Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

[metroid composite]

Yeah, the one thing I'm noticing is that there is absolutely no consistency whatsoever to chess piece naming.  Like...nearly every variant I look up will have something called an "Elephant" but I've yet to see two elephants that do the same thing.

There's a ton of different names for the same piece too.  (Like there's at least three names for the Rook+Knight combo).

And yeah, I agree Mann is a pretty boring name for what is actually a pretty cool piece, and has had several names.  (Seems to have also gone by Guard, Archer, Chariot, and Commoner).  I think there's good reason to design more pieces in this power band too.  Like...having similar value pieces makes trades really interesting.  Trading a Knight for a Bishop is interesting, cause it creates some asymmetry while being a roughly equal value trade.  Mann or guard or chariot or whatever being another piece that's worth about the same amount as those pieces is interesting.

Anyway...the only pieces I've found with any kind of consistency in naming seem to be the really old weak pieces...

Alfil

Dabbaba

Ferz

Camel

Wazir

Zebra

...partially cause nobody is in a hurry to reinvent these pieces, and partially cause a lot of Fairy chess pieces can be described as amalgamations of some of these so they get used in notation.

To the point that they actually have letter abbreviations (To go along with the K,Q,N,B,R,P notations)

1 square abbreviations

• W (Wazir--1,0)
• F (Ferz--1,1)

2 square abbreviations

• D (Dabbaba--2,0)
• N (Knight--2,1)
• A (Alfil--2,2)

3 square abbreviations

• H (Threeleaper--3,0.  Not a historical piece, just made up for the notation)
• C (Camel--3,1)
• Z (Zebra--3,2)
• G (Tripper--3,3.  Also not a historical piece, just made up to complete the notation)

Not sure why neither of the newly made up pieces starting with T got a T abbreviation.

[metroid composite]

I guess an obvious thing to do is just...with the standard notation, like WF representing King movement, well...this is just binary.

How many possible pieces are there with 1-2 total movement and this notation?  Well, 5 binary options here so 2^5 = 32.

How many possible pieces are there with 1-2 total movement that cover 8 total squares (much like Knight, King, etc).  These would potentially (though not all--not if colourblind) be worth around the same as bishop/knight.

N: Knight
WF: King
WD: 2 move rook (with jumping)
FA: 2 move bishop (with jumping--colourblind obviously).
FD: Move 1 space diagonally, or jump 2 spaces horizontally (diamond shape--also colourblind).
WA: Move 1 space horizontally, or jump 2 spaces diagonally (hard to even describe the shape--small star with sparkles?)
DA: jump 2 spaces horizontally or vertically (exploded king movement--another colourblind piece)

Probably the colourblind ones are worth about 2 (maybe?) and the non-colourblind ones are worth 3 (about the same as a knight).  Although...WA intrigues me--my intuition says it might be a little better, and I'm not quite sure why I'm coming to that conclusion.  Micro adjustment while also having a lot of reach just sounds kinda good?  Not sure, I might be wrong.

[metroid composite]

OK, so...what makes a piece good--generally speaking a mixture of:

* Number of squares covered
* Not colourblind
* Doesn't develop slowly (the non-king kings like mann/guard/chariott/whatever has a bit of this problem)
* Good at checkmating by having a lot of threat tiles together (this is one area where mann/guard/chariott is quite good).

So...why do I think WA might be good?  Well, it's not colourblind and develops pretty fast, not a great piece for checkmating, that's unfortunate I suppose, but...specifically look at how quickly it can reach various squares.

First, for comparison, the knight:

3	2	3	2	3	2	3	4
2	3	2	3	2	3	2	3
3	4	1	2	1	4	3	2
2	1	2	3	2	1	2	3
3	2	3	0	3	2	3	2
2	1	2	3	2	1	2	3
3	4	1	2	1	4	3	2
2	3	2	3	2	3	2	3

0 obviously is where the knight starts, and the numbers in the grid are how long it takes to get to various other spaces.

Now the same movement table but WA for comparison:

3	3	3	2	3	3	3	2
3	2	3	3	3	2	3	3
2	1	2	2	2	1	2	3
3	2	2	1	2	2	3	3
3	2	1	0	1	2	3	2
3	2	2	1	2	2	3	3
2	1	2	2	2	1	2	3
3	2	3	3	3	2	3	3

You'll notice the average number of moves to reach a square is a little bit lower.  Just taking the raw numbers, for a knight 2.37 moves.  For a WA 2.28 moves.

Also, generally speaking, if anything, your space will be a little bit more restricted than the full chess board.  If we look at just all the squares within 2 spaces of the pieces, WA can get to all of them in 1.6 moves on average.  Knight takes 2.08 moves on average.  But it actually gets a little worse--that's if I just take those 5x5 boxes immediately surrounding the pieces in the two grids above...but what if I actually confine them to 5x5 boxes so the knight can't actually go outside the box to route to where it wants to go?  Now Knight averages 2.4, and WA averages 1.6 still.

Still not a super powerful piece or anything, but I suspect it's noticeably more valuable than a knight.  Probably like...3.5 instead of 3?  Something like that?  Probably still closer to a Knight than a Rook, so less than 4, but basically a knight that has an easier time ending up where they want to go, so slightly better knight?

[metroid composite]

OK, well it occurs to me that every 8 space piece that doesn't suck so far is either a Knight, or has Wazir in it.

* N - Knight
* WF - Mann/Chariott/Guard (moves like king).  Weak early on cause it's slow to develop, but good at checkmating so worth about the same as these pieces
* WD - mini-2 move rook that can jump.  Probably about as good as Knight and Mann/Chariott/Guard.  In between N and WF in most things I think--better at checkmating than N, but develops slower.  Faster at developing than WF, but not as good at developing.
* WA - Discussed above--I suspect strongest of these combos.  Just...surprisingly good at getting anywhere on the map.

W being in all these pieces isn't a coincidence.  F, D, and A are all colourblind, so FA, FD, and AD are all also colourblind.

We could look to 3 move pieces to try and get more Knight-ish level pieces.  My gut says this isn't going to work out too well, but let's see what we can do.

First of all, Camel and Zebra are already 8 squares, and already both known to be worse than a knight.

The diagonal 3 move jumper (Tripper) denoted by G...is colourblind, so it can really only combo with W.

* WG (1 horizontal, or jump 3 diagonal) is...probably useable, though I suspect  worse than WA and worse than a Knight.  (Knight takes an average of 2.38 moves to reach an average square on the board, WA is 2.28, WG is 2.48).

All other non-colourblind pieces will need to use the threeleaper (abbreviated by H) to fix colourblindess if they're not using W.

* HG (jump 3 horizontal or 3 diagonal) sucks.  You are confined to squares that are 3 spaces apart, so like even though you can "change colours", you're actually 9x colourblind.

* HF (jump 3 horizontal or 1 diagonal) Sounds bad, but I can't quite put my finger on why.  OK, probably diagram time again.

4	3	2	4	2	3	4	3
2	3	3	1	3	3	2	4
3	2	2	2	2	2	3	3
3	2	1	3	1	2	3	2
1	2	3	0	3	2	1	4
3	2	1	3	1	2	3	2
3	2	2	2	2	2	3	3
2	3	3	1	3	3	2	4

Wow, ok, I was wrong, that is way better than I expected.  I knew from a bit of mental visualization that it was 3 moves to get to adjacent squares.  But I failed to calculate just how many nearby squares were accessible in a couple of moves.  This is actually fine.  2.42 for average number of moves to reach any given square on the map--slightly more than the Knight's 2.38, but still looks very functional.

* HA (jump 3 horizontal or 2 diagonal) This to me sounds like a rotated knight, except all jump points are a tiny bit further away.  Moving 3 in one direction is a bit further than moving 2 up 1 to the side.  Moving 2 up 2 to the side is a bit further than moving 2 up 1 to the side.  Probably a little bit worse but...the real question is whether it's zebra levels of bad, where you need to take 6 moves to reach certain squares on the chessboard?  Or just a bit worse than the knight?

3	3	3	2	3	3	3	2
2	4	4	1	4	4	2	3
4	1	2	4	2	1	4	3
4	2	3	3	3	2	4	3
1	4	3	0	3	4	1	2
4	2	3	3	3	2	4	3
4	1	2	4	2	1	4	3
2	4	4	1	4	4	2	3

Oof, that's...yeah, that's...well it's not zeebra level bad (every square is reachable within 4 moves, zeebra has some 6s) but that is...pretty bad compared to pieces like Knight and WA and HF and WG.  While the average moves to reach a square for most of the others was within 0.1 of Knight (ranging from 2.28 to 2.48) this is in a different ballpark--2.78.  Possible I've made some mistakes here (Making the tables by hand cause I'm still just messing around, and spreadsheets don't seem well built for this--could write code for this I guess).

