Jump to content

Top Tier Units Pre and Post GHB2017


jamierk

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Cerlin said:

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?

Compare the mournghoul to a ghoul king on terrorgheist (same points until saturday). Ghoul king i think comes out on top for survivability.  Yeah hes not immune to rend, has a worse save, and only heals half as often, BUT hes got 4 more wounds and has an additional 5+ shrug from his spell. Give him the cursed book and you get the same hit debuff arua. Hes a lot harder to spike down than the mournghoul. If i remember right his damage output is either comparable or better than the mournghouls as well, plus hes faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Compare the mournghoul to a ghoul king on terrorgheist (same points until saturday). Ghoul king i think comes out on top for survivability.  Yeah hes not immune to rend, has a worse save, and only heals half as often, BUT hes got 4 more wounds and has an additional 5+ shrug from his spell. Give him the cursed book and you get the same hit debuff arua. Hes a lot harder to spike down than the mournghoul. If i remember right his damage output is either comparable or better than the mournghouls as well, plus hes faster.


Just checking this? The mourngul has a 3+ save ignoring tend and a 4++ mortal wound save and the ghoul king is more survivable? The ghoul king has to get his spell off each turn, not guaranteed not to mention can be alpha striked first turn. The mourngul could be mystic shielded making him even harder to remove and doesn't require an artifact which frees it up for someone else who needs it. Needing to slay a model to heal wounds is certainly less reliable but of the two, which do you think is easier to remove with an alpha strike? One that I need to do on average 20 mortal wounds or at least 30 normal wounds to, or one that I can kill with 28 rend 1 attacks or 21 rend 2 attacks or even with the spell off 21 mortal wounds or 14 mortal wounds without? I guess I see the mourngul as more resilient because there is no need to cast a spell to keep him that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.


Skinks were already my go to battle unit for combined order, I think they are going to cause major headaches at tournaments (and at paint tables). That withdraw move is soooo powerful, especially at slowing down units that need to keep charging the skinks and can't get passed them. I also use it a lot when I charge the skinks to keep them moving past a unit which you can do with careful placement of the charge. Throw in a hurricanum behind them and their shooting isn't half bad either. They are imho way too cheap even before the huge regiment upgrade. The new rule allowing large units to capture over smaller ones will make that even worse, and simply making the front unit immune to battleshock each round will make them very hard to shift.


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

9 hours ago, jamierk said:

 


Just checking this? The mourngul has a 3+ save ignoring tend and a 4++ mortal wound save and the ghoul king is more survivable? The ghoul king has to get his spell off each turn, not guaranteed not to mention can be alpha striked first turn. The mourngul could be mystic shielded making him even harder to remove and doesn't require an artifact which frees it up for someone else who needs it. Needing to slay a model to heal wounds is certainly less reliable but of the two, which do you think is easier to remove with an alpha strike? One that I need to do on average 20 mortal wounds or at least 30 normal wounds to, or one that I can kill with 28 rend 1 attacks or 21 rend 2 attacks or even with the spell off 21 mortal wounds or 14 mortal wounds without? I guess I see the mourngul as more resilient because there is no need to cast a spell to keep him that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Couple things to keep in mind: sayl just got nerfed so its unlikely that the ghoul king will get alpha'd before he can get his spell off. Yeah, i am assuming hes going to get his spell off since its only casting value 6. And this was a gut check, i dont have a spreadsheet i can consult, offensive scores are pretty easy to math out on a napkin, defensive scores not so much. But lets give it a shot (ignoring deathless minions)

Vs no rend: 

Mourngul saves 66% so you need 30 wounds 

GKoTG saves 50% followed by 33% from his spell, which means you need 43 wounds.

Vs rend 1

Mourngul is unchanged

GK is at 33% followed by 33% which comes out to 32 wounds.

Mortal wounds:

Mourngul needs 20 to kill it

GK needs 22.

