Jump to content

The best and the worst in Alliances


MikeGreen

Recommended Posts

Please pin this thread up to be visible on top as beginners friendly.

We have had gathered opinions about the best and the worst units in the game. I think that they can be an invaluable help, reference for the beginners . Soon BrokenNetCode wil provide ratings for Chaos alliance, hopefully Order and Destruction will follow.

 

So lets start with Death Alliance :

 

In order from the very best to really good

1) Settra

2) Necropolis Knights

3) Mourngul

4) grave guard (2handed)

5) spirits hosts

6) mortis engine

7) necrosphinx

8) morghast archai

9) vampire lord on zombie dragon

 

Honorable mentions : 40+ skeletons with spears, Vlad von Carstein  underpriced for his good statistics

 

In order from the worst to simply  underpeforming

1. Black Coach

2.  Fellbats

3.  Bone Giant

4.  Konrad von Carstein

5. Tomb King on chariot

6. Cairn Wraiths

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is various threads doing this in the various alliances and doing it all in one thread will end up a cluttered mess.

Best & worst is subjective.

What you decide is the best unit might be terrible for someone else,  define best? best at what? matched play narrative or open.

What scenario,  what other models are in your army, how big is your army what is your opponent taking.

What is your play style like,  experience levels of you and your opponent, what battalion are you using.

How much terrain is on the field, what terrain is on the field.

How much do they cost? does two smaller units worth the same value do more damage than the one big model?

How are you using the model? How killy are they? how much damage can they absorb, what's their threat level like, how much space does it take up.

What's the basis of the best and worse? average dice rolls or best case.

There is SO much to defining what is best and worst it can't be done. simply as what works for you in example A doesn't work for the other times for all those reasons listed and more.

It is why I try refrain from these type of threads, and telling new players this is what they should do is precisely why 8th died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have both stated, there is no way that these lists should be used to make overpowered armies. There should be no reason to use these to stay away from units either. Yes everything is subjective but if someone is running any of these alliances and wants something that will be their main killing unit, then the list is there for you. You dont have to listen but from experience people have found them useful. With the inclusion of points, there is no running from this. There will always be a best and worst unit, but having a collective opinion and debate is what could benefit the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Arkiham has hit the nail on the head.

This is so subjective and open to discussion, there simply is no way to quantify what it best and worst. How do you tie this is with combos? Some units are not great on their own, but become a power house when combo'd with another warscroll.

Advising beginners on what is good and what is bad could kill some list creativity and promote a stale meta. 

This thread will be left open to discussion, just like the others, and we'll keep an eye on it as this sort of thing can sometimes get heated.

Cheers! x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that best and worst is subjective; the community understanding what is strong and what is weak enables GW to balance properly (see recent Balewind Vortex changes).

And specifically talking about matched play here - once you apply points to something, instant comparisons can be made. Therefore you can work out where one thing is better than another.

I wasnt around for 8th edition, so thats probably why I'm not viewing this thread with distrust!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Broken Netcode said:

As we have both stated, there is no way that these lists should be used to make overpowered armies. There should be no reason to use these to stay away from units either. Yes everything is subjective but if someone is running any of these alliances and wants something that will be their main killing unit, then the list is there for you. You dont have to listen but from experience people have found them useful. With the inclusion of points, there is no running from this. There will always be a best and worst unit, but having a collective opinion and debate is what could benefit the community.

But there is avoiding it, by not doing it as it's pointless.

I'll use an example. Gorebeast chariots, 1 on its own, meh, group of 3 is very strong, combined with a Bloodstoker and sayl suddenly this is a unit who is going to break face. but that's like 600 points and three different units.

You can't say 1 unit is bad/good as that bad unit can suddenly become awesome when combo'd correctly, or be terrible if not taken with the right units, or experienced hand who knows their capabilities and what impact it has on your opponents frame of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arkiham said:

But there is avoiding it, by not doing it as it's pointless.

I'll use an example. Gorebeast chariots, 1 on its own, meh, group of 3 is very strong, combined with a Bloodstoker and sayl suddenly this is a unit who is going to break face. but that's like 600 points and three different units.

You can't say 1 unit is bad/good as that bad unit can suddenly become awesome when combo'd correctly, or be terrible if not taken with the right units, or experienced hand who knows their capabilities and what impact it has on your opponents frame of mind.

