What I believe is wrong with hero ac ...
Hey I am new to hero academy been playing for a couple weeks and have won at least nine out of ten games and I have been playing with shaolin which blow... But before i bought them I was destroying with tf2 only losing to dwarves one time out of at least 35 games. I have like a hundred fifty taunts so I've been busy trying it although always felt the game was lacking.
I will start with the pros. The variation of teams is so nice and the game itself is designed well except for one major issue for me, and maybe it is just because I an new or don't understand the game but if seems like ninty nine percent of the time your best move is to use all your turns on one unit. Like use a heavy or demo or wizard or archer or that bomber or ninja to just wreck face and teleport back or something. I personally think the game would have a much better feel and teamwork strategic element if you could only move and attack one time per character per turn with some exceptions... Making it more of a team effort. I would allow the ninja to move attack then teleport but I cannot think of any more exceptions.
with this instead of the array of camping and pot shooting where aoe rules the game because its obviously impossible to heal all the damage it does as opposed to single target units. But having this cap on units would make the races work together more andi think have a positive effect on the play of the game.
I know this is the hero academy forum so I am probably in the minority since all of you seem to like the game, but please be open minded and think about it I personally think if this change took effect I would never put the game down but for now I am clocking out because although people say there is so much deep strategy i really don't think that is the case its more likes use a unit do as much damage as u can and repeat. Try and kill their healers and upgraded units. Aoe splash. the end. Anyway does anyone support or oppose my cause please discuss
You have an interesting view on this game, but I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
For one, if at the end of the game you can only move and attack with one unit; how would a fully buffed Wraith win if he's the last unit on the board if he can only move and attack once per turn. In the current format, he'd be an unstoppable force; but in your scenario he'd be handicapped to hitting and running and allowing whoever he attacks to be healed up again.
Secondly, you say pot shotting and AOE is the winner but once you've played a competent Tribe player you'll realize that those AOE attacks will be the bane of your strategy. Or if you find yourself against a kamikaze Council crystal diver, you can kill all the units you want but if they know what they're doing, it's a mess to deal with.
Lastly, I believe you're asking for too much if it's move and attack once per unit. You'd require too much AP for that to be effective. In the end, the moves of you and your opponent become much more predictable while you have to play too much setup for multipe units to simply KO and then stomp a unit. Besides, there's already a game with your implemented idea of one move one attack: Final Fantasy Tactics (a great game if I might add).
Play a few more games and you'll get the hang of how each team can unfold differently on different maps. And if you have the time or interest in competetive play, there's the hero academy league found at http://www.robotentertainmentfans.com where you'll find skilled players of various levels to improve your skills with; you'll find it's not as easy as the run of the mill randoms.
I dont disagree with about the moving/attacking once per turn does make for more of a team effort and a great game (ie blood bowl, xcom), but thats not really what HA is all about, so its kind of a moot argument. There are awesome games that do that mechainic very well but if youve played those games, youll notice the mechanic can feel clunky at times and I dont think it would translate well to mobile.
As for strategy in HA, Ive always seen there being two kinds of strategy. The first being games where strategy is defined as planning your attack and predicting your opponents actions (ie chess, go) and that seems to be what youre thinking of when you think strategy (not that theres anything wrong with that). The second kind I think of, are games where strategy isnt about planning very long ahead but rather viewing the current situation and picking the optimal outcome (ie starcraft). I think HA is far closer to starcraft than chess. Its impossible to know what your draw will be or the tools at your opponents diposal (at least at the beginning). (although as ramenwarrior pointed out there are some not so obvious strats that take time to notice, like using a sniper, cheiftan, or shadow to control board placement and force more powerful aoes)
Hey I am new to hero academy been playing for a couple weeks and have won at least nine out of ten games and I have been playing with shaolin which blow... But before i bought them I was destroying with tf2 only losing to dwarves one time out of at least 35 games. I have like a hundred fifty taunts so I've been busy trying it although always felt the game was lacking.
I will start with the pros. The variation of teams is so nice and the game itself is designed well except for one major issue for me, and maybe it is just because I an new or don't understand the game but if seems like ninty nine percent of the time your best move is to use all your turns on one unit. Like use a heavy or demo or wizard or archer or that bomber or ninja to just wreck face and teleport back or something. I personally think the game would have a much better feel and teamwork strategic element if you could only move and attack one time per character per turn with some exceptions... Making it more of a team effort. I would allow the ninja to move attack then teleport but I cannot think of any more exceptions.
with this instead of the array of camping and pot shooting where aoe rules the game because its obviously impossible to heal all the damage it does as opposed to single target units. But having this cap on units would make the races work together more andi think have a positive effect on the play of the game.