 

Those 4 extra wounds and layered save count for a LOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, meelow said:

Mourngul now has a 5+ layered save on all wounds
 

Which really seems crazy, as it is now MORE difficult to kill with normal wounds, and slightly more difficult with mortals. I'd be fine with it if his "no rend" ability was changed to just ignore rend -1... but no. He has to walk around Mystic Shielded with a 2+ and 5++. Anything that goes up against Death better bring plenty of mortal wounds -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, meelow said:

Mourngul now has a 5+ layered save on all wounds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wrote that before i saw the new scrolls. Besides, GKonTG goes up to 440 tomorrow anyway, so its not a straight comparison anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/24/2017 at 2:03 PM, swarmofseals said:

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. 

The Mourngul is such a good anvil that it doesn't matter what his melee is, but his melee is quite good. More than enough to eat through pretty much any infantry. If you put him up against a monster hes going to struggle since he won't be healing. The simplification of his -1 to hit and the change of 5+ to mortal makes him 99% as insane as hes ever been, while a neat 400 points to ally him easily. Meanwhile everything that might have killed him in the past is heavily nerfed. Mourngul is likely the best monster in the game now, and an auto-include whenever possible. I don't know how to label him "overrated".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WoollyMammoth said:

The Mourngul is such a good anvil that it doesn't matter what his melee is, but his melee is quite good. More than enough to eat through pretty much any infantry. If you put him up against a monster hes going to struggle since he won't be healing. The simplification of his -1 to hit and the change of 5+ to mortal makes him 99% as insane as hes ever been, while a neat 400 points to ally him easily. Meanwhile everything that might have killed him in the past is heavily nerfed. Mourngul is likely the best monster in the game now, and an auto-include whenever possible. I don't know how to label him "overrated".

The concept of an anvil isn't nearly as relevant in AoS as it was in WHFB or other rank and flank type games. Tarpitting is totally relevant, and basically the whole point of tarpitting is to tie up an expensive enemy unit with a much cheaper unit. You gain an advantage because your opponent's options are limited and you force him to use resources less efficiently. Even though the Mourngul is *very* hard to kill, he's a really bad tarpit because he's so expensive. By attacking a cheaper enemy unit with your Mourngul, you are basically tarpitting yourself. If you want an anvil/tarpit, there are other Death units that will do the job much more efficiently. What is going to be more of a pain for the enemy to deal with: a Mourngul or 35 Dire Wolves? You will lose a bunch of wolves over the course of the game, but they will also be able to tie up a much larger portion of your opponent's army. Against rend 0 the Dire Wolves are triple the effective wounds of the Mourngul. Against Rend 2, the Dire Wolves still have over 50% more effective wounds. They also cover tremendously more space.

I definitely don't think the Mourngul is the best monster in the game. It's almost certainly the best monster in Death, but that's not saying much IMO. The Frostheart Phoenix is much better, as is the Lord of Change. I suspect there are quite a few more that one could make an argument for. 

The fact that a lot of people think that the Mourngul is an auto-include is exactly my argument for it being overrated!

 

EDIT: Also, I just want to be clear that I'm not saying that the Mourngul's offense is bad in an absolute sense. It's not. A Mourngul is capable of putting out damage. What I'm saying is that it's inefficient at putting out damage. Compared to its point cost it does very little damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/8/2017 at 1:42 AM, Auticus said:

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx

Offensive output = average number of wounds model / unit does across all possible types of saves.
Defensive output = average number of wounds that can be taken by the model/unit across all possible rend types and mortal wounds

Efficiency is simply those scores / points it costs, to give you how much output/pt and how much defense/pt you get.

These two values can then be ranked by everything in the game, and a bell curve is formed.  The mourngul ranks high in its scores but pays a lot of points so its efficiency is low in comparison to every other model in the game it is ranked with (its not the bottom of the pile but its in the lower tier for efficiency).

This does not take into account buffs and other things, unless noted in the entry on that site, and is just where the model/unit stacks up RAW STAT wise.

