way going to work. At this point you may as well pick an army based on looks or pick them at random.

Haha very different opinions and priorities. Which is a good thing but, and that’s why I posted my other side of the coin argument, is that you are speaking in absolutes based on assumptions. Again not necessarily wrong but if you’re New and you read the same opinions over  and over you start to take them as gospel, as they say. 

You start by saying you think some armies are objectively* bad. And that’s something I have a bit of an issue with. Because one: I suspect you might judge dispossessed and/or ogors as ‘objectively bad’  but when my friends and I started AoS with our old armies we had lying around I had amazing fun with both. So they weren’t bad, they were perfect because they did what we looked for in the game, fun!

Secondly: everyone of us has won several games in that period. So even by a ‘winning metric’ you can’t call any of them bad. At least in that situation. Sure, all armies without a battle tome, lot of sucky players, all new to AoS. And that’s excactly the point! In that situation the same armies most would call ‘objectively bad’ were perfectly good. 

Now of course you can judge an army to be better or worse than others but not without the full context that’s quite irrelevant. 

So tl:dr in my opinion you can’t say any army is objectively bad, only subjective if you take that specific situation into account. It does make for better discussions though  

But you are absolutely right of course that fyreslayers battleline are  very expensive ? vs points wise .

* correct me if I’m wrong, non native speaker here, non subjective is the same as objective right? Or am I’m missing some nuance there.

[Nin Win]

I think your meaning is clear.  You mean that the perspective and goals of the individual or local group can change what army is better, therefore it's not right to call one "objectively" good or bad.

I think when people talk about an army being bad, they have in their minds its performance against a range of possible tournament level armies.

That evaluation does seem applicable for Molochmaschine though.  It sounds like he's got a range of opponents at a local store who play at 1,000 points and is worried about the competitive level of his faction at that level.  And the daunting cost of expanding it beyond the 1,000 points.

I honestly don't know what I would do in his situation.  If I didn't open the Start Collecting yet, I'd take a long look at the pictures of the models online and if I really didn't want to paint/build them, I'd exchange it and get something else.  I'm fortunate in that I am not reliant on playing 1,000 point games where I have to worry about the competitive value of my army.  I don't really do matched play very often myself.  I do find it strange though that Fyreslayers are bad at 1000 but seem to do fine at 2000.  Is that just a result of how people build their armies where what they tend to collect for the first 1000 is all the worse stuff?

[blueshirtman]

I think it is because of swarm discount. 10 berzerkers are ok I guess, but nothing that could make someone play the army. 20 or 30 dwarf units on the other hand are brutal as hell. They are not skins, where you could fit those little buggers in to any order list and make it better, but they do pop up in soup lists, at high ranked tournaments top placments too. I think someone steared a KO/slyer soup to top 8 at a GT not long a go, and it looked stuning too.

 

Quote

You start by saying you think some armies are objectively* bad. And that’s something I have a bit of an issue with. Because one: I suspect you might judge dispossessed and/or ogors as ‘objectively bad’  but when my friends and I started AoS with our old armies we had lying around I had amazing fun with both. So they weren’t bad, they were perfect because they did what we looked for in the game, fun!

I started with beastclaws. My history of playing looked like this. First everyone  told me not worry,and wait till you get the second start collecting, then to not worry that GW will update them, after that it was get K Rukk which I did not want to do and I was oddly right here. I can't think of a single game including the promos I played with other factions that were fun for me. It was exactly the opposit for my friend. Plus I have seen it before, people starting Grey Knight armies, coming with old ogor lists or old style spear and bow elves. Each time someone started with a bad army it ended bad, and if the faction was servicable people had at least some fun from their games. I think the worse moment in table top gaming, although my 6 month expiriance of playing is not much, is not when someone wacks you with superior play or better lists, but when you have to play against your own army, because it doesn't function the way armies should within a given set of core rules. The idea behind beastclaws seems nice, only big monsters. But it does not play well in an enviroment that is about swarms, shoting, alfa strikes and taking objectives. 

I can imagine someone having fun with beastclaws though. Maybe the like painting them. Or the games they play don't matter, but the social interaction does. There is always that, but so are objectivlly bad lists. Is the anwser to how you take or beat those lists and those scenarios, is I wont, then the list is bad. If the same is true for a whole faction, then the faction is bad.

 

Quote

Secondly: everyone of us has won several games in that period. So even by a ‘winning metric’ you can’t call any of them bad. At least in that situation. Sure, all armies without a battle tome, lot of sucky players, all new to AoS. And that’s excactly the point! In that situation the same armies most would call ‘objectively bad’ were perfectly good. 