* HW is another rook variant.  (Rook that can move 1 or jump 3 spaces).  HD is yet another rook variant.  (Rook that can jump 2-3 spaces).  These are probably fine power level wise, but like...if I'm envisioning a chess variant where you draft pieces, is it actually worth having both of these as options alongside WD?  I mean, they're all slightly different, but that's a lot of mini-rook variants.

Hmm...which rook variant is better?

I'm guessing WD due to the overall trend of short moves being better.  You might think "but it will develop so slow" but actually from a central square, all three rook variants take about the same average moves to get to any given square (2.5 on average--specifically 2.5 for WD, 2.5 for WH, and 2.53 for DH).  WD is only struggling with mobility if you need to go between opposite corners.  And...I suspect it's a little bit better at hunting checkmates (having 2 adjacent threat squares is important.  HD also has two adjacent threat squares...but it lacks W so if the king side steps it can't match the side step).

I think WD might also be the best at hunting pawns in an endgame.  Like...let me draw a diagram of what I'm thinking

P .  P
_ . _
R . _

OK, so mini-rook threatening pawn, pawn steps forward so that its buddy guards it.


_ .  P
P . _
R . _

Buuut this rook can jump, so this happens.

R . P
P . _
_ . _

Now the mini-rook is ready to grab the pawn on the right, or the pawn directly under it if that pawn advances and stops guarding its friend.

Granted, the 1/3 moving rook (WH) can do this same trick too, as long as it starts one extra square back.  But...lacks the 2 adjacent threat squares that are good for delivering checkmate.

So I mean, I think these are all fine, but I would lean towards picking WD.


---

So ok, if you want a draft of pieces that are worth about the same as a bishop/knight, I guess you can do something like...

* Bishop
* Knight
* WF (King clone: Mann/Chariot/Guard)
* WD (1-2 horizontal jump) ...or one of the other jumping mini-rooks.  I would probably pick WD as I suspect it's the strongest, but my analysis might be off.
* WA (1 horizontal 2 jump diagonal.  WG with the 3 jump diagonal is also an option if WA turns out to be game-breakingly strong, but...ehh while I'm guessing it's better than knight, bishop is also better than knight so whatever)
* HF (3 horizontal 1 diagonal.  Unexpectedly pretty solid).

---

There's probably some room to mix in some colourblind pieces too (beyond just bishop I mean).  I don't think 8 square colourblind pieces would be a good match for bishop, but 12 square colourblind pieces might be.  (Bishop in the middle of the map sees 12 squares).  The only tricky thing is that bishop lines can be blocked, and can very easily see less than 12 squares if they're not mid map, so not sure how to factor that in.  But...on the other hand, a really silly piece (GAF) which just picks all three diagonal movements--that's a jumping 3 move bishop, and I could see that being equal to a bishop.  Ability to jump: nice bonus.  Inability to see beyond 3 squares: notable downside.  Maybe even overall?

[metroid composite]

Alright, colourblind pieces.

I don't know if any of these are going to be interesting enough to be worth including.

But okay, baseline, the jumping 3 move bishop, GAF, reaches every square of its colour in 2 moves if it starts from a central square.  Average moves 1.56 to reach a square it actually can reach. (Bishop from the same square is 1.53, but doesn't jump of course).  Obviously don't need both bishop and jumping bishop, that's just excessive.

What about the "move to any square within 2 of you that shares your colour".  So that would be FDA.  Same average moves to reach any square (1.56).  Is this piece...actually interesting, though?  2 move bishop that can also jump 2 forward?  Eh.  Still feels...pretty bishopy.  67% of its moves are diagonal moves.

OK, well, let's try the pieces that will feel the least like a bishop, so...I guess this starts with Camel, and adds in...Dabbaba, those are the only non-diagonal colourblind pieces.  CD then?  Or...I could also see CF, that also feels fairly natural (you end up with this sorta natual looking X wing looking shape):

CF:

		1		1
1		1		1		1
			0
1		1		1		1
		1		1

And CD looks like this, which...doesn't feel as intuitive to me, sorta flower things that pop out in each direction:

		1		1
			1
1						1
	1		0		1
1						1
			1
		1		1

Well...to start, camel on its own...reaching every allied colour square is like...2.06 on average.  Quite a bit more than 1.56.  CD hits the 1.56, every square reachable in 2 moves.

CF.......actually doesn't have this property!  1.69.  There's this funny parity thing, where you're always alternating between even and odd columns, so if you start on an even column, want to go to an odd column, and you can't get there in a single jump, you're forced into making 2 more jumps.

It's unfortunate, cause "I always hop to this other column" is part of what makes the CF movement look a little more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing to me, but...CD is the least bishop-like having no diagonal moves, and probably also the closest in power to a bishop, so that's two properties we were looking for.

I guess I should glance at Camel combined with the other possible diagonals...

CA which forms a sort of octagon shape is also 1.69.  Unsurprisingly longer jumps make it harder to reach every square.

CG is surprisingly, despite only containing the longest move lengths is...1.56...but ONLY if it's in the dead center of the board.  If it's one tile closer to the edge of the board it now really struggles to continue to move towards the edge of the board (1.84).  Can move towards the other side of the board no problem though.

But yeah, I think the obvious pick for a colourblind piece that will match the strength of a Bishop while ALSO feeling the least like a bishop is CD.  Jump either 2 horizontally, or in a 3-1 L.

So like...pieces worth roughly the same amount to draft from would look something like...

* Bishop
* Knight
* WF (King clone; Mann/Chariot/Guard)
* WD (Mini-rook that jumps 1-2 horizontal jump.  Other mini-rooks like WH or DH could be substituted in the draft)
* WA (1 horizontal 2 jump diagonal.  Other variations on this piece like WG could be substituted in the draft)
* HF (3 horizontal jump 1 diagonal).
* CD (2 jump horizontal, and 3+1 L jumps.  Other camel hybrid variants could sub in the draft like CF).

[SnowFire]

This is a bit of a different angle to take the chess talk, but it is theorycrafting in that it probably won't happen...

...so people like to call Fire Emblem anime chess.  In Fire Emblem Fates, the two warring countries are Hoshido and Nohr, but they had much more direct and frankly weirder names in Japanese: "White Night Kingdom" and "Dark Night Kingdom" (or "Black Night Kingdom").  Hmm, that sounds awful chess-y already.  Why didn't IS release a Fates/If themed chess set?!  If they did, who would be what piece?

Well, one thing to address up front is that there's a bit of an asymmetry on the leaders.  Garon & Mikoto are...  well, Mikoto dies really quickly in Fates and isn't a playable character, and she's not even really Hoshidan.  Garon lives longer, but also the Nohrians eventually turn against him in all the routes, so he's also awkward.  Also, they don't match genders, which is a little awkward for heavily gendered pieces like King & Queen.  Maybe best to bench 'em in favor of the units that get controlled by players and match up.  Looks like we end up with:

King: Ryoma, Xander
Queen: Hinoka, Camilla (conveniently, both are fliers to explain high Queen movement)
Rook: Takumi, Elise?? (uh, Fujin Yumi movement + Elise horsieness?  I'll admit this isn't a strong flavor fit, it should be like Rinkah and Benny if we're emphasizing tough fortifications...  but Rooks are really mobile in chess, so having Benny zip around the board is weird.)
Bishop: Onmyoji Sakura, Leo (if we're emphasizing sage-iness, best skip the Priestess with a bow look for Sakura)
Knight: Kaze??, Silas (Hoshido doesn't really do traditional cavalry, and using a flyer instead seems wrong if we're running with flying = Queen, so eh, ninjas are in flavor.  Could also do Kaden / Keaton I guess for an offbeat interpretation.)
Pawn: Mozu, Charlotte.  (Both start small, and you can have a spare Kinshi Knight Mozus and Wyvern Lord Charlottes in the box for if they reach the 8th rank and promote to Queen.  Yeah, I know that Charlotte needs some help to promote to WL, but not that much, and it fits her using axes.)

As an additional bonus, the set could have thrown in the third kingdom at no extra manufacturing cost - Valla, the Invisible Night Kingdom, has invisible troops.  Really.  So just play half-blind chess where moves are announced but no pieces are on the board for one side if you want to play against Valla.  Let's see, we'd have something like...