I know this is the hero academy forum so I am probably in the minority since all of you seem to like the game, but please be open minded and think about it I personally think if this change took effect I would never put the game down but for now I am clocking out because although people say there is so much deep strategy i really don't think that is the case its more likes use a unit do as much damage as u can and repeat. Try and kill their healers and upgraded units. Aoe splash. the end. Anyway does anyone support or oppose my cause please discuss
The depth of the game is dependent on your opponents; if you're not ever left with any difficult decisions because your opponents aren't putting up a good enough fight then I dare say you haven't really played the game.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, but just suggesting that if you're bored or not being tested by random players then you should consider playing some league matches.
E1law I'm pretty sure I played and beat you and u camped the whole time. Could be wrong but I know I played you. And I understand what you guys are saying it just is touted as so deep and it often is buff a unit do a lot damage. My one league game I played seemed like he just moved attack 3 times and moved back for a century and first person to push loses since your wasting your ap that turn on movement. I was shaolin but that's no excuse.
thing is I really want to like this game, but I guess outwitters is more my style
We did play once and the game ended just a few days ago, you were home team TF2 and lost to my Council on TKO. The game will likely still be on your recently completed -- it is still in mine. (so I take your "[I'm 35-1 with TF2]" comment with a bit of salt)
I don't doubt that steamrolling randoms with 5AP TF2 makes for a boring, shallow game. Play more league, play with 3 starting AP, and you will see some much more interesting matches. If you "really want to like this game" then I suggest finding opponents who know better than to make a +3 cleric on their first turn, which seems to be the random players' strategy of choice these days.
Ok yeah I've had a million games up but remember playing You now. And I've never said I'm the best just better than most and just find turns to be using one unit at a time
You're definitely better than most and I don't mean to suggest that I think I'm better than you, I really don't doubt you win 90%+ of your games with ease. You have adapted a play style that I imagine is great against random players, and I bet you could adapt a playstyle for better opponents too.
One unit per 5 AP is fairly common, but I don't think you'll see it as much as a problem when you're against better opponents, you'll start thinking more about positioning of units and opportunity costs; just because only one unit makes actions in a turn doesn't mean the others aren't playing a part.
All I'm trying to say is that you have an opinion of the game, but I don't think you've really played it, since so few random players do it justice! I bet you'd like it a lot more if you saw what it actually has to offer, but since there is no skill based match making the only (apparent) viable solutions are having a group of friends who are good, or to play in a league.
I totally understand where your coming from where I should play better players and that I have not seen the game in its most depth but just coming from someone who is playing to have fun it seems kinda boring when your best move is to use 1 character because moving anyone else in the same turn is a waste of a point. I believe the game would play better if this change was inacted. Me and my roommate tested it with these changes and it was really fun. And shaolin was actually good! Heavies blew :(
One adjustment I believe the game plays best if you can move as many times as you want but each character can only attack once per turn besides moves that stomp people. Just my two sense it seems like moving in and attacking someone u can't stomp is bad because u waste points on move and then just get pounded next turn. Maybe I should go for crystals more is crystal killing a common strategy in high level games cause all my wins r tkos
One adjustment I believe the game plays best if you can move as many times as you want but each character can only attack once per turn besides moves that stomp people. Just my two sense it seems like moving in and attacking someone u can't stomp is bad because u waste points on move and then just get pounded next turn. Maybe I should go for crystals more is crystal killing a common strategy in high level games cause all my wins r tkos
So it would be a good idea to let the dwarves move their entire fortress right into your camp and onto the gem tiles and next to your crystals? On top of that you can't kill them because they have too many units and multiple pallys out so they can just rez and continue hitting crystals next turn, unless of course your playing as SL because then they can just kill+stomp anything they want. TF2's bonus would be worthless because you proposed that movement be free. This creates many more problems than it solves.
