Tiers in Shadespire

[PlasticCraic]

I assume most of us play AOS, where the concept of Tiers is widely known (and hotly debated).

Is there enough body of evidence and consensus to talk about Tiers in Shadespire?

General chat seems to be that Skaven are very strong, followed by the Orruks - does that sound right, and where would you put the others?

How would people rank the Warbands from 1 to 6 based on their experience, and known tournament results? 

Or is that a futile exercise right now. with the two latest expansions being quite new?

[Reggi]

After new expansions, we only get one big tournament so far and probably players didn't had much time to test new decks anyway. I think we need to wait a bit longer.

Skavens looks very strong, but Orruks and Stormcast too. And i think thats TOP3 factions, but i will not put order on that top and that can change very fast anyway. Its hard to me to judge on Dwarfs. They feel a bit strange to me, but it can be just my feeling. They are not my style. Undead still have a lot of potential and are not far behind. Khorne berserkers on other hand. Things that they do good, skaven do better. At least for now i see it that way. Sadly, cuz i like them.

[mmimzie]

I pretty much agree with @Reggi 

 

Skaven, Storm cast, and orruks are pretty powerful. I'd say orruks maybe not so much as I feel orruks are very one dimensional and don't have alot of options to how you can play them. 

 

Khorne man they are just weak skaven. There might be something there but I won't be the one to see it. If they do one thing well is they actualy have alot of 3-4 damage options. 

 

Dwarfs are super weird. They feel super powerful as they are each basicly any other warban d member with a few equipment under thier belt. The problem is they really struggle to score many objective cards. 

[Templar101]

Tiers are very subjective but with like 300 games under my belt and a few tournament wins (plus placing 11th at the Grand Clash this weekend ) I think I have a fair idea of my own tiers. Bare in mind this is still my own opinion and that the tiers are very close (except with the last warband lol).

 

I'd go from top to bottom:

Skaven 

Stormcast

Khorne

Undead

Orruks

Fyre Slayers (dead last, like waaaay at the bottom)

 

Casually I'd say all the warbands are about equal. Competitively however, Fyre Slayers are easily the worst. They are predictable and have to be inspired. Their game plan always revolves around inspiring and objectives, so wherever your opponent places their objectives will show you how they are going to play that game and where their fighters are going. The only wayband that needs to be inspired and suffers heavily for it. If only they inspired by being equipped with an upgrade.

[mmimzie]

6 hours ago, Templar101 said:

inspired. Their game plan always revolves around inspiring and objectives, .

See that's the thing. Why do they really need to be inspired. I think alot of fyre slayer players spend alot of time and effort trying to inspire, and then they end up pretty well behind. Why not just not go for being inspire, and pick it up casually if you run into a situation where inspiring presents itself as am easy option. 

[Templar101]

8 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

See that's the thing. Why do they really need to be inspired. I think alot of fyre slayer players spend alot of time and effort trying to inspire, and then they end up pretty well behind. Why not just not go for being inspire, and pick it up casually if you run into a situation where inspiring presents itself as am easy option. 

They need to be inspired because each fighter gets an extra wound, movement and better attack characteristic. You can't do much with a movement 2 and 3 wound warband that does 2 damage max outside of their leader. 

[Sleboda]

Not a fan/believer in significant tiering of armies and warbands, but for fun:

1. Skaven

1a. Orruks

4. Stormcast

7. Reavers

8. Undead

12.. Stunties

[Hesa_First]

On 7.3.2018 at 11:31 AM, Templar101 said:

Tiers are very subjective but with like 300 games under my belt and a few tournament wins (plus placing 11th at the Grand Clash this weekend ) I think I have a fair idea of my own tiers. Bare in mind this is still my own opinion and that the tiers are very close (except with the last warband lol).

 

I'd go from top to bottom:

Skaven 

Stormcast

Khorne

Undead

Orruks

Fyre Slayers (dead last, like waaaay at the bottom)

 

Casually I'd say all the warbands are about equal. Competitively however, Fyre Slayers are easily the worst. They are predictable and have to be inspired. Their game plan always revolves around inspiring and objectives, so wherever your opponent places their objectives will show you how they are going to play that game and where their fighters are going. The only wayband that needs to be inspired and suffers heavily for it. If only they inspired by being equipped with an upgrade.

Why would You rate Reavers that high and Orruks so low? With Reavers beeing not represented in the top 16 at all (as they are outperformed by Skaven in almost every way) and Orruks being that well represented. Plus Orruks seem to do well agains SCE and Skaven, where Reavers just die in those matchups.

I would really like to read Your thoughts.

[Gaz Taylor]

Not really a fan of tiering and I don't really think it's needed for Shadespire. I do think that some Warbands are easier to use than others but it's all down to how you play and how you click with the warband.