King: Sumeragi
Queen: Mikoto
Rook: A giant Faceless or Stoneborn?
Bishop: Arete (+Replica)
Knight: Gunter (+Replica)
Pawn: Anthony (the Vallite villager!!1!)

Get on it, Intelligent Systems!

[metroid composite]

It strikes me that I need better names than WA, HF, and CD if I want to show this to anyone else, so like...

* Bishop
* Knight
* Guard (WF King that isn't royal and can't castle)
* Mini Rook (WD--jump 1 or 2 horizontal)
* Square Mini Queen (WA--move 1 horizontal or jump 2 diagonal)
* Diamond Mini Queen (HF--move 1 diagonal or jump 3 horizontal)
* Anti-bishop (CD--jumps to any square of the same colour within 3 spaces other than diagonal squares.  Jumps 2 horizontally, or does a 3+1 L)

[metroid composite]

Starcraft.

So Soma vs Rush in ASL had a lot of lurkers, including successful running lurkers into the Terran's base and winning 3-0; notably game 1 was an actual lurker rush; game 2 and 3 got mutas first:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Lc01IudLw

Worth noting he was kind-of doing off-meta cheesy stuff to catch his opponent off-guard, and nearly all of these were counterattacks when rush was too far out of position.  Don't know if I would conclude from this that Lurkers should move up a tier.  But after seeing the lurker rush builds a few times and seeing them fail, well here's some that succeeded.

EDIT:

something which I did not know, or probably knew at some point but forgot, Lurkers are medium; thought they were large.  Don't think this substantially changes much, but does make them a lot worse than I thought against vultures (two vultures with detection not clumping and getting hit by the same splash can take down one lurker just by attacking--one lurker costing more than 3 vultures of course.  For more embarrassing matchups against mech, one Goliath comes pretty close to beating a lurker solo, despite being a considerably cheaper unit.  I mean, granted, when it comes to the lurker you're paying for the cloak and the AoE damage, but still, thought they'd at least have a few heads up matchups where they looked a bit better).

[metroid composite]

Fairy Chess:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tGhQPzcQw4

So some interesting "knight variants" here, including AI ratings for a bunch of them.  (Don't think the actual game was all that interesting; turns out 16 pieces beat 5 pieces, but the ratings are interesting).

Princess (Bishop+Knight): 10.32
Knight: 3.92
"Unicorn" (this is an Amazon, except can't capture with the queen moves, only with the knight moves): 10.96
Empress (Rook+Knight): 11.65
"Trojan Horse" (works like a Knight, but all pieces 1 space away can't attack): 4.61
"Berserker Knight" (Knight that can't move/attack backwards): 2.79

OK, to translate these into numbers I'm a little more familiar with (Knight worth more like 3.15) this would be Princess at 8.29, Empress at 9.36--I'd like to know where this engine puts queen, but I assume it's around 10.

The big surprises to me are as follows:

The "Unicorn" piece that can just move (but not capture) like a queen, only capture like a knight is worth more than a Princess, almost as much as an Empress.  What???  Like...yes, it's extremely mobile, but it controls so few squares relative to pieces of that caliber.  I don't know how good this AI is, looks like not very good, but it didn't actually manage to capture any pieces with the "Unicorn".  Is the extra mobility really worth controlling fewer squares than the Princess?  Is the Princess, who can move like a bishop or a knight, non-colourblind piece that can nearly always move to more square than a rook, really so lacking in mobility in the first place?

The Trojan Horse being barely worth more than a Knight.  I dunno where to value that but...it looked...pretty good.  Like pawns and kings can literally never threaten it.  Looks like it can prevent other pieces from being taken just by moving near whatever piece is threatening to take (although I'm not for sure clear that's how the piece actually works; maybe it just prevents attacks on itself?)

[SnowFire]

A new SC2 patch dropped a few weeks ago it seems.  Looks like they were trying to curb the amount of airtoss out there in ZvP and to a lesser extent TvP with Void Ray & Shield Battery nerfs.

I agree with your instincts about whatever valuing program being used being a tad sus.  I presume it was given the "normal" rankings to be seeded with, i.e. a Queen is 9?  OTOH, it gives a vanilla Knight 3.92, so maybe all the values are ~+33% higher.  The Unicorn piece seems clearly worse than a vanilla Queen (which it is after a 25% cut) although maybe needs to go even lower, Empress is about equivalent to a Queen, and Berserker Knight might be even worse than it looks (although with the price cut, sure, a little more than 2), since it's such a beyond trash piece if you haven't traded it off by endgame (which no human would want to let you do).  Trojan Horse might be 4.6 with normal valuations at least, no need for the "discount" there, or maybe even all the way to a 5 for a rook.  It seems like there'd be some really cheeky smothered mate plays since Trojan Horse can walk directly up to a line of pawns and checkmate a castled king, or at least restrict its movement.

[metroid composite]

Interesting piece I hadn't seen emphasized before (doesn't have its own wikipedia page) but seems to actually have some history behind it (first proposed in 1820 apparently...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUXTaAdlGLc

Knight+King move combination

Centaur (Unsurprisingly had a couple other names, Paladin, Judge, but for once there seems to be near consensus on the name Centaur).

Given a piece evaluation of approximately 6 in this video, and that...yeah, that's not an overly surprising result.  Combine a knight (worth about 3) with a king/mann/guard/chariot (worth about 3) with neither one super covering any big weakness of the other, and well, 3+3 = 6, sure.

Reminds me a bit of a piece from Musketeer chess.  Basically a 2 move jumping queen (or in primitives...W+F+D+A), which they calculated to be worth about 6.3 (they also calculated knights to be worth 3.15, so basically double the value of a knight for the piece that covers double the squares).

---

Weird assymetric piece that's slightly better

The one interesting thing to note is that Musketeer has one other piece which is...similar but not made out of primitives at all (which they call "cannon"), and that one, despite covering the same number of squares, is actually worth a full point more (like 7 instead of 6) according to their own computer simulations.

The piece moves like this:

			1
	1	1	1	1	1
	1	1	C	1	1
	1	1	1	1	1
			1

Basically it can move to any space within 2 of it horizontally, as long as it's within 1 vertically.  But...can also jump 2 vertically.  To sort-of break this into primitives, it moves like a king, like a dababba (jump 2 squares in a straight direction) and like...half of a knight (can only jump 2 horizontal 1 vertical; can not jump 1 horizontal 2 vertical).

This piece being worth a full pawn more according to computer simulation (despite covering the same number of squares as pieces like Centaur and the jumping 2 move queen W+F+D+A)

One theory they state is that it might be worth more cause it can checkmate a king solo without the help of any piece (just bully the king to the right or left wall).  Having a clump of 6 threat squares together (including 3 of which where the king cannot hit back) while being able to match king movement is...very good.

---

Centaur vs 2 move jumping queen

This made me wonder if there would be a meaningful difference between Centuar (King+Knight) vs 2 move jumping queen (King + Dabbaba + Alfil).  Is King+Knight maybe a little more compact and thus a bit better?  Well...if we can trust all these rating numbers, apparently not.

And...I guess I can rationalize that.  Neither of these can checkmate solo--they need a different piece to cover the holes in their 2 move threat space, or another piece to cover them as they go in to 1 distance.  Neither one is really that much more compact than the other--average distance away that movement square options are actually the same for the Centaur and 2 move jumping queen.

---

Another weird asymmetric piece

I guess as long as I'm discussing one of musketeer chess' asymmetric pieces, I might as well mention the other--"Fortress".

Pretty comparable to Princess (Knight+Bishop), except half the knight jumps are replaced with dababba jumps (jump 2 in a single direction).  The half of knight jumps allowed this time are vertical rather than horizontal (2 vertical 1 horizontal).  But for an extra restriction can only slide 3 diagonally instead of any distance.

Anyway, ends up worth basically the same as a princess (7.6 so fractionally less than 7.7 they have for princess).  I assume that with full diagonal movement (instead of diagonal movement capping at 3) this piece would be slightly ahead?

So yeah...seems like breaking movement symmetry to get more threat squares clustered close together makes a piece slightly stronger.

[metroid composite]

So...I guess with King+Knight, being out there, are there other king+X combos worth looking into?

Well....kinda.  Both Bishop and Rook already have some of those squares, so they don't necessarily gain a ton, but...bishop loses colourblindness, and Rook was already a pretty strong piece.