New player here. But i disagree, the nuance from the lists / abilities, that are played is decisive to list building construction and unit rating. For example if you compare kurnouth hunters swords vs scythes, specially (but not only) because the 2" range gets better because of their ability to reroll armor saves and because -2 is way more valuable than -1 because interactions with special abilities which are fairly common in game. If you used raw stats to look up how to equip your soldiers, you would be using swords (bad example because they don't even have the stats for scythes, but you catch my drift) because overall they are better if you use raw stats only and don't bring in  a nuanced opinion which is ultimately the most important part. I am not saying this website does this, just nitpicking about raw stats importance. Both things are plenty important where you can't neither dismiss one or another when rating units.

Now i would also like to know what "efficiency 1"   "efficiency 2" and "overall" means, since i am since unable to spot where to check it out in their website. Not for nitpicking, but curiosity and interest. I am guessing efficiency 1, is how efficient the unit is offensively for its points ? How are bloodreavers with reaver blades better than bloodreavers with meatrippers ? To be more clear, how do they calculate this thing, what factors do they take into account ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

New player here. But i disagree, the nuance from the lists / abilities, that are played is decisive to list building construction and unit rating. For example if you compare kurnouth hunters swords vs scythes, specially (but not only) because the 2" range gets better because of their ability to reroll armor saves and because -2 is way more valuable than -1 because interactions with special abilities which are fairly common in game. If you used raw stats to look up how to equip your soldiers, you would be using swords (bad example because they don't even have the stats for scythes, but you catch my drift) because overall they are better if you use raw stats only and don't bring in  a nuanced opinion which is ultimately the most important part. I am not saying this website does this, just nitpicking about raw stats importance. Both things are plenty important where you can't neither dismiss one or another when rating units.

Now i would also like to know what "efficiency 1"   "efficiency 2" and "overall" means, since i am since unable to spot where to check it out in their website. Not for nitpicking, but curiosity and interest. I am guessing efficiency 1, is how efficient the unit is offensively for its points ? How are bloodreavers with reaver blades better than bloodreavers with meatrippers ? To be more clear, how do they calculate this thing, what factors do they take into account ?

This is all basically implied. Mathhammer is a tool, not a definitive i win button. If you just took an army of the maximum amount of the top mathematical performers in your faction you'd do extremely well, but you wouldn't be hitting the podium in all likelyhood and that's before even accounting for skill.

Then you have situations like Russ talked about on Facehammer, if a unit is the only one that has a capability you need, it doesn't actually matter what it costs, you still need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

The concept of an anvil isn't nearly as relevant in AoS as it was in WHFB or other rank and flank type games. Tarpitting is totally relevant, and basically the whole point of tarpitting is to tie up an expensive enemy unit with a much cheaper unit. You gain an advantage because your opponent's options are limited and you force him to use resources less efficiently. Even though the Mourngul is *very* hard to kill, he's a really bad tarpit because he's so expensive. By attacking a cheaper enemy unit with your Mourngul, you are basically tarpitting yourself. If you want an anvil/tarpit, there are other Death units that will do the job much more efficiently. What is going to be more of a pain for the enemy to deal with: a Mourngul or 35 Dire Wolves? You will lose a bunch of wolves over the course of the game, but they will also be able to tie up a much larger portion of your opponent's army. Against rend 0 the Dire Wolves are triple the effective wounds of the Mourngul. Against Rend 2, the Dire Wolves still have over 50% more effective wounds. They also cover tremendously more space.

I definitely don't think the Mourngul is the best monster in the game. It's almost certainly the best monster in Death, but that's not saying much IMO. The Frostheart Phoenix is much better, as is the Lord of Change. I suspect there are quite a few more that one could make an argument for. 

The fact that a lot of people think that the Mourngul is an auto-include is exactly my argument for it being overrated!

 

EDIT: Also, I just want to be clear that I'm not saying that the Mourngul's offense is bad in an absolute sense. It's not. A Mourngul is capable of putting out damage. What I'm saying is that it's inefficient at putting out damage. Compared to its point cost it does very little damage.

Anvils and tarpits are completely different concepts. In AoS the anvil is just as important as ever. 