I have played 24 tournament and over a 100 "normal" games. I draw two games, both because my opponents have to leave early. And for it to not just be about me, I have seen the same stuff happen to the guy that started grey knights . By the way this and the cost was the thing that stoped me from going in to w40k.

 

5 hours ago, Kramer said:

So tl:dr in my opinion you can’t say any army is objectively bad, only subjective if you take that specific situation into account. It does make for better discussions though

If it hasn't won or at least went top 8 in a few big GT, then the faction is bad. If it was good, someone around the world with skill and free time would have steared it to top places.  That is why there is a difference between something like orukks and beastclaws. One is hard to play with problematic mechanics based around their easy to snipe heros, but from time to time they place high. Beastclaws on the other hand do not place at all.

[Kramer]

First things first. I genuinely like this conversation but I know conversing over the internet often leads to misunderstandings so believe me when I say it’s all good. 

39 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

f it hasn't won or at least went top 8 in a few big GT, then the faction is bad. If it was good, someone around the world with skill and free time would have steared it to top places.  That is why there is a difference between something like orukks and beastclaws. One is hard to play with problematic mechanics based around their easy to snipe heros, but from time to time they place high. Beastclaws on the other hand do not place at all

This for me is a perfect answer because now you have context to your the ‘label’ bad. And of course you can argue about the context but, to me at least, this now is very helpful. If I was asking the question, I can now compare your experiences and judgement to my own situation and make an informed choice because of that. 

42 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

have played 24 tournament and over a 100 "normal" games. I draw two games, both because my opponents have to leave early. And for it to not just be about me, I have seen the same stuff happen to the guy that started grey knights . By the way this and the cost was the thing that stoped me from going in to w40k.

In this I think I didn’t explain myself properly. It was meant as an example in how different situations mean different armies can be good or bad. Was not judging you as a player. 

45 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

. I think the worse moment in table top gaming, although my 6 month expiriance of playing is not much, is not when someone wacks you with superior play or better lists, but when you have to play against your own army, because it doesn't function the way armies should within a given set of core rules. The idea behind beastclaws seems nice, only big monsters. But it does not play well in an enviroment that is about swarms, shoting, alfa strikes and taking objectives

Yeah that’s a sucky situation, and not the best of experiences. To say the least. 

46 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

have played 24 tournament and over a 100 "normal" games

 

46 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

although my 6 month expiriance of playing is not much, i

How did you manage to fit in 24 tournaments and 100+ games into 6 months! I struggle to finish painting a 2k in a year! 

[blueshirtman]

Quote

In this I think I didn’t explain myself properly. It was meant as an example in how different situations mean different armies can be good or bad. Was not judging you as a player. 

neither was I, or at least I hope it didn't seem saw. I was judging the list though. I don't think there is such a thing as factions that are sometimes good.  Tournaments are the easiest way to check, they are played with different rules, different points costs, self made scenarios or ones stright from the book. And if an army doesn't perform in those it is bad. In fact, in non tournament settings they are worse. When your at a tournament you maybe picking up stuff you don't like, but take because scenario/meta require it of you. this for some armies may mean they have 1 valid build. Is the faction good? Probablly not, that one build would have to be real OP for it to be true. At best it means the lists is very internally unbalanced.     But in a setting where people may, and I have no right to not trust people saying they play that way, be picking their armies based on looks it gets even worse. Because I not only don't counter the meta or have an army that works with the core rules of the game, but may have an army full, to a degree of course, with bad stuff. And while a single unit or single bad hero can probablly be carried by a strong lists, if the lists is already low tier, the gaming with it becomes really hard.  And if an army has no carry units and I like something like lets say yetis , and I build an army around them, I get something that costs money, but does not work no matter what kind of a games and against whom I play.

 

7 hours ago, Kramer said:

How did you manage to fit in 24 tournaments and 100+ games into 6 months! I struggle to finish painting a 2k in a year! 

Its 24 tournaments games. its 6 tournaments. And durning winter, when I started and people still wanted to play against me, I did around 5-6 games a day for 3 weeks of winter holidays. Till march I was doing around 10-15 days per week. In april I played maybe 2 games, that is not counting tournaments. no one wants to play against me anymore.