Bishop+King (Crowned Bishop, Dragon Horse, Missionary)

Is the same thing as Bishop+Wazir, so a bishop that cures its colourblindness with Wazir movement.  But...also has 4 more threat squares that are good for checkmating (if another piece covers it).

---

Rook+King (Crowned Rook, Dragon King, Sailor, Admiral, SuperRook)

Same thing as Rook+Ferz.

Evaluation...hmmm...

Both of these are pieces in the Japanese Shogi (Dragon Horse and Dragon King) and promote from that game's bishop and rook, so we can look to that game for piece evaluation hints.  Looks like promoted bishop being worth more than unpromoted rook is mostly agreed upon (ok, cool matches my intuition.  Covers more squares than a rook and not colourblind.  How much higher it's rated varies by who's rating.  A few people put them the same, although...Shogi is not chess).  Promoted rook being above promoted bishop is pretty universal too, usually about 10% but sometimes as much as 20% more points.

The other thing to look at too is Knight mixed pieces.  Rook+Knight is worth about a pawn more than Bishop+Knight under...most evaluations.  So...it would make sense if Rook+King was maybe a pawn higher than Bishop+King.  Also expecting both of these to be a step below their Knight combos, of course since they gain less squares

So Rook+King (promoted rook)...maybe 7?

Bishop+King (promoted bishop)...maybe 6?

These are very much guesses, though--the only real data coming from a different game with a much larger board (Shogi) and everything else being guesswork based on other amalgamated pieces.

[metroid composite]

Actually, one last one I find interesting from the computer generated Musketeer Chess rankings

their "Leopard" (Knight + 2 move Bishop) is apparently worth about half a pawn more than their "Elephant" (2 move jumping queen).  (670 rating for the Leopard, 630 rating for the elephant).

Both cover the same number of squares (16).  Both are restricted to moving 2 squares max.  The "Leopard" doesn't even jump diagonally--can be blocked diagonally.

"Leopard" squares are actually slightly less close in general to the piece, so there goes that theory.

The one remaining theory that would explain both their weird asymmetrical piece "cannon" and their "leopard" it's just threat square clustering.  "Leopard" can technically solo-mate a king (if the king gets into a corner) because all the threat squares are together in a 4x4 box.  Don't think it can solo chase a king into the corner, but...still.

[metroid composite]

JYJ vs Bisu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76zZ5sFpmrI

Honestly, nothing too revolutionary here.

There were two games won in very earlygame--basically cheese.

Carriers continue to be the main thing that gets protoss to win PvT in games that go past the earlygame in ASL lately.  (One macro game with shuttle high templar--lost.  One macro game with arbiter recall--lost.  One macro game with carriers--win).

[metroid composite]

Starcraft

Rain vs Soulkey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pxsv6YOhOk&t=4740s

So I think most interesting thing here--in my previous analysis on archons I said that people don't really just take high templar who haven't stormed, and morph them into archons?  That actually happened in game 4 of this series, apparently not a new innovation or anything, just something that is done against heavy muta allins.

Another interesting thing is how heavy Rain is on dragoons basically every game.  And dragoons with a few storms look pretty much unstoppable; dragoons are only very mildly soft-countered by hydras, and a few storms can tip that balance.

The third thing that does jump out to me is just how many storms he landed on mutalisks--generally mutas are used to pick off high templar, and that certainly does happen in this series, but a combination of having a lot of dragoons around to punish diving and just landing storms on top of mutas makes it less impactful.

On the zerg end...most of these games got to Lurkers, that very consistently was the tech choice after ling hydra muta scourge.  But only one game out of 4 or so that got to that tech did zerg actually win after getting out lurkers, and even then the Lurkers were somewhat low impact--there was just a big hydra attack that managed to get a nice surround on some dragoons, and there happened to be 4 lurkers.  No lurker contain, no sniping observers.

[metroid composite]

Starcraft

OK, does any of this change my positioning of anything on the tier list?

Lurker (currently D-tier)--mmm...I mean, don't think so.  Protoss was already looking like its most core matchup, but given a choice about playing against protoss without hydras, or playing against protoss without lurkers, the choice still seems fairly obvious.

Archon (currently E tier): well, ok, so as a stand-alone merge immediately unit, I've still seen it in fewer ASL games than Scout (which I have a tier below it).  Between not being able to morph archons and having observers that don't cloak...pretty sure observers that don't cloak would hurt more in every one of these games (Observer being D tier).  Archon in E seems ok.

High Templar: don't even have them rated yet.

Dragoon (Currently A, but flagged as "low A"): So...maybe dragoon doesn't need the "low A" flag.  I think losing dragoons would hurt protoss more than losing zealots--hurt more against terran, hurt more against protoss, maybe hurt a little less against zerg, but...based on these games still hurt quite a bit.

Dragoon vs Vulture

PvP: Dragoon should win, I think? although vultures will fight pretty good for a while--only when we get to large armies that extra range, lower health to reaver shots, goons packing more army supply into a smaller area really push toss ahead.

PvT: Maybe slight vulture lean.  I mean...resource expenditures will be a mess.  Protoss gets all the mineral units (vulture zealot) terran gets all the gas units (dragoon tank).  Terran will have no mobility, though, no harassing vultures, and vultures are a big part of reaver drop defence, so they lose that too.  But on the other hand, if terran gets a big army across the map, not sure a protoss ground army really stops that.  I think carriers are the deciding point, though.  Use vultures, use stall tactics like laying mines, survive till carriers.

PvZ: Maybe dragoon.  Hard to say; vultures do not shoot mutas, and that is a very big deal.  Vultures are probably a little better against most of the ground units.  A bit better against hydras.  Lurkers...it's close (Lurkers are medium, so 75% damage from dragoons, 50% damage from Vultures, dragoons maybe very slightly better).  Although presumably vultures would build out of the robo, so big downside there too.

TvT: Probably vulture.  Assuming dragoon is a barracks unit, that's...really good for rushes--something to do with the barracks, but bad long-term--there's no mineral dump unit from the factory.

TvZ: Maybe dragoon for the reverse reason--would be a barracks unit.  Good complement for marines against lurkers and ultras.  Bad against dark swarm.

So...maybe 3-2 dragoon.

Yeah, and some of zealot being flagged as high might have come from "if you trade them to terran terran beats up zerg under dark swarm" but I've been re-thinking how units traded to terran will work under dark swarm for this list (dark swarm will stop or partially stop them, just like all zerg units get hit by irradiate).

Dragoon to unconditional A then?

(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Dark Templar, Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier

(gap)

(D tier?)
Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

Meanwhile, since splitting C tier into a C and D tier, I've been wondering about dark templar, squinting at them in C and thinking "is that right, though?"  I believe one of the comparisons I used to slot them into C was observers, but those are D now.

DT vs Medic+Marine

TvZ: Medic+Marine win by a lot.

TvT: Might be a mild DT win; can walk up invisibly to a tank and hit.

TvP: Might be a mild DT win, but unclear.  Protoss already tends to need detection against terran cause of mines, so not sure how much DT adds, although protoss losing DT is big.  Assuming terran gets enough to defend a rush (something minor to build out of a barracks that makes them not die I guess) losing marine is pretty minor...but because of gas stealing not irrelevant--sometimes it's correct if you really get denied gas to get a second barracks, throw down an academy, and do a 2 base marine medic attack; seen that a few times this season of ASL.

PvZ: Medic+Marine win.

PvP: DT win, but it's mild.  Don't want to make medic+marine against reaver+goon.

So I mean, 3-2, but the 3s tend to be very mild, and the 2s tend to be big.

Dark Templar vs Hydra

PvZ: Hydra wins

PvP: Probably Hydra.  Maybe they drop off once reavers are out, but should kinda beat dragoons before then.

PvT: Maybe DT?  In the long run, you want dragoons over hydras I think, so maybe some timing attacks with hydras, but I don't have a lot of faith in those since hydras also need uprages.

TvZ: Hydra.  Don't think DT does very much when terran always gets turrets and science vessels.  But hydra kinda important against Battlecruiser, and seems to be a popular tech option against some off-meta stuff like wraith rushes and goliath openings.

ZvZ: does not matter.

3-1 hydra.

OK, what about D-tier units?

DT vs Lurker

PvP: DT should win.  Lurkers don't do much vs mass goons, and have a harder time cheesing wins.

PvT: DT, just all around better vs terran mech.

PvZ: Lurker.  Lurker contains are important.  Lurkers up ramps stop zealot runbys.  Don't think DTs can quite fill the same role.

ZvZ: doesn't matter

ZvT: Lurker.  You aren't going to walk up with a melee unit like DT into marine+science vessel armies.

