Jump to content

Top Tier Units Pre and Post GHB2017


jamierk

Recommended Posts

Just interested to see what the effect GHB2017 has had on 'those' units which we all know and generally feature at the top tables. I'm looking at:

Bloodletters -> Went up in cost but overall cheaper at units of 30 (how does that make sense?)

Judicators -> Yet to see changes

Kurnoth Hunters -> Points increase 

Stormfiends -> Unchanged in points, but marked as 'changed' in book, scroll change maybe?

Skyfires -> + 40 pts and Sharman + 40 points

Mournguls -> Yet to see changes

Arrer Boys -> Max 30 cap

 

Feel free to add to this list, I find it helpful to get a grip on the meta before and after the changes.

Cheers

Jamie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

Mourngul is not actually a model that was seen a lot at the top tables, for what it's worth.

That is more due to inherent issues with death. Death is a melee only army in a meta that continues to be dominated by shooting. Death is not even the most efficient melee only army; Sayl bombs are the king of the current melee-only lists. Death can do pretty well with a double movement Necrosphinx, but since the model is impossible to get now, its not going to be very common. Mourngul is really strong but its not going to stand up to the amount of shooting the top lists can throw at it right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it the destruction allegiance trait has now been changed to only trigger on a single unit on a roll of a 6 from a hero. Which will majorly change the list building as it is no longer flat better than the traits from sub factions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 13on2D6 said:

Interesting around stormfiends- are the weapon choices now limited?

 

9 hours ago, jamierk said:

Stormfiends -> Unchanged in points, but marked as 'changed' in book, scroll change maybe?

I expect the same change that was applied to the Grundstock Thunderers is going to happen to them.

Lets wait saturday for all the new warscrolls :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're addressing this from the wrong angle; the individual units that were "top tier", while strong and occasionally gamebreaking (Skyfires) are not what will shake up and change the meta with this release. It's the subtle design changes to how we will be playing the game, and how it will affect armybuilding - which it will, on the top tables.

- Battalion points hike. This is honestly genius. It adds a tax on one-drops, it makes taking the strong battalions comparable to giving up a unit, and it severely limits the alpha strike potential of certain lists. Making it gamewide puts a precedent upon it where they are flat out telling us that if you want this and that special rule, you build around it, not throw it in as a bonus because it's "mandatory".

- Battleplan changes. These are going to affect us so much. I think super-killy elite armies with few models are soon going to be a thing of the past, and that mobility and survivability are going to be key factors in this edition of the game.

- Added rules of one and nerfed allegiances. Long story short, we're getting less stuff for free, and we're being forced to think twice about what we choose and how we use it.

- Alliances. Just the existence of these will change how we approach army-building. Literally everyone can fill the gaps in their army now (Ironjawz with Spear Chukkas), which means having a balanced approach to what you will expect to face at top tables is more important than ever. One-tricks will get punished more.

I think these changes will make the game more turtly and defensive at first, with a gradual shift to mobility happening when people figure out their new armies and allegiances. I also think it will make far more armies capable of reaching top tables, and that player skill will be more important than ever. Subtle nuances and ability to dominate games tactically will take precedent over deathstars and alpha strikes, and it will be a healthier metagame for it. It'll be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're addressing this from the wrong angle; the individual units that were "top tier", while strong and occasionally gamebreaking (Skyfires) are not what will shake up and change the meta with this release. It's the subtle design changes to how we will be playing the game, and how it will affect armybuilding - which it will, on the top tables.

- Battalion points hike. This is honestly genius. It adds a tax on one-drops, it makes taking the strong battalions comparable to giving up a unit, and it severely limits the alpha strike potential of certain lists. Making it gamewide puts a precedent upon it where they are flat out telling us that if you want this and that special rule, you build around it, not throw it in as a bonus because it's "mandatory".

- Battleplan changes. These are going to affect us so much. I think super-killy elite armies with few models are soon going to be a thing of the past, and that mobility and survivability are going to be key factors in this edition of the game.

- Added rules of one and nerfed allegiances. Long story short, we're getting less stuff for free, and we're being forced to think twice about what we choose and how we use it.

- Alliances. Just the existence of these will change how we approach army-building. Literally everyone can fill the gaps in their army now (Ironjawz with Spear Chukkas), which means having a balanced approach to what you will expect to face at top tables is more important than ever. One-tricks will get punished more.