I am just saying it is pretty annoying when u have teams camp and one unit battles because moving cost too much to have a team fight. Most games I play are people who bring out a hundred units camp in their back couple rows and you have to waste points moving to attack them when they can sit never move and heal and counter attack. And healing is cheaper then you moving attacking, and moving back. The only way to beat this is to have dwarves or tf2 and aoe them so they can't heal in less turns the it took to inflict. Which is prob why they r the two top tier teams
Stacking units in the back rows is almost always a bad plan, regardless of faction. I guarantee you will not see this kind of defensive play often (if ever) against strong players. My advice is to join the League and try using this very tactic against 1300+ players. If they do successfully respond to your turtling, observe how they did it and use the same methods in your own matches.
I find that tf2 is quite good for team plays. Soldier to knock back into a sniper then finish with a scout to stomp. All of the movement abilities are conducive to multiunit actions.
I retract all previous statements. This game is the best (tied with outwitters) and I really hope they continue to support it
Stacking units in the back rows is almost always a bad plan, regardless of faction. I guarantee you will not see this kind of defensive play often (if ever) against strong players. My advice is to join the League and try using this very tactic against 1300+ players. If they do successfully respond to your turtling, observe how they did it and use the same methods in your own matches.
A couple weeks ago I would have agreed with you, Trip. In general when someone packs together a big force I think, "I'll stay small and mobile and move my threats around and they'll be too cramped to defend properly." And until Reallgt, this seemed generally to be true. The best players I have played have been economical with units.
Reallgt is causing me to seriously rethink this. And I have nearly posted about it, but didn't get the right trigger until now. Reallgt has packed his back 3 ranks with units, eventually, in about all the games I have played with him, him as several different teams. I am trying to learn DE at the moment, so I've always been DE. Do you think my being DE was a factor for him? (I tried asking him about this, but it seems he's not very comfortable with English.)
Anyway, Reallgt's mid-game strategy could be described largely as boyxoneder described (below): Forcing the other to waste AP moving. With DE, I don't seem to be able to do enough damage to gain advantage from it. With DE, the only AoE is melee, so maybe that is a factor.
Qualification: I have only completed one game with Reallgt. I have three games on-going, so it may be early to declare his strategy successful, but so far, this don't look good for me. Other qualification: I haven't played many, if any, top 10 players.
Trip, has Reallgt done this with you? Were you able to take advantage?
I started a blow by blow here to help me gather my thoughts. I don't know it is helpful: The council vs DE game that reallgt beat in he built a +3 archer and sworded a ninja early. I didn't know him at all at this point, so as he proceded to pack his back 3 ranks with units I thought he was pretty noobie. I paried impalers left and right looking for a way to trade off a lightly equipped impaler for one of his sworded units. With much ninja teleporting he kept his units healed and just out of reach. It was the barbed crystal map, and I took out the central one, but I didn't have a hope of getting the others with his masses of units around them. To summarize, he used his large pack of units to protect his +3 archer while he traded my units, particularly my impalers, down. Then when it was safe, his +3 archer burst out into my camp. At that point it was clear that my lack of firepower on the board meant that I was going to lose at least 4 more units before I could take his archer down, if ever. I resigned.
Maybe, thinking more about it: When someone fills their back ranks, will it work to stay small if you are careful to keep matching firepower on the board in the back, in reserve, to keep him from injecting his big guns into your camp?
I am just saying it is pretty annoying when u have teams camp and one unit battles because moving cost too much to have a team fight. Most games I play are people who bring out a hundred units camp in their back couple rows and you have to waste points moving to attack them when they can sit never move and heal and counter attack. And healing is cheaper then you moving attacking, and moving back. The only way to beat this is to have dwarves or tf2 and aoe them so they can't heal in less turns the it took to inflict. Which is prob why they r the two top tier teams
In that scenario, I would work to get a >1085 HP VM. If he's stacking 3 deep, you should have no difficulty getting beefy soulbombs. Unfortunately, there are no shield tiles on that map, so you can't use it as a forward fortress..
Another tactic you could have tried would be to force him to react to crystal pressure. Make him spend resources on things like naked VMs and such, by splashing units and crystals while making sure that he can only kill or stomp by spending scrolls or fireball.
Still, he's a really good player and could probably stomp me with whatever tactic he likes, so I wouldn't be too concerned about his particular style of playing either CL or the map. =)
In that scenario, I would work to get a >1085 HP VM. If he's stacking 3 deep, you should have no difficulty getting beefy soulbombs. Unfortunately, there are no shield tiles on that map, so you can't use it as a forward fortress..