2-2, so matching D-tier okay so far.

DT vs Wraith

PvP: Probably a mild DT lean.  Wraith could be good for denying shuttle drops, but...gotta ask yourself, since protoss already doesn't make corsairs to shut down shuttle drops, why would they make Wraiths?  Realistically you just don't want to invest into stargate in this matchup.

PvT: Maybe mild wraith lean?  Both sides are sad.  Terran has more use for Wraith than DT in this matchup. I think this does add a lot of predictability for protoss, though.  You know you can reaver drop, and that they can't hard counter it with a wraith.  You know you can Carrier transition, and Wraith can actually help you here, the same way Mini used scouts against Terran in the finals, but actually just a better unit instead.

PvZ: Probably DT lean?  Not really seeing what Wraith would do in this matchup.

TvT: Complicated, not sure.  Wraiths definitely have a place in TvT, but DTs would too.

TvZ: Maybe Wraiths?  There are wraith builds to snipe overlords.  Don't know what you'd do with DTs without wraiths to snipe overlords.

OK, sure, DT to D-tier.

(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

Starcraft

Bisu vs Light:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkcsCsYvhjQ

So the one real neat thing here is corsairs against terran.  Game 4, Light responds to carriers with wraiths.  Bisu sniffs it out, and makes lots of observers and a few corsairs.

One interesting push that went one-base bio with medics after falling super far behind in the earlygame, and ran into dark templar which immediately ended the push, so that's another tool besides reaver that can shut down bio.

Otherwise, more of what I expect to see in this matchup.  Other than early cheese games, in ASL lately seems like protoss going Carrier wins, and protoss not going carrier loses.  One carrier loss where Protoss just lost something like 10 dragoons to spider mines, and couldn't hold the push.  (Push showed up when he had like 1 interceptor--10 more dragoons probably holds off that push).  But the conclusion that carriers are the way to play this matchup past the earlygame still feels more or less correct.

---

One note from the commentators that I have double checked again is incorrect from in-game testing--Tasteless makes the claim that Valkyries destroy Corsairs.  This is not true--I've run the test of 3 corsairs vs 2 valkyries (equal cost, equal supply) corsairs narrowly win.  I've run the test of 6 corsairs vs 4 valkyries (equal cost, equal supply) corsairs narrowly win.

I believe this rumor came from the idea that Valkyries have 2 armour, and Corsairs spam 5 damage attacks, so their 5 damage is reduced to 3 damage, 60% of their normal damage.   And that's fine and all, but...Corsairs also have 1 armour, lowering Valkyrie damage from 6 to 5, and then they're medium so that 5 becomes 5*0.75 = 3.75.  So...Valkyries are dealing 62.5% damage back (to the corsair's hulls, full damage to corsair shields).  And just...for a unit that costs 50% more, Valkyrie numbers are not a lot higher than Corsair numbers.  180 health on Corsairs to 200 on Valks.  14.9 DPS on Corsairs vs 17.9 DPS on Valks.

All in all, a valkyrie takes...13 hits to get through the shields, and 27 hits to get through the body; 40 hits total to kill a Corsair.  Corsair takes 66 hits total to kill a Valkyrie.  And like...bear in mind, that if you have a unit with twice the cost, it needs to take 300% the time to be killed to be cost neutral in a 2v1.  This is like 165% time to be killed for 150% cost/supply, so...yeah, not great.  It's more complicated cause there's splash damage involved, possibly with high enough numbers, like maxed out on valkyries vs maxed out on corsairs, maybe valkyries win that?  But what is the game scenario where you get more than 6 corsairs vs 4 valkyries?

[metroid composite]

starcraft

rain vs soma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCf040jYjGE

One game (game 3) that actually got into super lategame, with hivetech, cracklings, a couple defilers built, although I only saw one dark swarm and don't think I saw a relevant plague.  So ok, a defiler spotting, very rare in this matchup for ASL--games usually don't get that late.  But...they didn't do much.

I suppose the interesting note is that there was maybe a little more emphasis on Lurkers than perhaps typical for an ASL--lurker tech basically every game; no raw hydra bust.  Hydras still looking like the most important component of the army vs protoss, but Lurkers in this series looking not far behind.  Looking a bit more like Dragoon+Zealot vs terran mech--Dragoon is the most important component, but zealot not far behind.

[metroid composite]

OK, there's one spellcaster up there right now.

Defiler--going by both Tasteless and Artosis' list, defiler would be higher than science vessel for sure, possibly S tier.  I...think there's some merit for it being very high just because of the strategies it shuts down.  Like...protoss can't go carriers against zerg, defilers are too effective against that.  Which...makes it similar to reavers maybe--not the most built unit outside of one matchup, but the mere fact that it exists just changes the game.

Reaver vs Defiler

ZvZ: unchanged

ZvT: Quite...possibly a mild reaver win, actually?  You can't make bio against reavers, which forces terran into mech, which forces terran into mass goliaths or they'll just die to mutas.  But pure goliaths are bad against reavers.  I'm...not 100% sure, though--the overlord drop and speed upgrades are both locked behind lair, and take longer to research than a spire takes to build, so reaver is hitting really late, maybe that's enough time to set up defences.  But...if the terran isn't dead from the combined stress of defending against reavers and defending against muta ling, they probably win in the ultra lategame.  Mutas eventually have a shelflife, enough valkyries and/or science vessels and the Zerg will need to switch tech.  And once zerg is off of mutas, it becomes something like vulture tank battlecruiser where reavers are pretty bad. and defilers would be nice.

ZvP: Thinking defiler?  Can you live without reavers?  Yeah, sure looks like it.  They are considered good in the super lategame.  Does taking away defiler do anything?  Yeah, makes carriers viable; carriers, backed up by corsairs to deny scourge just sound rough.  Does defiler do anything for protoss?  Also yes--plague is good.  Dark swarm can punish an army that is too hydra heavy.

PvP: Reaver, I think?  Defiler is potentially devastating to the almost pure dragoon armies, but...reaver is just out way earlier on the tech tree.  Like...38s for cybernetic core, 50s for robo, 19s for robo support bay, 44s to build a reaver.  About 150s after the first building to get a reaver out.  Compare to 63s for lair, 38s for queen's nest, 75s for hive, 38s for defiler mound, 63s to research consume cause the defilers won't do anything before that research is done.  About 280s until defilers are relevant.  I think the closest parallel would be like...getting out an arbiter.  Defilers on the protoss tech tree probably need an arbiter tribunal or...even that's not really equivalent research.  Probably add another layer to the tech tree--like after the templar archives you build the defiler mound, but it takes 100s to build or something.  Anyway--it's a 2 minute window where the reaver player should just get a substantial advantage, and even if they turtle hard enough to get dark swarm, reavers kill under dark swarm so it's not the end of the world.

PvT: Huh, defilers I think?  Complicated.  So...bio becomes a real build for terran, presumably with tank support.  But on the flip side, the protoss can get to defilers, and that kinda sucks for terran.  If you go mech, dark swarms on the dragoons and high templars sucks for terran; can't pick off the important units.  Dark swarm on the tanks and running zealots there is also probably bad for terran.  If you go bio, storm can definitely fight your army, but shuttles dropping zealots on tanks won't work, and carrier switches will be hard to justify cause the terran will be starting with so much anti-air.  And...dark swarm is still going to be a problem long term.

So...ok, this seems to be 2-2?  Let's try a different one.

Defiler vs Vulture

ZvZ: lean Vullture.  Not sure exactly what tech they would require--maybe just a hydra den?  They come out pretty early.  But the aggro builds with vultures would be real.  Can't make a perfect line of zerglings at the top of a ramp and expect to be safe.  A single vulture getting in could kill a lot of drones and lings, especially without ling speed.  If the game goes to mutas, I think vulture production stops, but they're not nothing.

ZvT: Lean vulture?  Ok, so as I dreamt up a few posts back, defiler traded to terran does something actually useful for terran--so dark swarm is like "melee units can't deal damage under this" instead of the other way around.  The problem is mass vulture kinda destroys mass bio and they're a ranged unit, and way, way earlier than defilers, so mass marines just doesn't sound like an option.  This forces terran into mech, but mech without vultures too, so that's gross.  Mass siege tank and a defiler that stops melee units from damaging siege tank sounds very intimidating, until you realize that's a pure gas army with no mineral dump.

ZvP: Vulture.  I...yeah, just so good against protoss.