The problem is that the tiering is very subjective. For example at the recent Grand Clash, the top 32 break down as such...

Stormcast - 13

Orruks - 6

Skaven - 5

Undead - 4

Khorne - 2

Fyreslayers - 2

Now does this mean that Stormcast are the best Warband or just popular? My last few games have been with Stormcast and I have found them very reliant on Luck so I've had a very poor win record with them. If I based it upon that, I would rate them very low on the scale but I would rate Skaven quite highly as I can see how they fit together easier. Also people don't seem to be rating Fyreslayers at the moment, but I played Tris who made the top 16 with them a few weeks ago and they seem to be very good at getting late game glory. They seemed to click with him and I think that is often what this is all about. Which warband clicks with you may not with somebody else.

My experience with the game is that it seems very well balanced as I have never seen anything thinking that is over the top  

 

[Templar101]

9 hours ago, Hesa_First said:

Why would You rate Reavers that high and Orruks so low? With Reavers beeing not represented in the top 16 at all (as they are outperformed by Skaven in almost every way) and Orruks being that well represented. Plus Orruks seem to do well agains SCE and Skaven, where Reavers just die in those matchups.

I would really like to read Your thoughts.

I've played Orruks for 3 months and while they are good, I find them rather poor competitively. Gurzag is amazing but I found people just killed Gurzag, then Bonekutta and left the other 2 till last. My newer decks focused on buff Hakka and Basha but it just requires a lot of effort. Orruks also always have to be in combat and defensive Orruks don't really work. Your opponent will know how to deal with you by holding back turn one, starving you of glory and they killing of Gurzag and Bonekutta.

 

Khorne I think are amazing and just require the right balance to work. While Skaven beat them in movement, Khorne have an amazing ranged fighter as well as Saek. Garek can become a glory machine with his upgrades too.

 

My SCE tore apart all the Orruks I faced, even at the Grand Clash. Partly due to that my deck is built to one-tap Orruks as well as me having played with them for so long.

 

On a side note, the reason there were no Khorne in top 16 was because I beat the highest ranking Khorne dude in the final game 

[Biboune]

I agree that the ranking is very subjective. In my opinion the bands have to be compared in match up.

Fyre slayers are very good against Orruks: more push ploys available, tear them apart when inspired, good ploys like Piercing Stare or Indomitable to survive. Against reavers; the leaders's cleave is useless, 4 damages is over killing every one except Garreck, 1 or 2 dwarfs can be killed round 1. But reavers can have a hard time against Orruks, you want to charge and deal damages, they will get inspired and won't die right away.

Defensive Stormcast are a nightmare for Orruks, Fyre Salyer will have more chances to get push from objectives but they will won more glory for being in enemy territory, Skavens will be able to attack them very early.

May be the meta is to be considered: for as long as I am concerned Skaven are easely defeated by Reavers moreover when they play aggressively (no specific ploy to improve the chances to hit, no specific ploy granting a free attack, upgrades needed to have a third potent fighter, less specific objective cards rewarding charges or kills etc.) but almost every one in this forum seems to think otherwise. The deck shown in the Deck Builds, Grand Clash Top Deck, is, in my opinion, very bad: 4 third round objectives (Khorne Care Not is almost a third round card too, so it can be seen as the 5th third round card of the deck), 30 cards with useless thing like daylight robbery, deadly spin, healing potion... If this is the best deck used in the Grand Clash, I have a idea why the Reavers are not in the top 16.

 

[Hesa_First]

10 hours ago, Templar101 said:

I've played Orruks for 3 months and while they are good, I find them rather poor competitively. Gurzag is amazing but I found people just killed Gurzag, then Bonekutta and left the other 2 till last. My newer decks focused on buff Hakka and Basha but it just requires a lot of effort. Orruks also always have to be in combat and defensive Orruks don't really work. Your opponent will know how to deal with you by holding back turn one, starving you of glory and they killing of Gurzag and Bonekutta.

 

Khorne I think are amazing and just require the right balance to work. While Skaven beat them in movement, Khorne have an amazing ranged fighter as well as Saek. Garek can become a glory machine with his upgrades too.

 

My SCE tore apart all the Orruks I faced, even at the Grand Clash. Partly due to that my deck is built to one-tap Orruks as well as me having played with them for so long.

 

On a side note, the reason there were no Khorne in top 16 was because I beat the highest ranking Khorne dude in the final game 

Interesting to hear. Maybe the Skavenhype (as they were quite new) just caused many players to pick them over Reavers.

Reavers still seem underwhelming to me, as they have problems with most 4 HP warbands. SCE can oneshot all Khorne fighters of relevance from the getgo, so can Gurzag. Trap worsens the issue imo, as Bonecutta and Brightshield can reliably oneshot Karsus and Seak, too. That Seak can kill himself with rebound doesn't help either. Plus I have a feeling that Earthquake denies them early glory from hold objectives and Supremacy.