Another tactic you could have tried would be to force him to react to crystal pressure. Make him spend resources on things like naked VMs and such, by splashing units and crystals while making sure that he can only kill or stomp by spending scrolls or fireball.
Still, he's a really good player and could probably stomp me with whatever tactic he likes, so I wouldn't be too concerned about his particular style of playing either CL or the map. =)
Thanks.
Souldbombs didn't come up until much too late!
I thought crystal was going to help, but I couldn't make it work. I don't know what I was missing. I could never seriously threaten the outside crystals.
...Make him spend resources on things like naked VMs and such, by splashing units...
That's exactly what I was trying to do, I took out his middle crystal with repeated VM hits splashing his units... he simply rotated them and healed them... and when the crystal was gone... nothing was different except there was no crystal to hit anymore.
...while making sure that he can only kill or stomp by spending scrolls or fireball....
He did spend scrolls eventually, stomping on my swords. Yes. You're right though: Probably where I went wrong was bringing swords up close to try to take down his knights so I could get at his swords. I should have kept my firepower back, but that is kind of boyxoneder's point. That the best tactic is to get the other guy to commit valuable units to no man's land.
Another tactic you could have tried would be to force him to react to crystal pressure. Make him spend resources on things like naked VMs and such, by splashing units and crystals while making sure that he can only kill or stomp by spending scrolls or fireball.
Still, he's a really good player and could probably stomp me with whatever tactic he likes, so I wouldn't be too concerned about his particular style of playing either CL or the map. =)
+1 to the suggestion to work the crystals. Aggressive play seems to be the best way to get the upper hand against a superior tactical player like reallgt. Anecdotally, my only wins (2) against him have been crystal kills. He won all of our other games (3 or 4) by TKO.
lets make a world vs Realgt where evryone chimes in to defeat him :)
Yeah, I should clarify -- passively stacking units is almost always a bad plan in the long term. If you simply throw units out 3-deep without generating any threats, you are basically making a puzzle for your opponent. You are saying "I don't think you can find any way to generate an attack that benefits you, and I'm going to wait until you make a mistake". This can be effective against players that do generally make mistakes, but it's often a bad bet against players who know what they are doing -- sooner or later they will be able to find an avenue of attack to exploit your density and lack of mobility, and then you often won't be able to get much done until the balance of power has shifted for the worse.
There's a flip side to this, though. Whenever considering an attack, if your opponent can undo or ignore the damage you dealt using fewer APs than it took you to deal it, it's almost certainly a bad attack. Reposition, deploy some tiles, ditch -- do ANYTHING other than giving your opponent free APs with which to further develop their turtle. Sometimes it will be wise to both attack AND develop. AOE attackers (including the VM) are great at doing a hit and run against 4+ stacked enemies in 3 AP, leaving you two AP for deploying more of your own forces. Since it will take at least 4 AP to undo your attack, you've made a net gain on deployment.
In your specific case, Adaza, where CL has gotten out two big offensive threats and is layering defenders around them, I would absolutely dig for my Soul Harvests while jockeying for position. If that means making your own defensive layers, that's fine -- just keep your equipped units safe, but accessible, and try to make his own equipped units uncomfortable. Once those Soul Harvests come out, it's going to mean that you'll have army of 900+ HP units, including a few at 1080+. Throw a prescrolled, fully equipped Wraith in the mix, and life could get very unpleasant for the Council, very quickly. Yes, this kind of game can take a LONG time, but it's no less strategic and (IMO) just as fun as fast-paced lightning games. I do realize that this is diametrically counter to the strategy recommended by TBK, above, and I think his observations can be equally valid -- it's always draw and map dependant.
EDIT: For what it's worth, my game against RealLegit was nothing like that -- we never had even two layers fully stacked, and were constantly moving attackers in and out of position. I'm guessing there might be something about your play style that made him decide on that strategy? Dunno... Would have to see the actual boards to comment further.
I do realize that this is diametrically counter to the strategy recommended by TBK, above, and I think his observations can be equally valid -- it's always draw and map dependant.
My observation was also based on the fact that I am personally unlikely to win a long, unit-positioning and development tactical game against the likes of Trip (or possibly reallgt). Sometimes you have to introduce more uncertainty into the game to make it harder for the other guy to orchestrate your defeat.