 

 

But in general I don't like to make this about me. Lets say someone decides he likes slyers and wants to build his army around hearthguard and foot heros, the list will be very bad. if he goes 50/50 on guard and berzerkers the list will get better, and if he drops the guard to maybe one unit of 10, the list will work fine most of the time. The question of course is, is it ok to let someone start buying a hearthguard lists use up money get the  full spectrum of NPE, only to later discover that he can't really use the models he likes and he has to buy a ton of boxs, aka spend more cash he may not have, of stuff he may not like at all.   I have seen this to full effect last month, when the GK player, fine dude by the way very well liked by everyone, ended up getting advice how to fix his list. In the end his army had 6 or so GK models, and when he asked why shouldn't he just run more marines or gillman, no one knew what to tell him. And that dude went to the deep on of the hobby, he didn't stop at buying a 2000pts army, he has like twice or three times as many points as are normally played in w40k.

[blueshirtman]

7 hours ago, Kramer said:

I struggle to finish painting a 2k in a year! 

I don't paint. I don't have the cash to spend on paints and brushs, and from what I remember from alt classes it was one of those things along side music that I hated the most.  Ah and I of course don't have the cash to get them painted form me, by someone else. So in a way that problem does not exist for me. But again I can imagine a super bad army that gave someone fun with 0 games played, just because they like painting models.

[RatmanRick]

okay...  i just created an account for this topic here

I am a very calm and superfriendly person.. but some stuff that was said drives me crazy tbh.....

Molochmaschine,  what is the general ''playstyle'' of your local hobbygroup?
If they just have fun playing some nice games and dont care about meta, the Fyreslayers can still be really good and you will have fun, regarding that you like the overall look of the fyreslayers.
As others have said.. just play with the stuff you have.. a start collecting is totally fine.. you could start painting them and just wait and think about what you could add in the next step. Dont overreact and impulsbuy stuff.
Do you have people in your store interested in skirmish? you could try this out with your SC box. We had a lot of fun with new players who where unsure what to do next
1kpoints can swing either way supereasy.. so you can grab a quick win.. same applies to any opponent.


Dont waste your money on (lets be honest) cheap plastic representing a certain thing in a game if you dont like the look of them or how the overall estimated playstyle is.. dont throw them out because someone tells you to do so, because an army you do not like fluff and modelwise is ''better''.
Ofc you are free to do as you want.. its just my share of advice, as i tried to start a lot of other armies and quitted them way too deep into (around 2-3k points) and realized i didnt liked them so much as my main army ( Skaven of all kind for 17 years now)

i have 4,5k points of skaven pestilens mixed with alot of other skaven stuff for Aos right now... with 150 plaque monks.. painting is painful.. but i like the fluff.. the models.. the overall feeling.. and i do not care that they are not meta.
Its still fun smashing the grin out of the douches( in a game) that try to shittalk me  about they ''autowin'' against me because they play a proved tournament list.

I know my army is not superconsistent.. and i dont care.. i want fun WITH my opponent and have a good time even when i lose, because i did not wasted my time with an army i do not like against a person i do not want to play against.


my last tip:

we know fyreslayers are a bit more expensive.. maybe you are okay with 2nd hand miniatures, so you could browse ebay or you local facebook tradinggroups for some cheaper vulkite berserkers to  stock up on them.. you could (with a bit of sculpting) convert some vulkites to the hearthguard with the leftover weapons from said kit later on to save some money
 

 

[mhsellwood]

I would point out that Fyreslayers are actually a really competitive army at 2,000 points - the recent Brew City Brawl had a Fyreslayers army take 3rd, at Adepticon they came 2nd, most tournaments they are in they place well. Winning with Fyreslayers is not in the least bit an issue.

They are however a relatively mono build army - units of 30 vulkites with slingshields and picks, battlesmiths and runesmiters on foot for characters, maybe a Runeson on Magmadroth as a general, 30 hearthguard or auric hearthguard. Absolutely rock solid toughness, good damage output, some movement shenanigans. But not a massive amount of variation in the list, and between different players lists.

At 1,000 points they are able to compete with a list something like the following:

Runeson on Magmadroth

Runesmiter

2 x 30 Vulkites with sling shields and picks

Go for the Fyreslayer allegiance from the GHB 2017 and watch as people table flip when they try to kill their way through your unit of Vulkites with a 4+ re-rollable, followed by a 4+ ignore and you then attack back with 2 attacks each, re-rolling wounds, at -2 rend.

Of course they are not a cheap army, but that is not a secret thing. If you are concerned that you might get an army that cannot win then you do not need to worry as Fyreslayers are absolutely a top tier army.