Most tarpits are fairly easy to avoid, especially with fast moving monsters, but I do agree that if you can pin down a Mourngul in a bad spot with a cheaper tarpit, you are in a good situation. Unfortunately, where some tarpits have teeth and can kill a monster over a few turns (ex: 40 skeletons) a Mourngul is too good and will be doing too much damage and healing too much. Another example is dire wolves - its going to take some time, but the Mourngul is unlikely to ever lose this fight.

Another very important aspect is battleshock - tarpits can often be focused to kill a ton and then so many more are lost in battleshock. Then there are tarpit killers; Decimators, Drycha, Gaunt Summoner. These models can very easily evaporate a tar pit, but are not going to be able to do much against a Mourngul. 

Tarpits are great and have other uses, such as using their size to tie down multiple units in combat, screen/block units, etc. Tarpits and anvils both have a lot of uses. As far as simply pinning down a target, anvils can also be tarpits. A Mourngul can charge a unit, and in most cases they are not getting away unless they retreat. For that reason a tarpit is only really better at being a tarpit if it gets a surround on the target, which requires a long charge. AoS is filled with things like Skaven retreat and charge, making it much harder to simply pin things.

As far as Anvils go, with the Stonehorn/Necrosphinx nerf, Mourngul is probably the best in the game as far as pure survival. Neferata can do a similar job but requires getting two spells off so is less reliable. A treelord ancient can be just as good (if not better) but you have to equip him with -1 rend, get good wildwood placement, and get your stomp off. A Bastiladon is another good one that we are likely to see more of with the Seraphon updates. Since a Mourngul is not a hero/behemoth though, it creates issues with 3 Places of Power/Duality of Death. For this reason the treelord is probably the best anvil in the game when you factor in everything.  

GW is trying to push for more large units however, with the new discounts and the fact that objectives are taken with multiple models instead of a single anvil, so in many cases having more hordes is better, but you risk being devastated by an anti-horde army. Probably the best thing to do for objectives would be to body-block an objective with an anvil and then have a horde/tarpit behind it to keep a lot of bodies on the objective. The Mourngul is not great at this either, having a smaller base.

The Mourngul being an anvil is only half of its power however; its main ability is to provide a -1 to hit bubble. This aura gives this incredibly potent defensive ability to everything in your army (provided you can get the Mourngul in there). This typically reduces all incoming hits by 25-33%. The Mourngul is better at this than a Treelord (unreliable) Hellstriders (easy to kill) Cursed Book (death is immune) etc. The most important thing about -1 to hit is that it very often neuters some of the most devastating and popular units (Retributors, Bloodletters, etc.)

Being a great anvil is not that big of a deal unless there is something to protect, and a -1 to hit bubble is a great thing to protect. For this reason its very easy to get a lot of value out of it.

Frosthart Pheonix reduces wound rolls which does almost nothing vs Retributors, Bloodletters, Spirit Hosts, etc. It has a lot of issues such as your opponent going first and shooting it with almost anything. With Alarielle the Radiant being discontinued it also takes a big hit. The LoC is amazing but for a lot of different reasons which have a lot of variables. I have killed many LoC, its not any kind of anvil and there is a million ways to kill it. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25-8-2017 at 7:12 AM, 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.

Agreed Skinks are most certainly amongst the top for Order now. 

My thake on it by GH2017 PBP Chaos:
Bayherds: Ungors are cheap, fine and fast, kinda like Skinks minus the ranged attacks (and that tells something about Skinks ;))
Blades of Khorne: As before Bloodletters got cheaper per 30 and 30 was their ideal size anyway!
Clan Eshin: Gutter Runners look epic to me.
Clan Moulder: Giant Rats die quick but soaking up multiple waves of them really messes up things quickly.
Desciples of Tzeentch: Indeed "lost" the power in Skyfires but the Tzeentch Horrors got all the more legit for it. Which are truely scary prospects in my opinion.