TvT: Vulture.  Ironically for this matchup specifically, Terran would prefer that defilers stop ranged attacks, then there'd be a solid argument for defilers to win the matchup, but I think getting to pick if you block melee or ranged by matchup is maybe a bit much.

TvP: Vulture.  Uh, yeah, take away the best unit against protoss?  Dark swarm to protect siege tanks against zealot attacks is nice and all, but...vultures already protect siege tanks way earlier in the game.  Defilers brick carriers, so that's nice, but terran doesn't really have an answer to zealots.

So uh...that's a 5-0 for vulture, interesting.  Might just be a fluke.

Defiler vs Dragoon

ZvZ: does not matter I think.  Has the same general weaknesses as hydras for this matchup--deal half damage to zerglings and mutas, require upgrades to not be total garbage.  Without any of dragoon's strengths--has high HP so dragoon armies don't just melt to AoE.

ZvP: Dragoon I'm fairly sure.  So like...you could tech to defiler to throw down dark swarm, turn off the hydras, and make this lurker vs zealot, but like...lurkers are ok with that matchup, and hydras can still snipe the observer.  Also, zerg could make dragoons instead of hydras, and probably would.  Better against psi storms, longer range, the range alone would be a problem for dragoon busts instead of hydra busts.

ZvT: Defiler by a mile.  I don't particularly imagine a good time to build dragoons in this matchup.  Like...sure, if terran goes mech you can.

PvP: Dragoon.  Like...yeah, defiler's not going to matter, the protoss with dragoons kills the protoss with whatever random nonsense they make instead.

PvT: Dragoon.  Defiler reaver zealot sounds great and all, but...are you fighting off masses of vultures with...reaver zealot?  Yeah, that sounds pretty ineffective.

So...3-1.  But the 1 win is a big win.

Still...let's try this against something in B-tier, I guess there is the obvious

Defiler vs Science Vessel

ZvZ: Lean Vessel.  It'll be hard to protect from scourge, slower than mutas and scourge, and probably won't come up every game, but is good enough against mutas to come up sometimes.

ZvT: Lean...vessel?  So...a lot of things happen.  Terran trades away their detector, gets a non-cloaking observer as a replacement.  Needs to produce those basically all game to deal with lurkers.  Terran trades away their best muta defence, now needs to produce Valkyries possibly all game.  Terran trades away arguably their best lurker killing unit, now needs to build something like siege tanks instead.  Zerg picks up science vessel, what does that do...irradiates Terran defilers, and I tried out irradiate just now against a group of clumped marines; seemed decent, killed all 12.  Marines don't seem to auto-run when they are hit by irradiate, so the player would need to be looking at the right spot at the right time.  What does defiler do for terran?  Well, stop melee attacks, so makes them immune to ling ultra.  But...I mean, zerg has enough ranged options that I don't think they just die to terran dark swarm; maybe forces some uncomfortable tech like hydra.  Whereas terran going valkyrie dying to mass muta?  Yep, seen that happen.

ZvP: Lean...vessel.  I know defilers can get built super lategame, but EMP blanking storm is probably relevant way sooner.

TvT: Breaking my own rule slightly here and saying defiler.  So...this is another case of "changing what dark swarm does actually screws the move out of TvT relevance."  Let's just say defiler anyway since vessels pretty low impact here.

TvP: Defiler.  Plague is excellent anti carrier, and also excellent anti ground army, and modified dark swarm helps.  Maybe arbiter recalls become more of a problem, but not by much--emp isn't great recall defence, recalls still happen, and terrans can still win when they do.

So...3-2 defiler, with a bit of cheating to make that 2 possible; maybe defiler in B?

Would zreg rather give up defiler or scourge...yeah, that's easy, defiler.  ZvZ and ZvP obviously just need scourge.  ZvT might lean defiler, but even that isn't a blowout--scourge for vessels pretty important too, and without scourge, drops become a problem the moment the mutas are off the map, SC2 style.  Without scourge, battlecruisers which already decent lategame become a really serious problem.  Well...defilers help against BCs too--maybe the lack of defilers would hurt more than the lack of scourge?

Anyway, this being argued, to me suggests B or below is probably right.

There's no way defiler is C...right?  Defiler vs hydra is like...lose against terran or lose against protoss.  Eh...? Maybe...?  Guess we should check some C units?

Defiler vs Carrier

ZvZ: doesn't matter, I think.

ZvP: Defiler.  Zerg getting carrier sounds exciting till you realize that they can't use it, since toss now has carrier.

ZvT: Defiler.  Zerg carriers can be irradiated.

PvP: Defiler.  Carriers don't matter, but dark swarm and plague definitely could in a long PvP.

PvT: Unsure.  Carriers seem very important to protoss, but maybe defiler just means they don't even need to go air.

So...3-0.  One more in C tier to be sure.

Defiler vs Marine+Medic

TvT: Defiler.  Plague.  (Plus dark swarm if we feel lenient about making it relevant for this matchup).

TvZ: Maybe lean marine+medic?  Don't love the idea of a forced meching terran--need to commit hard to goliaths or mutas kill you, but if you do pure goliaths and don't scout well enough, mass hydra will just kill you.

TvP: Defiler.  Remember, we're assuming terran gets something to build out of barracks early on to not just die to cheese.  And Plague alone is a very big deal.

ZvZ: marine+medic.  Deny scouting from the first overlord.  Some bust options.  A mineral sink that helps you win the muta war.

ZvP: defiler?  Plague, dark swarm seem relevant.  Removing defiler from zerg probably matters a little bit.  There's probably a little bit of early cheese and cheese defence with marine+medic, but long term I think you want hydra vs protoss due to dying a little less to storm.

OK, going with B for defiler for now.

(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Defiler, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

OK, the other good spellcaster is obviously high templar.

High templar are clearly very good, but also very slow and easy to pick off, tend to lag behind the army.

I guess start by comparing like to like, so other spellcasters.

High Templar vs Defiler

ZvZ: Probably even.  Maybe the mildest lean towards high templar?  Nearly always too easy to pick off with nothing much to protect it, but landing a storm on mutas, even if they dodge quickly, 30 damage on all of them and forcing movement in an awkward direction? Might be worth it if you think you can keep the HT alive and force the engagement in the right place.

ZvT: Lean defiler I...think?  So...on the one hand, no defilers, that's really good for terran.  But...on the other hand, high templar, which are midgame probably lair tech units (ready about the same time as lurkers).  Terran can't really be out on the map with a pure bio army nearly as early in the game without massive risk.  But...in the long run, high templar move slow, don't have consume, plague is better against science vessels, a couple storms won't actually stop a push but dark swarm will.  Same cost too, and defilers are slightly tankier, so no edge there.  High Templars would force terran to turtle a little longer, but I don't think they allow zerg to just win the game, and terran should take the lategame.

ZvP: High Templar.  Just...die to hydras without them.

PvP: Hmm...evenish?  High templar don't really get built in this matchup, even though they would do things if they did get built.  Would defilers get built, bearing in mind that it would be a very slow long tech to get them?  Eh, probably not.  Matchup is too volatile and midgame focused for that kind of slow tech.

PvT: Defiler, probably.  Plague is maybe worse than storm against terran, but defilers have dark swarm.  And consume; bring some probes to consume.


So...1-2.  Maybe 2-2 if you are generous about some high templar strategy existing in ZvZ.

Science Vessel vs High Templar

PvP: don't think it matters; if high templar don't get built here, vessels probably don't either; EMP is fine, but don't think it's substantially better than storm in the matchup.

PvZ: Hmm...very complicated, but maybe lean vessel?  So...you can't just replace high templar with science vessels as hydra defence.  Irradiate is ok, but it is not storm.  Science vessels cost more.  Hydras are also like...the one zerg unit that can deal with irradiate (if you morph the hydra into a lurker egg, the irradiate will stay on the egg, and can hurt surrounding hydras, but will not damage the egg, and the build time of lurker is such that irradiate will fall off right about when the lurker hatches; you can also just cancel back into a hydra).  But on the flip side, science vessels are a lot better against lurkers.  Detect them, with better movement speed and way more HP than an observer.  BUT on the third hand, zerg no longer needs to spread their lurkers, they can stack burrow multiple in the same spot, and science vessel only hits one.  Science Vessels are also better against mutas, and would presumably build out of the stargate, so give a use for that building after the early corsairs.  Also frees up the robo to not build observers, which is a big deal--if the robo can build reavers while you build detection with another building, lurker contains kinda break.  I could go either way here--worse against hydra is a big deal, but I think better against everything else tips this towards vessel, and maybe reavers can deal with hydras well enough to stay alive.