I respect your opinion and totally agree on some of the points you put across. However opinion is opinion and all ends of the spectrum should be discussed. Silencing a way of thinking isnt good in a forum where debates happen every single thread. If this gets out of hand then we will call for the posts to be taken down, but they arent really causing any harm and dont intend to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

But there is avoiding it, by not doing it as it's pointless.

I'll use an example. Gorebeast chariots, 1 on its own, meh, group of 3 is very strong, combined with a Bloodstoker and sayl suddenly this is a unit who is going to break face. but that's like 600 points and three different units.

You can't say 1 unit is bad/good as that bad unit can suddenly become awesome when combo'd correctly, or be terrible if not taken with the right units, or experienced hand who knows their capabilities and what impact it has on your opponents frame of mind.

I enjoy discussion and finding out people's opinion on various bits and bobs - everybody has their own way at looking at things and forums such as this is a really good way to share.  But I agree and don't necessarily think that ranking "best and worst" and asking for it to be used as a basis for new players is necessarily the best way of tackling it.  AoS has multiple ways of playing too, so how are you gauging your rankings?  I'd also say that some units are more useful at certain matched play points sizes - equally some are amazing if you're simply doing a narrative campaign.

A "brilliant strategies for new players" thread in each of the GA forums I can see being useful for new players, but ranking units isn't particularly constructive and really opens yourself up when somebodies opinion differs to the one cited as being "correct".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I enjoy discussion and finding out people's opinion on various bits and bobs - everybody has their own way at looking at things and forums such as this is a really good way to share.  But I agree and don't necessarily think that ranking "best and worst" and asking for it to be used as a basis for new players is necessarily the best way of tackling it.  AoS has multiple ways of playing too, so how are you gauging your rankings?  I'd also say that some units are more useful at certain matched play points sizes - equally some are amazing if you're simply doing a narrative campaign.

A "brilliant strategies for new players" thread in each of the GA forums I can see being useful for new players, but ranking units isn't particularly constructive and really opens yourself up when somebodies opinion differs to the one cited as being "correct".

I have to say I agree, best and worst is a very subjective thing. AoS is a very open freeform game at the moment and all instances of it should be encouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking of stuff in terms of singular units in AoS is like analysing a watch a cog at a time. The overall construction and how it all fits together is more important. A machine is more than the sum of its parts.

On the one hand, open discussion on what we think of certain units is good, and I fully support that. On the other, having been a veteran of the 40K fandom, there is nothing worse for new players than having opinions handed down from on-high on what they should run. "Black Knights are useless! Cairn Wraiths suck! Settra is OP, always run him!"

It leads to arguably even more unwanted purchases than before. Settra doesn't really do anything for Zombies or anything that isn't Deathrattle, other than a +1 to Hit. For Direwolves, it's alright, for Spirit Hosts, it's pretty great. A Mourngul is good, but can be countered.

Overall I feel that this is only going to homogenise army lists for newcomers in the same way 40K lists ended up being reduced to two or three lists per faction, despite sprawling options, because internet wisdom declared X, Y and Z to be worthless. I brought up this example in the Death thread, but the dude that won ITC with a Genestealer and Lictor list - two units the internet assured everyone were worthless, in a Codex that was worthless - smashed the competition of Eldar, Tau, Space Marines, etc. That's the kinda left-field lists I'd like to see, not cookie cutter "optimal" lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rank my entire army. not an individual unit. one person does not make an army and an chain is as strong as it's weakest link.

I'm not silencing opinion I'm just cautious of ranking individual units due to the vast amount of things which define their worth.

I currently rate a gigantic chaos spawn really highly, but that's as I really enjoy it and people underestimate it, the fact is isn't all powerful makes it good as people overlook it, whereas they wouldn't overlook something that is rated very dangerous.

Threads like these worked for 8th, kinda.

There's so much going on with AoS,  it simply doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Broken Netcode said:

So do you all agree for the posts to be removed? Seems the community is pretty decided on these threads being really bad for everyone.

No.

 

We can generalize what will work better in 8 out of 10 situations.

We have tried to keep the lists as universal as possible. skeletons in block of 40 with spears are very powerful and most probably deserve a place in top5. But the thread is aimed mostly at new players. Then a newbie may read that skellies are on 5th place and glue just 10 of them with spears (totally uselles in this configuration). So skeletons finally did not make it at all to be on the list, despite being great in a specific configuration.

 

And I'm a beginner in AoS myself. Such thread is important for me, to know at which units outside of my faction I should be concerned. It helps get the bigger picture of AoS faster.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as a beginner you're going about it all the wrong way.