Cheers,
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

a lot of stuff

I fundamentally don't understand the arguments you are making, and I suspect it's because you mean something different by "tarpit" and "anvil" than I do. It seems like you are using these terms to describe a type of unit rather than a specific role. When you say "anvil" I think you mean a large, single tanky model. When you say "tarpit" you mean a horde of cheap stuff. I might be wrong about what you mean, but that's what it seems.

To me, an anvil specifically refers to one component of a Hammer and Anvil strategy (as perfected by Alexander the Great), where the enemy is pinned in place by some very tough unit (the Anvil) and then struck usually from the flank or rear by a more mobile, harder hitting unit. The lack of any kind of facing or flanking advantage in AoS eliminates the need for a true anvil. If your hammer can close the distance, it can strike the enemy effectively regardless of whether they are pinned or not. This is particularly true on the double turn, where you can close a huge amount of distance and get a charge off against even fast enemy units. There is no retreat charge response either, which further reduces the need for an Anvil role.

It's important to note that in a Hammer and Anvil situation, the goal is to destroy the enemy unit.

A tarpit, on the other hand, attempts to tie up the enemy's expensive unit with your cheap unit without any intention of damaging or destroying the enemy unit. You are sacrificing some points to create a temporary tactical advantage. If you tie up your opponent's 300 point unit with your 60 point unit even for just one battle round, you are basically giving yourself a 240 point advantage over the rest of the board for that round. A tarpit does not need to be slow, nor does it need to be large. The reason why I mentioned Dire Wolves specifically is because they are amazing at this role even in minimum sized units. They aren't incredibly fast, but 10" move is pretty good. To give you an example, in my most recent game I was able to get an early charge off on a 6 strong unit of Screamers with my 5 model Dire Wolf unit. There was no way I was going to win that combat in the long run, but I did a little bit of damage, took some damage back and forced my opponent to make a decision on his turn: does he keep his Screamers there and spend the next two or three combat rounds finishing off those Dire Wolves (a waste of time) or does he retreat (also a waste of time)? He ultimately chose to retreat, so basically I disabled 240 points of my opponent's army for the cost of 1 Dire Wolf. The same unit of Dire Wolves later pinned down a Lord of Change -- another unwinnable combat for me -- but it wasted a bunch of my opponent's time. And min size Dire Wolf units are effectively immune to battleshock and really don't care about horde busters either. They have no tactical weakness: if your opponent spends any of their time targeting them, it's a waste... but they are fast enough that your opponent can't just avoid them either.

To me, massive regiments really aren't tarpits (usually). They are too expensive to be tarpits. They fill a completely different role.

My main point about the Mourngul is that except in rare cases, no matter what you engage with your Mourngul you are basically allowing your opponent to tarpit your 400 point monster with a unit that is much cheaper. Because the Mourngul's offense is relatively inefficient, it will take you some significant time to chew through that target. You will come out ahead on kill points (probably) in this exchange, but objectives matter far more. 

And yes, the -1 to hit bubble is great. It's also only 6". If you are managing to get several targets with it then the Mourngul looks a lot better as it's now playing  legit support role. 

I never claimed the LoC was a good anvil -- just that it's definitely in contention for "best monster". Frostheart Phoenix is certainly more killable, but it's also tremendously more efficient both on offense and defense. The wound debuff is just gravy. I really get the sense that you are looking almost entirely at absolute performance and not really considering efficiency at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Thats ok I'm done defending it :) it has served me quite well over the years, and took me to top placings in Grand Tournaments back in the day.  I have absolute faith in it.  It is a tool that gives you a great starting baseline.  If you're looking for something that is absolute, I don't feel that that is possible, even with complex game theory calculations, because there is too much abstract in the system that you cannot quantify with calculus.  However... those formulas will tell you what needs babysat and also will help you formulate a power coefficient to determine if your raw without buffs list as as efficient as it could be before you have to start taking buffs and powers into account.

Do you have plans to update it (or are you updating it, currently)? I've found it to be wonderfully helpful even though I mostly try to use it to balance fluffy armies. I can guesstimate, based on how I think the changes would affect things, but I was just wondering if you'd be working on it.

