I've been winning about 80% of my PvTs since I started adding more Immortals to my army. Reason being, they completely own the timing pushes that 3 rax opens up. I played against a decent ~1550 Terran player on D.Q, and I was able to convincingly hold off the "early" push with one Immortal, one Stalker, one Sentry and two Zealots. After that, I made 3 more Immortals for the second push, and I was actually able to meet him in the middle of the map and entirely destroy the typical 3 rax allin with medivacs, while expanding myself (one Immortal can take down destructible rocks really quickly of you hold some way to make sure you won't get attacked) If I'd gone straight for Colossi I would have had 2 less Immortals, and I would have had to pull back all the way to my ramp and used Forcefield to stop the push. Other games have yielded similar results, especially against early attacks and 3rax play. If I know for sure my opponent is going to be aggressive, then I grab some Immortals. As an added bonus, they might feel obligated to get ghosts for EMP, which just makes Colossi a stronger, natural progression because each ghost is like giving up 2 Vikings. I've also used them to completely hammer on Tank pushes by FFing their units back so they can't get far enough in front of the tanks to protect them from Immorals.

Anyways, my point is that Immortals are good, don't overlook them. They can take more hits than stalkers, dish out more damage than stalkers, survive an EMP better than stalkers, and they're a large pool of HP so where two stalkers might turn in to one during a fight, an Immortal can just live.

terranghost

United States980 Posts

October 10 2010 14:31 GMT

#42

On October 10 2010 21:25 D-Lite wrote:
im not sure what your getting at here, the post is called immortal vs stalker, yet it pertains no relevance to either, you start talking about colossus and HT's, in very limited situations such as colossus counters, i dont see the relevance of a post that links its self with stalker an immortals when your post turns into a rant about colossus.

better luck next time

The point is to compare the immortal's stats vs the stalkers stats but on top of that to suggest ways that could help you or transitions you would be able to do should things pose a problem to you.

Knee_of_Justice

United States388 Posts

October 10 2010 15:12 GMT

#43

Having range or speed upgrades would help the immortal. If you have to retreat from a T ball early, you just handed them a free immortal since it can't keep up ESP with slowing.

Small AoE would be sick but might make it too strong en masse

Ndugu

United States1078 Posts

October 10 2010 15:33 GMT

#44

Before I switched to Zerg I had a huge winning streak versus Terran based on swapping out my Stalker investment for immortals.

An Immortal is vastly better versus pure MMM than Stalkers. You can always warp stalkers in if anti-air needs show up.

http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=147385

This blog on the topic shows how much more effective immortals are against mixed Roach/Hydra armies. The same stats apply even more intensely to mixed marauder/marine armies, since Stalkers MELT to Marauders whereas Immortals have 100 HP of Zealot tankiness.

Grond

599 Posts

October 13 2010 13:42 GMT

#45

Listening to the latest State of the Game Artosis was talking about Immortal/Phoenix builds becoming dominant in Korea so it looks like my instincts weren't totally off. The nice part about Chargelot/Immortal/Phoenix is if you add Colossus later and he tries to focus fire them he will pay a very heavy price.

Drathmar

United States160 Posts

October 13 2010 15:29 GMT

#46

On October 10 2010 16:08 KingAce wrote:
Immortals are a terrible unit...you build immortals because you don't have immediate access to Colossus. Immortals IMO as soon it was revealed that they couldn't shoot air, they become worthless. Sure they work but if you look at roaches and marauders, it's funny to think toss is supposed to be the most powerful race. Like most toss units they're hard to mass produce, expensive but not cost effective. I would prefer a buffed up stalker in exchange for the remove of the immortal.

HT's especially against terran mmm might seem like a great idea, but I haven't seem them work in a straight up match.

First of all Storms do crap damage, and can be dodged, and mmm can easily retreat get healed up then return. So protoss build a lot of HTs, however, HTs aren't attack units, once they run out of energy your gateway units suck by default and you have so few of them because you spent your supply on HTs. And Archons have no place anywhere it seems.

No I think the Koreans are right, Colossus is the most profitable tech route in a standard game, you just have to protect them better. That is what GSL2 is going to show us.

I think protoss is going to have a rough time to be honest, on the pro level. Us toss players might not be whiny but that will change I predict.

All of this is completely wrong.

HT's are great against MMM, especially once terran go viking and from listening to SOTG and Day9 and other streams a few have said the koreans are starting to experiment with them.

Archons are also very useful in SMALL numbers. They tank a shitload of damage (especially if you have shield upgrades), do splash (are great against bunched marines), and can help hit air.

Colossi WERE considered the best unit before but it's slowly swinging towards using them midgame to hold until the tech to templar recently. Storms also don't do crap damage and if they are running guess what... you get free shots at them with your stalkers and colossi (you should still have a couple colossi even with HT, I think these 2 in combination really strengthen both of them). Not to mention HT can rip through terran medivacs like they are nothing so he CAN'T retreat and heal. Not to mention 2 Templars can rape most terran drops.

As for immortals, if you can't micro well enough to FF with them, ya they suck, but as long as you use them to FF against marauders, or tanks, they are AMAZING. Not to mention they tank a shitload of damage for your army.

hoovehand

United Kingdom542 Posts

October 13 2010 15:32 GMT

#47

the size, speed and range of immortals makes them a crap investment compared to stalkers against non-armored ground units.

but they do a good job against armored stuff.

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

October 13 2010 15:35 GMT

#48

It's really the mobility factor, don't underemphasize it in your OP! (seems like you did).

sikyon

Canada1045 Posts

October 13 2010 15:42 GMT

#49

I've had good success lateish game in PvZ with HT/zealot/sentry/mass immortal. The reason being is that lategame zerg like to get ultras to counter collossi, but if you invest heavily in immortals (I'm talking like 8-10 immortals) you can roll over the roach/ultra builds that zerg players are using in T3. with abit of HT backup.

NukeTheBunnys

United States1004 Posts

October 13 2010 16:12 GMT

#50

I wouldn't want to swap out all my stalkers, or even a majority of my stalkers for immortals, but when you add 2-3 into a normal ground army it really pays off. They do ok vs non armored units, not great by any means but not absolutely terrible. VS armored targets they own face so hard. 1 immortal does ~34 dps vs armored targets, that is higher then a DT for less gas(and 100 more minerals) and they are a hell of lot more durable 300 hp+shilds vs 120 and thats ignoring the hardened shield effect.

VS a big terran bio ball you do need some kind of AOE, but you can do some pretty devastating pushes with gateway/immortal before they get to a critical mass of bio and a bunch of medivacs. One strat I have been trying recently is getting robobay for the observer and a few immortals, and getting a relatively quick twilight council. Its save to expand on, protects from the banshees, and gives you the option of HT or collosus depending on if you see a starport or ghosts.