PvT: High Templar.  Good unit when the enemy is forced to attack into you.  Honestly don't even hate it against carriers.

TvT: High templar.  Storm drops on mineral lines sound pretty good.  And...I don't even hate illusions for this matchup.

TvZ: Vessel.  Like...to be clear, it's not a complete slam dunk here--dropping storm on top of a dark swarm is a great counter to dark swarm.  But...die to mutas.  I mean, maybe don't die to mutas, cause you are forced into valkyries every game, so you can stay alive there, but are immediately contained by lurkers.  And mutas are going to stay more relevant all game cause they're great at sniping high templar.  And defilers are literally never going to die cause there's no irradiate.

2-2.

---

Okay, B tier is seeming ok here, but maybe spellcasters are weird.  Let's do a non-spellcaster.

High Templar vs Goliath

PvP: Maybe a small lean towards goliath?  8 anti-air range matches the range of a reaver, and it can harass the shuttle.  Terrible into dragoons, so you'd only want like...one to stick in your own shuttle (otherwise it dies to a reaver shot) but making 1 and getting the 100/100 upgrade for 8 range might be worth it to harass the shuttle?

PvT: Goliath wins.  Storm is nice but not super central to the matchup, but without goliath, carrier transitions just become monstrous.

PvZ: High Templar wins by a lot.  Core unit, vs unit you will probably not build.

TvT: Maybe Goliath?  High templars are nice, but I think Goliath is more core to terran.

TvZ: High Templar.  Storm to counter dark swarm is good.

2-3.

High Templar vs Scourge

ZvZ: Scourge.  Just...match the pace of the matchup.

ZvT: Hmm...lean scourge?  So...without scourge, vessel count getting out of control is a concern.  Terran being able to do dropship play due to lack of scourge is a concern.  Zerg not having scourge against valkyries is a concern--really weakens muta openers.  But...on the other hand...if there's a signle high templar, a bio terran can't really do a midgame push with marine medic.  The 1-2 punch of plaguing science vessels into storming science vessels also becomes an option; much later, but an option.  But...eraser vessels (where the vessel irradiates itself) now also becomes extremely good with no scourge to kill it, and mutas aren't a good answer to vessels either; is zerg just forced into what...hydras?  Yuck.  So like...yeah, moving out with a marine ball becomes scary, but you can just move out with vessels without the marines, or drop the marines somewhere obnoxious, and zerg can't do very much.

ZvP: High templar.  Like...yeah, ok, maybe Corsairs could become a problem.  But that's why you hydra bust them, and they can't make high templar so that should just work.

PvP: Scourge.  Murder yourself some shuttles.

PvT: I mean, I think the correct answer here is probably high templar, just because of how rarely terran builds anything that flies.  But the idea of teching to a reaver drop, scouting and realizing the terran has a wraith waiting, and  then making a scourge does tickle me a little.  Shutting down a dropship with vultures is also a little nifty.  But...as much  as I don't think it's as good as carrier tech, you can go high templars all game against terran, and protosses do so frequently in ASL (usually lose cause they're not going carriers, but small sample size, presumably it works in their practice games).

2-3

Yeah, High Templar in B alongside Science Vessel and Defiler seems to be more or less lining up.  Maybe unintuitive that its below dragoon, but man, dragoon so much more important to both TvP and PvP.  I guess the weird one is reaver, but...I think that has more to do with trades.  Reaver in the hands of another race tends to beat protoss, and also breaks all sorts of stuff with TvZ, and also makes the protoss lose PvP (unlike dropping HT).


(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Defiler, High Templar, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

Alright...ghost.

I've seen them built against carriers in ASL, which is the one relevant thing they can do, but...still lost to carriers, so IDK if that counts.  Although...I guess they are relevant in TvT.  Nuclear missile launches, unironically.  Cloaking too.

That's probably enough to keep them out of the Devourer tier.  In a tier with scout, guardian, and firebat?  I mean...yeah, they can probably hang with scout, maybe a little worse.  They are better than guardian.  They are quite a bit worse than firebats; I mean...there's arguments to move firebat up.  I don't think they belong with battlecruiser, valkyrie, or ultralisk, though.

Sure, that's ghost sorted.

---

Queen...maybe needs some thought.  Cause like...it's mostly used to counter siege tanks, but that's a lot more relevant for non-zerg races, and it would also be ok against zerg.

Queen vs Valkyrie

ZvZ: Valkyrie wins this comfortably.

ZvT: Lean queen I think?  Spawn broodling working on ultras, defilers, and lurkers seems fairly nice--it's like irradiate, except immediately removes the problem, instead of letting them participate in a coming fight, letting the defiler throw down one last dark swarm.  Instantly getting rid of a lurker and letting terran push through.  I think that has applications.  Valkyrie has applications too, obviously, as an anti-muta option, but I think I lean queen here, even though it's 150 energy to do what irradiate does for 75 energy.  Queen's also cheaper, but takes just as many scourge to kill and can just outrun a scourge all the way back to turrets.  Mass tanks also become a notably stronger lategame.

ZvP: Valkyrie.  They don't beat corsairs, as I've covered recently, but...they punish corsairs that run away, and with scourge you can force corsairs to run, so that's actually very relevant; zerg can probably just take air dominance.

TvT: Queen.  Repeatedly murdering tanks in TvT with spells?  Yep, worth.  Obviously you lose a little air strength, but still worth.

Queen vs Battlecruiser

ZvZ: Probably doesn't matter.  Don't think you can turtle enough for BCs in a typical game.

ZvT: Hm, not sure.  Terran loses BCs, which have become a lategame staple recently.  Terran gain queens; already went over the good things they do--double the energy cost of irradiate, can't hit air units like mutas, but kills it now instead of 30 seconds from now.  Zerg pick up battlecruisers which...is probably not nothing.  A bit like Ultralisks in that they have too much armour for marines to kill efficiently, but ideally they also yamato a science vessel before they go down--but would still die to irradiate as they would become biological when zerg picked them up.  Really not sure who's better here.

ZvP: Maybe a battlecruiser lean.  In small numbers, like one BC vs three corsairs they actually are cost effective vs corsairs.  If you find a nice cliff to abuse, dragoons won't do well against them.  Not remotely scared of storm.

TvT: easy queen win.  The siege tank killer.

TvP: doesn't matter.

Yeah, this seems to be 1-1 (with the TvT queen win being a pretty good win).  Although a couple matchups that I didn't call which could be called as a mild BC lean.

So...E tier.  D tier sounds...ambitious.


(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Defiler, High Templar, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk, Queen

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat, Ghost

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

OK, so two more to go, arbiter and dark archon.

Would dark archon do very much in trades?  Mmm...zerg would use it ZvZ probably, just instantly win the fight.  ZvT...I doubt maelstrom is good.  It's dark swarm that also works on firebats, and doesn't let them retreat out of the dark swarm.  But...lasts 1/5 as long from a unit that costs twice as much and doesn't have consume.  So...probably not even worth researching maelstrom.  But...I am entertaining dark archon anyway just because feedback on science vessels.  A 200 energy dark archon can feedback 4 vessels, killing any that are at full energy even if they are full health.  That...yeah.  And...if you're already building dark archons, then there is mind control.  Pretty nasty counter to battlecruisers.

Would trading dark archon to terran do anything?  Again, underwhelmed by maelstrom in all matchups.  But...mind control.  Mind control on carriers.  Mind control against zerg units that work under dark swarm like ultralisks and lurkers.

So...ok, should probably look at trades on dark archon.

Dark Archon vs Queen

ZvZ: Dark Archon should win.  I mean, I guess the counterargument is that queens don't get built for ensnare very often.  But maelstrom is such a bigger swing in the muta fight.

ZvT: I will lean Dark Archon here mostly for feedback on  science vessels.

ZvP: Mmm...not 100% convinced it even gets built, but mild lean to dark archon cause of feedback on high templars.

PvP: doesn't matter.

PvT: Queen to kill tanks.

3-1 dark archon win.  Although some of those wins were pretty mild.

Hmm...is there a chance dark archon is actually a tier up from queen?  No way, right?

Dark Archon vs Lurker

ZvZ: Well...ok Dark Archon, probably.

ZvT: Lurker.  Yeah they can be skipped, but dark archon sounds more skippable.

ZvP: Lurker

PvP: doesn't matter.

PvT: doesn't matter.

2-1 lurker win.

Dark Archon vs Wraith

TvT: Wraith.  Dark archon might have some applications here, but not as much as "unit that can kill tanks."