 

I will say in regards to the Mourngul: one of the things often underappreciated is space efficiency. The Mourngul is relatively point inefficient, but it can be space efficient in spots where a maxed unit of skeletons can't. Another factor to consider (though I still think the unit of skeletons is more versatile and efficient for most tasks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mdkinker said:

I will say in regards to the Mourngul: one of the things often underappreciated is space efficiency. The Mourngul is relatively point inefficient, but it can be space efficient in spots where a maxed unit of skeletons can't. Another factor to consider (though I still think the unit of skeletons is more versatile and efficient for most tasks).

Yeah, this is broadly true in terms of high damage units. Space efficiency (or damage concentration or whatever you want to call it) is definitely a concern, and it's one reason why ranged units have so much value despite generally being MUCH less damage efficient than melee. I've been searching for a good way to weight points efficiency and space efficiency for a while now. It's a really good question that defies a simple answer. 

On the defensive end of the spectrum the question is even murkier, as it's less clear cut as to whether taking up more space is an advantage or a disadvantage. On the one hand, having a large footprint makes it much easier for the enemy to concentrate damage on a unit. On the other, occupying more space is great for area denial and makes it harder for the enemy to bypass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Auticus said:

Thats ok I'm done defending it :) it has served me quite well over the years, and took me to top placings in Grand Tournaments back in the day.  I have absolute faith in it.  It is a tool that gives you a great starting baseline.  If you're looking for something that is absolute, I don't feel that that is possible, even with complex game theory calculations, because there is too much abstract in the system that you cannot quantify with calculus.  However... those formulas will tell you what needs babysat and also will help you formulate a power coefficient to determine if your raw without buffs list as as efficient as it could be before you have to start taking buffs and powers into account.

I am not attacking it. I am saying that contextualizing units and player's experience is equally important when it comes results. Would you say that your high placings were solely on decissions based by this data ? No, so that's my point. I am not saying it's not useful, i am saying there are other factors that can be equally or more important than data (using kurnouth example) when it comes to nuance the army list selection or plays.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

a lot of stuff :)

Interesting point about the tarpit size. I always thought of a tarpit as a large thing, because if the tarpit is just a tar-puddle, you can just step out of it.  The examples you give are useful only in regards to limiting the movement of the target. If you charge a unit of screamers, you will have to survive through its attacks in order to pin it down, so only 5 wolves is risky. Screamers can also still retreat and activate their slashing fins, so you are not wasting a ton of their time. A LoC power is mostly in its spells which are not limited by some wolves snapping at it's heels. Shooting as well, is only limited if you prevent it from moving into range of what it wants to shoot. Then if you factor in all the special rules, like the fact that Skaven can just retreat and charge, or Stormcast with a Knight-Heraldor - tarpitting is extremely limited in AoS. The Dire wolves are a great unit for this though with their fast movement, you may be able to pin down a melee only unit for a little bit. Personally I prefer to use their long bases to create a wall instead, forcing my opponent to charge wolves instead of what they really want to attack. Yesterday I used them to screen some Ghouls, so they had to charge the 'wolf wall', and then my ghouls were 2" behind to get a free pile in.

When I think of a true tarpit in AoS, I think of a large unit of at least 20 models, that can physically surround the target and prevent them from retreating. That's a tarpit you aren't walking out of. This can pin through several turns stacking point efficiency. If we are taking ghouls or skeletons, these units are likely to even hurt or kill the target it is pinning. 

Overall, I don't see a lot of tarpits in AoS. Compared to 40k, where a small fast unit could pin down a tank from firing its devastating weapons, -or as you mentioned in WHFB where there were limitations on facing. There is not much you can do with a tarpit in AoS. 

An anvil has many uses, such as the tactic you describe to pin and attack. Technically, the tarpitting I describe above is better for that. Zombies can surround and completely pin a target, leaving a 1/2" gap somewhere for a nasty monster to come in or a unit (preferably with long rage weapons) to charge. If a unit is pinned by a Mourngul and they see a hammer unit coming at them, they can simply retreat. Most of this is moot since everyone primarily focuses on fast-moving self sufficient hammer units in AoS.