In a nutshell, Trip is right about how to win in general, but good luck trying to beat Trip at his own game.
In a nutshell, Trip is right about how to win in general, but good luck trying to beat Trip at his own game.
i doubledare anyone to win against me in a TKO match :)
i doubledare anyone to win against me in a TKO match :)
Anyone can force their opponent to beat them by either CK or TKO, should they so choose... That's not really evidence of anything.
I have had that idea too. One game that captures that aspect of gameplay is tactical warrior... Kindve a weird game. But still fun. The game takes different issues but is it a strategic game *** hero academy. I would recommend people try it. Just to get a different taste of things.
For one, if at the end of the game you can only move and attack with one unit; how would a fully buffed Wraith win if he's the last unit on the board if he can only move and attack once per turn. In the current format, he'd be an unstoppable force; but in your scenario he'd be handicapped to hitting and running and allowing whoever he attacks to be healed up again.
Secondly, you say pot shotting and AOE is the winner but once you've played a competent Tribe player you'll realize that those AOE attacks will be the bane of your strategy. Or if you find yourself against a kamikaze Council crystal diver, you can kill all the units you want but if they know what they're doing, it's a mess to deal with.
Lastly, I believe you're asking for too much if it's move and attack once per unit. You'd require too much AP for that to be effective. In the end, the moves of you and your opponent become much more predictable while you have to play too much setup for multipe units to simply KO and then stomp a unit. Besides, there's already a game with your implemented idea of one move one attack: Final Fantasy Tactics (a great game if I might add).
Play a few more games and you'll get the hang of how each team can unfold differently on different maps. And if you have the time or interest in competetive play, there's the hero academy league found at http://www.robotentertainmentfans.com where you'll find skilled players of various levels to improve your skills with; you'll find it's not as easy as the run of the mill randoms.
One adjustment I believe the game plays best if you can move as many times as you want but each character can only attack once per turn besides moves that stomp people. Just my two sense it seems like moving in and attacking someone u can't stomp is bad because u waste points on move and then just get pounded next turn. Maybe I should go for crystals more is crystal killing a common strategy in high level games cause all my wins r tkos
So it would be a good idea to let the dwarves move their entire fortress right into your camp and onto the gem tiles and next to your crystals? On top of that you can't kill them because they have too many units and multiple pallys out so they can just rez and continue hitting crystals next turn, unless of course your playing as SL because then they can just kill+stomp anything they want. TF2's bonus would be worthless because you proposed that movement be free. This creates many more problems than it solves.
You guys are always too quick to discourage people, and don't like change. First of all i believe he wanted it to be like a certain amount each player can do... Which i think is cool because then it would add some more characteristics to the units. Say a huge tank gets 2 turns or 3 and a runner gets 3 or 4. I am fine with that. But i dont want it to be for THIS game. This game has some good pros and cons and i like it. And right now its not fitted for each player to have a different amount of moves each round. If you want to change the gameplay i would want it to be for a different game. Maybe hero academy 2 because i like the company. I would also want a different attack system... Basically combine hero academy with rad soldiers. And thats the game for me. And second networker do you really think that the other team will watch you grow a mass army, and do absolutely nothing... I don't think so.
Thanks all, This is really helpful. I will continue to digest this.
... For what it's worth, my game against RealLegit was nothing like that -- we never had even two layers fully stacked, and were constantly moving attackers in and out of position. I'm guessing there might be something about your play style that made him decide on that strategy? Dunno... Would have to see the actual boards to comment further.
Maybe my playing style is similar in some way to boyxoneder's and for some reason people tend to turtle against us. Maybe we don't offer targets of opportunity but threaten too little, and thereby give the opponent too many APs they can use for development. I am just guessing and even if its true I am not sure what to do about it. If its true the reason I do it is precisely because I avoid attacks Trip described. Attacks that give the opponent free APs.
Let's analyze this a little, and look at some of the options for attacking a turtle:
Take a VM starting in his own camp.
Call this "Non-Commit VM Attack 3": VM does move, attack, attack, attack, move back. Leaving crystal out of the discussion for the moment, this attack is dumb unless it causes 5AP or more of heailing. If the other team is CL, and the VM is non-sworded, this can only happen if one or more of the splashies are out of range of a healer. I am going to be using that phrase a lot, so let's call it OOROH.