TvP: Mmm...I'll give a nod to dark archon here.  Wraith can really shut down a reaver drop, but isn't mandatory.  Whereas Dark Archon could mind control carriers, and against ground armies, maelstrom on zealots might even be worth it.

TvZ: Dark archon.  There are uses for wraith in this matchup.  A surprise cloak build.  Overlord hunting.  Killing guardians.  But Dark archon to mind control stuff like ultras to fight under dark swarm...sounds probably better than these.  Maelstrom...the fact that it exists might punish things like lurker stacking.  Feedback on defilers is an instant kill on any defiler that has energy for a dark swarm.

PvP: Probably no change, but wraith might be relevant as anti-shuttle tech.  Against a single target like a shuttle, does slightly more damage than a corsair, and actually can hit ground, badly, but more than corsair can claim.

PvT: Wraith.  For the same reason Mini built scouts in last season's finals, except better.  Air unit shoot at pure ground siege tank vulture army.

2-2

Hmm...well there's one more we can do.

Dark Archon vs Dropship

TvT: Dropship.  Very core in this matchup.

TvZ: Yeah, Dark Archon.  Not likely to build a lot of dropships anyway.

TvP: Dark Archon.  Mind control those carriers.  Dropships not super important here.

PvP: Maybe Dropship?  Literally just moves faster (until shuttle is upgraded) and has more health.   Could be wrong and this should be "no difference" instead.

PvZ: Don't think it matters.  Maybe an unused stargate can make a dropship, whereas the robo might be more busy with other things.

2-2.

Yeah...feeling more like D-tier, honestly.


(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Defiler, High Templar, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith, Dark Archon

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk, Queen

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat, Ghost

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

So ok, arbiters.

Intuitively, I feel like they should be below carriers--only used in one matchup, and carriers are looking cleanly better now.  However...they are one of those matchup changing units, like reavers or science vessels.  The existence of Stasis is credited for the reason why terran can't ever go mass battlecruiser against mass carrier--at some point half the battlecruisers get stasised.

And...intuitively, should probably be ahead of dark archon.

So...probably C tier, but let's try a B-tier unit first.

Arbiter vs Defiler

ZvZ: Too minor to mention.  I mean...if you could survive to that point, stasising half the mutas almost certainly leads to a win.  But plague on the mutas would be good too, so you know; good luck reaching the super lategame tech in the most aggro matchup.

ZvT: Defiler.  Arbiters would do stuff in this matchup but...lol, it's defiler ZvT.

ZvP: Arbiter.  Imagine hydras, but they are cloaked and sniping observers.  Don't even think the spells matter that much.

PvP: doubt it matters.

PvT: Defiler probably.  Dark swarm good against terran.


So 1-2, well...that's closer than I thought; let's do one more in B tier.

Arbiter vs Science Vessel

TvT: This is probably arbiter.  Recall is gross.  Cloaking is noteworthy.

TvP: You know what, probably arbiter.  Stasis on carriers sounds like a big deal.  When the protoss army charges in in one big group, stasising some of them, and making the others walk around the stasis units sounds like it instantly blunts the attack.  Protoss detection sucks so cloaking everything is a big problem for them--continuously sniping observers and or protoss science vessels with goliaths, and then sticking the army under the arbiter sounds rough.  Widow mines still being cloaked after they pop out of the ground if the arbiter is nearby sounds stupid.  Technically recall is really gross cause you can recall siege tanks in siege mode, but that's a weird thing that only comes up when trading, so not sure how much weight to give that.

TvZ: Science Vessel.  By a massive amount.

PvP: Doubt it matters.

PvZ: Science Vessel beats up zerg, arbiter will never be built.

So...2-2, but the SV wins were big wins.

Yeah...all of these are feeling like Arbiter is...just a little shy of things in this tier.  Other stuff in this tier...would protoss rather give up arbiter or high templar; easy enough arbiter.  Would protoss rather give up shuttle or arbiter.  Easy enough: arbiter.  B tier seems to high.

So...C tier?

Arbiter vs Medic+Marine

TvT: Arbiter  (all the reasons why arbiter's good in this matchup outlined above)

TvP: Arbiter (ditto)

TvZ: Medic+Marine.  Not...convinced Arbiters get built--just seem like scourge targets.

PvP: doesn't matter

PvZ: Medic+Marine.  Beat hydras in a heads up fight.

Pretty clean 2-2

Arbiter vs Hydra

ZvZ: doesn't matter

ZvT: Arbiter.  Stasis a clump of science vessels, and then throw down a dark swarm to force the terran back.  Then, when the vessels un-stasis, and don't have marines nearby, have scourge ready.  I did test, and apparently spellcasters still gain energy while stasised, so...this doesn't deny energy to the vessels.  But...still a very threatening move.

ZvP: Hydra.  Zerg's just going to die to mass corsairs, and arbiter doesn't help.

PvP: Maybe Hydra.  Worse once the reavers are out, but there's probably a timing there.

PvT: Arbiter.  Hydra against terran...yeah, as protoss I am not sure why you would build those.  Whereas obviously arbiter vs terran is fine.

Another clean 2-2.

OK, yeah, C tier is looking right.

(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Defiler, High Templar, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier, Arbiter

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith, Dark Archon

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk, Queen

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat, Ghost

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer

[metroid composite]

OK, so the thing that is left is the workers.

As a reminder--mining with workers is always just assumed.  This is all the other things they can do, such as attack, scout, build buildings in the opponent's base, hide tech, cannon rush, steal the opponent's gas, repair, bunker rush, build turrets with a tank push.

Playing "without a worker" just means the workers will be in your base, not scout, and not attack.

OK, that out of the way...

Drone:

feeling E-tier on this one.  Tell a zerg that they have to pick between not building lurkers, or not drone scouting or attacking with drones...I think they pick lurkers, so lower than D tier.  E tier is Ultralisk, though, and yeah, zerg probably would rather be able to attack with workers to defend cheese than lose ultras.

Probe:

So probe scouting and probe harass is big in all matchups...and all these other protoss units are kinda matchup specialized.  Hmmm...shuttle, that's used in all three matchups.  Would protoss rather give up all the scouting and gas stealing, or would they rather give up shuttle (and get a weak transport with some long research time that moves slow as a replacement).  Mmm...you know, I think they'd rather give up the probe shenanigans.  Without shuttle they just lose PvP, and PvT becomes extremely rough--no dropping zealots on top of tanks, reavers become kinda impractical until later, no storm drops.  No matter what you're hurting.  Against zerg, the probe scout would be the pick, but not a big win.

But at the same time...higher than D-tier sounds right.  Protoss cares way more about probes, scouting and harassing than they do about DTs.  And...they can live with a downgraded observer to get their scouting/harassment.  So...by process of elimination, I think we land on C-tier?

SCV:

Hmm...golaith is used in all matchups, but the least by far against zerg.  Against zerg, obviously you want SCV.  Against protoss...it's not a slam dunk, because scouting is very nice, building turrets with a tank contain is very nice.  But...I think the threat of carriers is just too big.  Against terran...it is complicated, because building turrets all over the map effectively makes your supply larger because turrets don't take supply.  But...goliaths are an important part of the rock-paper-scissors.  Without them, the only mobile anti air you can make is also air units (wraiths, valkyries, battlecruisers) so I think you can force the opponent onto a heavily air based army...and then you can make goliaths to counter that heavily air based army.  So...I think it's goliath in two matchups here.

So...again looking like maybe C tier.  Is SCV D-tier?  Well Wraith and dropship would be the comparison, yeah, no question, you want SCV scouting/repairing/building turrents etc over wraith in all matchups.  And over dropship in at least all matchups except TvT (and maybe still in TvT, but dropships are quite good there).

OK, so this leaves the list looking as follows:

(S tier?)
Zergling, Siege Tank, Mutalisk

(gap)

(A tier?)
Zealot, Vulture, Reaver, Dragoon

(gap)

(B tier?)
Scourge, Corsair, Goliath, Overlord
Science Vessel, Defiler, High Templar, Shuttle (maybe on the low end of tier)

(gap)

(C tier?)
Medic+Marine, Hydra, Carrier, Arbiter, Probe, SCV

(gap)

(D tier?)
Dark Templar, Observer, Dropship, Lurker, Wraith, Dark Archon

(gap)

(E tier?)
Battlecruiser, Valkyrie, Archon, Ultralisk, Queen, Drone

(gap)

(F tier?)
Scout, Guardian, Firebat, Ghost

(gap)

(G tier?)
Devourer