Temple guard are in a bad place as they combine 1 wound with a potential 2+ re-rollable rend-protected save. Which is either far too resilient, or squishy as hell depending on how easy the acces to mortal wounds is.
Phoenix guard have a similar issue, as temple guard, though a bit less OP against regular wounds, while far less vulnerable against mortal wounds which makes them far more annoying as now you have no clear counter anymore. At least guard have a clear weakness. In general, I'd say a defensive unit that has only 1 wound and relies on a good (ward) save is always going to be problematic in AoS.
The bastiladon I'd actually consider fairly balanced. It's sturdy, but not impossible to kill as it doesn't have a very large amount of wounds nor does it have acces to a save after save. And it can't take artifacts. If it were a hero and you'd stick for example a gryph feather on it it'd quickly become problematic. Simply throwing a large volume of attacks at him will do the trick, and you're not even going to need 100's of hits to succeed at it either.
There's 1 issue with that drawback though; mobility doesn't always matter. Yeah it's a great drawback when he's on the other side of the table. But if he's already sitting on top of the objective then it doesn't matter that he's slow.
And this imho is one of the biggest flaws designers tend to make. Something is made OP in one department, with a significant drawback in another, unrelated, aspect to balance it out. But since the advantages and disadvantages are unrelated you end up in situations where the drawback simply doesn't matter. And yes, usually that drawback will be enough to keep the thing in check with respect to win-rates. But that doesn't make it any less OP.
Also, it further aggrevates the arms race. Yeah it's slow, but sometimes you have no choice you're going to need to kill them. So stuff needs to be able to kill them. So a counter unit is designed that can kill them but this counter is so powerfull that "normal" anvils get completly annihilated, so we need even hyper-der anvils and the cycle continues...
yes, as I said, that one can be OP in certain situations/matchups, but as far as I've seen so far in most it isn't too terrible (yet).
Also, chameleons are a seperate thing entirely, even if they have their own teleport
Provided the downsides are actually relevant. Which is often not the case.
Hence the caveat most allegiance abilities are fine. OBR especially seems to be rather ridiculous.
Except winrates are fairly meaningless as there's too many factors contributing to them so reducing "balanced" to this simple number is pointless. My favorite example of this League of legends, where you play using champions. Champions often have different winrates depending on which level of play you're looking at. Certain champions are super OP, but easy to shut down, so they are oppresive as hell in low level play, while completly irrelevant at higher levels. Others are too complicated, but mastery pays off, so at low level they don't achieve anything while at the top they consistently win. So regardless of which level of play you're going to take as the benchmark, your balance will be wonky at the other levels... and that's just looking at 1 factor that influences winrates...
Which I consider bad, to an extent at least.
When I said "lesser" troops I did mean relativly unsupported mediocre troops. So let's say throwing 40 unsupported saurus knights at em Not throwing 100 fully buffed up clanrats at em.
Imho, that's problematic in itself. An army should not only be counterable by specific other armies. Don't get me wrong, obviously being a fast shooty army will give you certain advantages over a slow choppy army. But you shouldn't need to be a fast shooty army to actually be able to fight the slow choppy army. Other compositions should still be able to succeed.