Non-Commit VM Attack 2: VM does move, attack, attack, move back, and 1AP left for something else developmental, this needs to cause 4AP or more of healing.
Non-Commit VM Attack 1: VM does move, attack, move back, and 2AP left for something else developmental, this needs to cause 3AP or more of healing.
Let's call "Non-Commit Imp Attack 3", "2", and "1" the same, but with an Impaler. Because an imp has no splash, these are usually useless unless the target is, or is pulled, OOROH.
Non-Commit Imp Attack 3 will drop un-armored non-knights, causing at least: healer move, rez, heal, heal, and the choice of healer moves back or target moves back, which leaves him short. (As I remember, reallgt never gave my impalers chances to pull anything but a knight on the 2nd AP.)
Against Reallgt, I was generally doing Non-Commit VM Attack 2, and Non Commit Imp Attack 2. Usually my VM attacks were splashiing one OOROH unit and imp attacks were pulling his knight OOROH. As I say, he used teleporting a lot to reposition healers and rotate full health units to the front lines.
Do you think I need to respect Non-Commit VM Attack 1 more? and use the extra APs to build some reserve firepower in my back ranks?
Or should I use more committed attacks? (For example: Commit 1 unt and hope to counter attack the stomper or something left open by the stomper, or Commit 2 units and hope to have one unit left next turn to do something nasty with?)
lets make a world vs Realgt where evryone chimes in to defeat him :)
Reallgt is a stand-in for the abstract opponent described by boyxoneder. boyxoneder's point was that the best tactic is "turtle with a huge force" and that's dull and that's bad for HA. This causes two discussions,
- whether the best tactic is turtle with a huge force, and
- whether it is dull.
Discussion 1 is open ended and the subject of a number of our previous posts.
Discussion 2: Trip says it isn't dull. I agree. Usually. Unless one or more of the teams is shaolin. With and against shaolin I have run into positions where I have more APs than I need, ie, I am waiting for the opponant to do something. That, I guess, would be my definition of dull.
Interesting analysis - against CL in particular, I feel that 1 hit is better than 2, and KOing CL has fewer penalties for CL than for other races (because CL's rez is 400, and normal heals are 600). So, if you're not going to commit, it will rarely be worth the AP to hit more than once. It is therefore imperative that you splash a crystal against CL, if you're intending to pressure him out of the turtle. If he does not heal, you can threaten with a necro remote stomp - if he has knights at the front, his archers will not be in range, or will have to stomp with archer (you have an imp behind to take the trade, right?) or fireball (he only has 2).
What I don't understand after thinking about this is, how did he protect the top and bottom crystals? You should have been able to splash those. If he has 1 unit in front, his archer will not be in sufficient range to advance and killstomp without using items, if he has 2 units in front of the crystal, that should be prime range for OOROH kills (especially if he kept his clerics in the back and was teleporting to heal). Even if you only splash 1 or 2 units other than the crystal, having only 3-4AP to work with means he most likely will not be able to killstomp the offending unit - drop that soulbomb, wail away on the crystal some more (and heal up!) and retreat while he spends AP healing up again.
(1)You guys are always too quick to discourage people, and don't like change. First of all i believe he wanted it to be like a certain amount each player can do... Which i think is cool because then it would add some more characteristics to the units. (2)Say a huge tank gets 2 turns or 3 and a runner gets 3 or 4. I am fine with that. But i dont want it to be for THIS game. This game has some good pros and cons and i like it. And (3)right now its not fitted for each player to have a different amount of moves each round. If you want to change the gameplay i would want it to be for a different game. Maybe hero academy 2 because i like the company. I would also want a different attack system... (2)Basically combine hero academy with rad soldiers. And thats the game for me. (4)And second networker do you really think that the other team will watch you grow a mass army, and do absolutely nothing... I don't think so.
- I was thinking of the total effect this change would create on HA as we know it. He said himself that SL became OP and heavy was terrible.
- That sounds exactly like RAD soldiers, not seeing to combination part.
- Agreed
- If you get to deploy + move a unit in one turn, I could have 8 units out on turn 2, assuming I get a unit heavy draw, plus if your against someone playing TR or DE, they wouldnt stand a chance because those teams rely on 1 unit doing a ton of damage.
I meant to out in new paragraphs there but they did not end up working sorry