Buuut maybe i am biased, as I used to enjoyed Reavers the most. Pre Expansions I did very well against almost any warband expect SCE. Now SG and Slayers seem to be the only good matchups.

[Killax]

21 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Stormcast - 13

Orruks - 6

Skaven - 5

Undead - 4

Khorne - 2

Fyreslayers - 2

But I do believe this is the Tiering I would make though  

To me it boils down to good defences and indeed exclusive cards to Warbands. The fighters just on card are usually pretty close in power. With the exception of Dwarfs, who can do well but are just too slow out of the getgo. Essentially giving up that turn 1 means too much. I've had a few games with my Bloodreavers against them now and it's the only game that litterly feels easy. At the same time I have also felt this experience with Orruks versus Reavers. The moment the Reaver player aims to do something in combat, due to deck and such, Orruks have it... 

However I do not believe that there are a ton of Tiers, but If I would make one it would be:
Tier 1: Stormcast and Orruks
Tier 2: Skaven, Reavers and Sepulchral Guard
Tier 3: Fyreslayers

However not all Warbands are out yet so it might change more. I don't see how Fyreslayers will counter any particular build but hey, it could in theory happen. What I do expect is that both following Stormcast and Khorne will be part of Tier 1. Prime reason I think this is because they will likely have 4 members with usual speed, decent defence and wounds and good damage output. Which puts them directly up there with Orruks unless they get poor exclusive cards.

Lastly I offcourse love my Reavers, based on model look and Khorne etc. However if I get the better results by playing Stormcast and Orruks much less as Bloodreaver I can't but conclude that Reavers are in a lower Tier. Same applies for Sepulchral Guard also. They can really win, but you do need 3 Objectives on your side of the board in my experience.

[Gaz Taylor]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

I don't see how Fyreslayers will counter any particular build but hey, it could in theory happen.

I think a lot of people have discounted them because they are slow. I've played somebody who is a good player and I think they are quite good. But I think you need to get your head around the speed 'issue' and that not all the cards are out yet.

 

3 hours ago, Hesa_First said:

Reavers still seem underwhelming to me, as they have problems with most 4 HP warbands. SCE can oneshot all Khorne fighters of relevance from the getgo, so can Gurzag. Trap worsens the issue imo, as Bonecutta and Brightshield can reliably oneshot Karsus and Seak, too. That Seak can kill himself with rebound doesn't help either. Plus I have a feeling that Earthquake denies them early glory from hold objectives and Supremacy.

This is pretty much what I mean by how warbands click with players. Because you see them as underwhelming, you feel they aren't that good and so just see the as a 'low tier'. The next player may click with them differently and see them as a very different warband. Personally, I think Reavers are good but reliant on how the ploy cards are drawn, so I think the top list from the Grand Clash is something I would see as working well for them. But I do think 30 cards is too many and I think around 24-26 seems right. It means you can discard your hand if it's not good and there's a few cards which lets you cycle through to get to the cards you need

[Killax]

7 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think a lot of people have discounted them because they are slow. I've played somebody who is a good player and I think they are quite good. But I think you need to get your head around the speed 'issue' and that not all the cards are out yet.

Well yes, but I think their design leads to two small handicaps that really show how difficult a game becomes with small handicaps like that.
For me speed for example isn't their one issue. Instead I think they need 3 Objectives to matter in the game, having played them a few times now with my Bloodreavers the moment I started with 3 and my opponent with 2 I basically had a 'easy game'. Then if they did have 3 Objectives they started to matter because their speed issues are then removed.

However I think this is a typical handicap with some Warbands in terms of being Inspired. When we look at Stormcast, it's not difficult to do, when we look at Orruks it's not difficult to do, when we look at Skaven, same story and even for Sepulchral Guard it isn't set to anything in particular.
Then we look into Bloodreavers who 'require combat' and Fyreslayers who 'require objectives' and see how this will always influence their game. While it does also apply to Orruks somewhat and Sepulchral Guard also, it does matter less as there are Ploys that will damage them or allow you to put up a piece so offensively that it will die, but for Sepulchral Guard this isn't really an issue.

In any case, I do think that overall the game is good though! I think some things will change with new cards but not by that much. This is purely based on the card replicas we've seen allready  

Cheers!

[PJetski]

I dont think Fyreslayers are that bad? With decks built for objectives/keys and ploys/upgrades for defensive combat, the Fyreslayers are a hard counter to any aggressive build (except a lucky  courageous Skaven player charging in first turn with Heroslayer). Most of their offense is contained within their warband itself so you can focus your deck on scoring, and with only a handful of powerful cards (reroll hits, light armor, +2 move) you can switch to offense after spending a turn inspiring.