I think these changes will make the game more turtly and defensive at first, with a gradual shift to mobility happening when people figure out their new armies and allegiances. I also think it will make far more armies capable of reaching top tables, and that player skill will be more important than ever. Subtle nuances and ability to dominate games tactically will take precedent over deathstars and alpha strikes, and it will be a healthier metagame for it. It'll be awesome.


Well said.

It's hard to posture on the Meta when you are only seeing half the picture.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

That is more due to inherent issues with death. Death is a melee only army in a meta that continues to be dominated by shooting. Death is not even the most efficient melee only army; Sayl bombs are the king of the current melee-only lists. Death can do pretty well with a double movement Necrosphinx, but since the model is impossible to get now, its not going to be very common. Mourngul is really strong but its not going to stand up to the amount of shooting the top lists can throw at it right now. 

While I agree with you that there are inherent issues with Death, the basic math suggests that the Mourngul is highly overrated as well. Its offensive efficiency is terrible and its defensive efficiency is only medium in melee. It needs to heal several times to get its defensive efficiency into the solid to good range, and even then it's defensive efficiency against shooting is still bad. 

It has a big psychological impact, but unless your opponent loves to field loads of high rend, expensive glass cannon infantry his actual impact is mediocre relative to his point cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

This is correct.  The mourngul has excellent output and defensive scores... but bad efficiency scores indicating it pays more than it should for what it does.

 

How do you calculate efficiency? What ive been doing is figuring out average damage and dividing its points cost by its damage output. But in the horde thread you were talking about coefficients. Can you explain to me how you arrive at your numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The raw stats without abilities feels like the useful functionality is very low because abilities and their synergy are the most important part of the game, not just raw attack numbers.

Hell the mourngul rebuff and healing alone is worth half his points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna go ahead and call out skinks as one of the next top tier unit. It was changed from 80 to 60 points for 10. Getting a massive regiment bonus 200 points for 40. 

Cheapest horde in order. With base move 8inch and shooting atracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Thor said:

I'm just gonna go ahead and call out skinks as one of the next top tier unit. It was changed from 80 to 60 points for 10. Getting a massive regiment bonus 200 points for 40. 

Cheapest horde in order. With base move 8inch and shooting atracks.

Im going to cry if i see 120 skinks on the table to fill out battleline. I can take a nap in that movement phase and shooting will be worse. Watching my opponent roll 200 dice to see how many saves i make is cringe worthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kunnin ruk your talking about there. The skinks shouldent be killing as much as being a pain in the ass. 

Their shooting is only 16 inch range at a 3+ 5+. But it's their retreat ability that will make you cringe. I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thor said:

That's kunnin ruk your talking about there. The skinks shouldent be killing as much as being a pain in the ass. 

Their shooting is only 16 inch range at a 3+ 5+. But it's their retreat ability that will make you cringe. I think. 

3x40 for battleline=120 shots, 80 will hit, 26 will wound. Thats where i got the 200 from, 120 hit rolls + 80 wound rolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Auticus said:

A lot of people say that.  However, the raw stats have proven to me to be incredibly useful.  It lets you know what units need babysat and what units don't.  It lets you know how bad an army will be if its buffers are removed, and what builds don't worry so much.

Also a model able to heal itself is accounted for in its defensive stat calculation.

You can take the raw sum of an army build and compare it to another and by virtue of those scores see which army has a numerical advantage and how much of one buffs not withstanding.

This has been used to predict 4 out of 5 of our campaign games and assess an army's overall power fairly easily.

For example:  one of our players runs seraphon.  His list comes out to a sum of about 220 or thereabouts.  This is fairly weak.  Most tournament builds start coming in at 290 and above on average.  However, with his buffs in place his score went up to 295.  (I have buff calculator as well its just not fully implemented and I'm not uploading a half finished piece of data to the website).  That says his list was fairly powerful until you removed his character, after which his army falls apart.

That was true every single time.

An army that naturally scores high without buffs doesn't care about its characters dying because it can still operate at a high level.

That type of data is extremely important.

I spent a good several hours last week looking at this data and I think there is value to looking at the pure numerical value of models in terms of pure combat capacity for the points.

Models that have high offense and survivability for a reasonable cost tend to do better in a fight.  But say that unit is slow, or oftentimes dies to miss fire, those metrics are less useful.

Especially with how powerful, if situational, shooting is in this game. 

As a pure combat metric a morngul  could be overcosted, but are you saying when factoring this and his rebuff it's still too high?

If so, do these numbers help you get here? Or other metrics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...