Another use is as I described before, using the bulk of an anvil to body block an objective while a weaker horde unit crowds around the objective to keep plenty of bodies on it. An anvil can be a tough monster, or a tough unit. An anvil is simply a unit that can take a punch, therefore you get it to where it wants to be and then you stay there. Generally its smarter to ignore the anvils and focus on killing them last. A Mourngul being an anvil means your opponent needs to try to ignore the -1 bubble. Its easy to stick him in the middle of your army so his bubble is being useful and if your opponent wastes shots on him its usually a good thing.

I can't disagree that the LoC is one of the best monsters. A Phoenix is really good and at a bargain but I have never seen it used so I cannot say. A Mourngul just has insane stats and rules which is why its 400 points, but it is a bit overrated since it cant hold objectives or take artifacts. It sets up some incredible synergy though if you stack -to hit with all the death stuff, or in Nighthaunt which has almost nothing to take anyway. I wold say any death list can get great use out of it if used right and/or if your opponent over targets it. I'm interested to see how it holds up in the new environment. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the conversation is fascinating.  We are having a discussion about terminology and reaching a consensus.  Man, I love TGA.

I would also have to separate distinctions that you are describing: Tools versus Unit Types.  To me, you have Tools, or strategies, that your army can use, while the Unit Types get to the specific tactics of a battle.

For example, we an Anvil, a large, heavy unit that can take hits and stick around for a while.  We also have Hammers, that apply lots of brute force to the enemy, and Spears, which use precision and finesse to attack the enemy.  Whereas Unit Types cover Tar Pits, Elites, Heroes/Monsters, Cavalry/Chariots, and Skirmishers.  There can be some overlap with these different distinctions dependent on the army; Cavalry units between armies cover Hammer, Spear, and Anvil, and a Hero/Monster can easily fill any of those roles depending on their specialty.  But in some cases, overlap would be problematic.  Like, would any Tar Pit be able to Spear into the enemy lines, or would a Skirmisher unit want to be an Anvil?  Probably not in both cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Auticus said:

I have all of the data that I care about (my builds) and was going to try to do combos outside of my force, but the backlash that it took kind of made it not worth the effort so its been binned and I use it for myself and update my own buffs as I need (or if I know I'm facing a combo I'll put that combo in as well to see where it stacks and where my overall combo sits)

This makes me really sad. I think this data is obviously and intrinsically useful. These sorts of quantitative tools are what allows us to elevate decision making.

Along these lines, would you be willing to open source any of this work for those who want to tinker with it? I personally don't care if it's rough around the edges: being able to compare along the bell curve of other units and synergies is a ton of work to imitate from scratch. I'm also curious how some of the silly combos I've found match up on that spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Auticus said:

I have a mostly done beta of the page where users can add buffs to a unit and say where that buff is coming from, which lets you calculate the buff score of the hero or wherever its coming from.  (so that I didn't need to be the person entering all the data)  I used that in my last campaign to gauge actual power levels and give handicaps based on it.  Using that system, any difference in score of about 20 or more was 100% in choosing who the winner was going to be.

The flaw in my score is that I need to figure out how to make ranged scores worth more because an all melee army with a high score will still be less impactful than an all shooty army that has the same score, because the shooty army can reach out with range and the melee army cannot.  

I have to address those flaws first, which I'm hoping to start later by the holidays.  Right now I'm writing the 2nd editions of my 40k grand crusade campaign and my Azyr Empires for AOS for campaign next year.  

I'm not really a fan of open sourcing my code though.  

The way I did my one was to assume ranged is of equal value to melee up to a certain range then apply a modifier as range increased. 

12" and under x1

12-24 x1.25

24" and over x1.5

reason being is the expected number of attack rounds per game for a ranged unit is about 3-4, 4-5 and 5 respectively. Accounting for deployment and distances etc. 

Most combat units in my experience get a similar amount of overall attack rounds depending on their speed which is accounted for seperately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...