They're hyper focused on one thing but I think that can be a good thing in the right meta. A skaven-heavy meta is the worst possible scenario for Fyreslayers.

[kozokus]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

However I think this is a typical handicap with some Warbands in terms of being Inspired. When we look at Stormcast, it's not difficult to do, when we look at Orruks it's not difficult to do, when we look at Skaven, same story and even for Sepulchral Guard it isn't set to anything in particular.
Then we look into Bloodreavers who 'require combat' and Fyreslayers who 'require objectives' and see how this will always influence their game. While it does also apply to Orruks somewhat and Sepulchral Guard also, it does matter less as there are Ploys that will damage them or allow you to put up a piece so offensively that it will die, but for Sepulchral Guard this isn't really an issue.

I am quite afraid when we expect "Inspired when you have killed someone" for the next Khorne Warband.

[Kugane]

I think you cannot tier warbands, what you can do however, is tier deck builds alongside a warband. But with the given data right now, there just isn't enough information of builds and winning lists out there to give a clear cut tier ladder. If more players played the game and you could view the data and successes of hundreds of copies of the same/similar deck in tournaments vs a variety of other builds, then sure, you could probably figure out the best deck out there, until then, it is mostly subjective about what are the 'best' warbands. So might as well play what you like instead of worrying about ladders

[Killax]

13 minutes ago, kozokus said:

I am quite afraid when we expect "Inspired when you have killed someone" for the next Khorne Warband.

Well thats why I expect the next two to be tier 1. Because that Inspire isnt half as hard to pull off like 3 models dead or essentially 3 models on Objectives Round 1

[Rintrah56]

1 hour ago, Kugane said:

If more players played the game and you could view the data and successes of hundreds of copies of the same/similar deck in tournaments vs a variety of other builds...

I have come across other games that literally do have community-built web tools where this kind of metadata can be captured and then analysed. It’s really pretty cool (if you are a data geek like me!).

Obviously, without being unworkably complex,  they can’t account for human-driven decisions (eg strategy), or luck (dice rolls; order of cards drawn). But you can still read out some themes around card popularity, success rates etc

[Requizen]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

However I think this is a typical handicap with some Warbands in terms of being Inspired. When we look at Stormcast, it's not difficult to do, when we look at Orruks it's not difficult to do, when we look at Skaven, same story and even for Sepulchral Guard it isn't set to anything in particular.
Then we look into Bloodreavers who 'require combat' and Fyreslayers who 'require objectives' and see how this will always influence their game. While it does also apply to Orruks somewhat and Sepulchral Guard also, it does matter less as there are Ploys that will damage them or allow you to put up a piece so offensively that it will die, but for Sepulchral Guard this isn't really an issue.

Well, Stormcast require combat as well. You can't just roll a defense dice without being attacked. The first four Warbands all require combat in some way (Orruks can game it a bit with Power cards), but Skaven have it easier and Fyreslayers are... different. 

However, power increase from Inspiration fluctuates as well. Fyreslayers jump big time when Inspired, while imo Orruks don't get as big of a benefit as others. 

 

Tiers are strange. It's too ephemeral, imo, to put much stock in, since counters will appear and new cards change things. Additionally, as others have said, how you perform with a Warband can have much more to do with your playstyle than the power of the deck itself. 

[IO91]

I fully see how Fyreslayers can be listed lower because of their speed issues and their inspire being harder to achieve, especially in a world where Earthquake exists. But last week I tried a new deck build with them and I had a good bit of success , even when I only had two objectives. It does 100% depend on being able to get inspired though. Without it they just lack the punch needed to fend off the other armies. 

[Killax]

19 hours ago, Requizen said:

Well, Stormcast require combat as well.

I would dissagree, completely based on their exclusive Objectives and options to win the game by basically sticking around and waiting. In addition to that where others require damage, ploys, to be killed, kills or objectives. The fun part about Stormcast is that they can skip on this and basically always react to what the opponent wants to do. While I'd certainly agree that Orruks or Sepulchral Guard can be hard for them it becomes less of an issue when Stormcast react. Basically it isn't bad to most likely start round 1 always either.

Cheers,

[Kugane]

On 9-3-2018 at 5:51 PM, Rintrah56 said:

I have come across other games that literally do have community-built web tools where this kind of metadata can be captured and then analysed. It’s really pretty cool (if you are a data geek like me!).

Obviously, without being unworkably complex,  they can’t account for human-driven decisions (eg strategy), or luck (dice rolls; order of cards drawn). But you can still read out some themes around card popularity, success rates etc

One side I would love to see that for Shadespire, where people can register their successes, like you see in things like Hearthstone, Magic or Yugioh. On the other hand, that kind of stuff breeds elitism, and I'm not sure if that is healthy for this game, since Shadespire is quite a social game (at least it has been in my gaming circle).