You shouldn't be concerned about my Spirit Hosts, you should be concerned that Settra is giving them +1 to hit, doubling their Mortal Wound output. You shouldn't fear the Stardrake, you should fear the Lord Castellant giving it a 2+ Save that heals on a 7.

Age of Sigmar is a game of support and synergy, not of blunt smashy-smash. A summoned Zombie unit can win a game, as can a Black Knight unit that slipped around a flank. You can rank stuff by killing power all you want, it'll just cause you to underestimate the little things that actually win games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be a beginner in AoS. But I've played both WFB and 40k. More sophisticated games than AoS. Warmachine Hordes is a game of pure synergy. And combos. Just like Magic the Gathering.

For all of them there are/wereare multiple rankings of units or cards. With school grades or just tiers, but there are. Nobody is affraid to call cr'ap - cr.ap or autoinclude- autoinclude.

 

1 stay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down Mike, we've all played other games. WMH, Guild Ball, Halo Fleet Battles, Ground Command, Dropzone, Dropfleet, Tanks, Flames of War, 40K and WFB are the major ones I've played over the last year or so. 

Be that as it may, both 40K and 8th Edition had the Herohammer/Deathstar problem where a singular, buffed unit was expected to carry the day. Also I'm loath to note WMH is a sophisticated game when it all hinges on one win condition, and has all-but-died locally after the GHB killed it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mohojoe said:

As a discussion its fine, it just doesn't need to be pinned and announced as a grand consensus. Theres no need for it to be one overall topic, its fine as it is being discussed within alliance boards. 

But that is the whole point !

Quick,  basic reference list avalaible on top along with FAQ and other important informations.

With no need to read all the posts.

 

Alternatively we can do a comprehensive review of each alliance, eg with schoolgrades. But then you have to rate each and every thing. It is going  to be tough. Especially that when you finally make it some bat fan can say - fellbats do not deserve an F, they should be D+ because my aunt played it with successes... That is why I wanted to just point to the things that really shine or on the other hand suck. This is a game with point costs - you can easily do that, so we do.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MikeGreen said:

Especially that when you finally make it some bat fan can say - fellbats do not deserve an F, they should be D+ because my aunt played it with successes...

You're dealing with anecdotes here, kiddo. Your anecdote about the time Fellbats were bad doesn't negate the time someone did well with them. That's why this is a futile endeavour - there's no way to quantify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MikeGreen said:

We can generalize what will work better in 8 out of 10 situations.

I'd say that's more like 2 out of 10.  The Grand Alliances are so vast that generalisations are going to be largely superfluous - now if you did lists for sub-factions, I'd say then you're looking at closer to your 8 out of 10 as sub-factions generally have better synergies than going for the whole GA and harmonise better.  Putting it into perspective, a Bloodsecrator is as close to an auto-include for a Khorne army as you can get - however for a more general Grand Alliance Chaos, he's not that much use

2 minutes ago, MikeGreen said:

I may be a beginner in AoS. But I've played both WFB and 40k. More sophisticated games than AoS. Warmachine Hordes is a game of pure synergy. And combos. Just like Magic the Gathering.

For all of them there are/wereare multiple rankings of units or cards. With school grades or just tiers, but there are. Nobody is affraid to call cr'ap - cr.ap or autoinclude- autoinclude.

This is one big difference of AoS to other systems (and I do play other game systems), technically nothing is 100% rubbish and nothing is 100% auto-include.  I'd also argue that AoS can be as sophisticated as those other system, however its pretty straightforward to pick up. 

2 minutes ago, Mohojoe said:

As a discussion its fine, it just doesn't need to be pinned and announced as a grand consensus. Theres no need for it to be one overall topic, its fine as it is being discussed within alliance boards. 

Agreed.  I think concern of having it pinned is that it doesn't encourage new players to engage with the rest of the community.  Most players will have a rough idea on what models they like the look of, if they don't then a general pinned post needs to explain what all of the GA's are about and point them to a more detailed unit breakdown like is going on the various GA forums.

2 minutes ago, Broken Netcode said:

I think everyone needs to calm down. All I intended was a discussion. This is very slowly getting out of hand now.  Any more passive fighting will cause a removal of said threads. I will, and always have, stay neutral on these subjects. 

I think it's a case of people being passionate about the hobby and worrying that new players are going to see one post, skim it and form their opinion on that :)

I'd also add in my usual disclaimer - it's really difficult to convey emotion in the typed word, something I type in a friendly jovial manner may (and has) made me come across as a complete numpty or really stuck up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...