Alliances % at Heat 3

[Gaz Taylor]

18 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

People may have been more measured here but in other corners of the internet there were several people claiming that they were far, far too underpointed to the point of being unfixable and should just be scrapped. I'll readily agree that TK have some undercosted things, but Necropolis Knights aren't even undercosted compared to things like Kurnoth Hunters, Brutes, and Tzaangors (can back this up with math if you want).

Edit: love the aelf list

I think I still disagree with you about the costs of the Tomb King stuff. I suspect other factors are in play with how GW have priced them as I think they aren't happy with how things are selling on eBay, which may have been partially behind the thinking of new points. I've faced Necro Knights a few times now (both before and after the changes). Before I felt that they were a bit too good as a unit of six was a no brainer and after the points change they seem about right. I think the issue with Death is that the units really need the support of the characters and other buffs but things are a lot easier to be picked off in AOS. I wouldn't be surprised if we see something similar to the 40K rule about targeting characters or an item or ability in the Generals Handbook which helps out with this. (Too be honest I can see a tweak to the core rules on the cards with the new Generals Handbook, but lets wait and see).

And yes, that aelf list is really cool and I can see me doing something similar   

[Kramer]

26 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think I still disagree with you about the costs of the Tomb King stuff.

Well to be fair, most of those complaints were at the very beginning of AoS. And compared to the newer tomes the comparison doesnt hold up. But I think I remember TK to be a top tier army in the first months. 

[Nico]

Quote

Well to be fair, most of those complaints were at the very beginning of AoS. And compared to the newer tomes the comparison doesnt hold up. But I think I remember TK to be a top tier army in the first months. 

Necropolis Knights are very susceptible to shooting as they only have a 5+ save against it. Kunning Rukk and now KO shooting in particular pose a significant threat.

[Kramer]

34 minutes ago, Nico said:

Necropolis Knights are very susceptible to shooting as they only have a 5+ save against it. Kunning Rukk and now KO shooting in particular pose a significant threat.

Exactly the game moved on and the old factions stayed behind. Just as KO and Kunnin Rukk will be outdated in a year  

[Bradifer]

The lack of death success in multiple tournaments is clearly off putting to many Death players, same with the lack of Death releases and death support.

I've pretty much put my Death army on the back burner while playing 40K.

Now I truly see how easy it is to just point-and-click things to death with shooting heavy armies.

No wonder Stormcast, Kunnin' Rukk, and KO got so popular!

 

Cool results from the other factions, lots of neat armies, and who would have expected Squigs!

I hope pictures go up somewhere of the armies.

[Siegfried VII]

On 3/7/2017 at 3:28 PM, Jamopower said:

Out of general interest, was there a specific reason why the chaos (skyfire) armies didn't place too well? Many armies that were prepared to beat them, or just few of them at the event?

This is a very good question. Frankly I suspected that the Skyfires lists would dominate the field...

[Arkiham]

As everyone prepared for them, just how lists in heat 1 didn't do so well in heat 2 etc.

Basically you are aiming to be 2 metas infront of the field. 

Current meta counters by future meta and that meta countered by the next. 

You just gotta hope you match up against them 

[swarmofseals]

11 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think I still disagree with you about the costs of the Tomb King stuff. Before I felt that they were a bit too good as a unit of six was a no brainer and after the points change they seem about right.

Necropolis Knights (prenerf) have a points per effective wound of 4.44/5.93 against rend 0, 5.93/7.41 against rend 1, 7.41/8.89 against rend 2, and 8.89 against mortal wounds (numbers are for vs melee/vs ranged). They have a WDR ("weighted damage rating", a stat that allows you to compare offense across damage types. I'd be happy to explain in detail if you want, but basically higher is better) of .0858.

Some comparisons:

Kurnoth Hunters (with thicket reroll/without): 3/6 vs. rend 0, 5.33/8 vs. rend 1, 8.33/10 vs. rend 2, 12 vs mortal wounds. WDR: .0978 (scythes), .1033 (swords).

Brutes: 6 vs. rend 0, 8 vs. rend 1, 10 vs rend 2, 12 vs mortal wounds. WDR of .0775 vs <4 wounds, .1079 vs 4+ wounds.

Tzaangors: 5.56 vs. rend 0, 6.94 vs rend 1, 8.33 vs rend 2 and mortal wounds. WDRs of .0478/.0731/.0927/.1146 for +0/+1/+2/+3 attacks, not in range of tzeentch hero, and .0653/.0925/.1251/.1542 in range of tzeentch hero.

This isn't factoring any "off warscroll" buffs EXCEPT the Death allegiance ability. 

Remember that all of these measures are efficiency numbers so they already take into consideration the cost of the unit. 

Statistically, all of these units are in the ballpark of or better than Necropolis Knights, with most being a bit worse on defense but a little to a lot better on offense. Brutes are clearly worse, Kurnoth Hunters are clearly better, and Tzaangors range from clearly worse to clearly better. 

Of course, the banner effect is pretty major and is likely enough to pull them even or even ahead of Kurnoth Hunters and medium units of Tzaangors, while larger units of Tzaangors are likely still better. 

I think you can definitely make an argument that Necropolis Knights were undercosted here, assuming you also acknowledge these other units as undercosted (with the possible exception of brutes).

With the incoming increase in points cost the Necropolis Knight statline decreases to 6.66/8.9 | 8.9/11.12 | 11.12/13.34 | 13.34 on defense and a WDR of .0572. 

That makes them basically worse than Liberators, which have a defensive line of 4.17/6.1/8.06/10 and a WDR of .0533/.0711 (vs. <5 wound target/5+ wound target). 

 

[Earthtremor]

The necropolis Knight issue is also about the synergies and buffs they get as part of the setup with settra and the other characters. I forget how it works precisely. But that coupled with the banner effect made them so tough. Just like savage orc arrers, not all that on their own, but run 40 in a rukk and then they are a problem. 

[wanderingrogue]

On 7/3/2017 at 0:45 PM, Imperial said:

Any info about Kharadron Overlords list? 

It was mine..

 

basically

 

ziflin, with reroll charge artcycle

admiral general with fleetmaster

3 khemists

3x 10 arks

9 riggers

2 x 6 wardens

ironclad

[Well of Eternity]

21 minutes ago, wanderingrogue said:

It was mine..

 

basically

 

ziflin, with reroll charge artcycle

admiral general with fleetmaster

3 khemists

3x 10 arks

9 riggers

2 x 6 wardens

ironclad

 

Nice army and great play!

You already have nice option for alpha strike/deep strike with Zilfin`s Endrinwork so why Fleetmaster on your general?

 

 

[Gaz Taylor]

4 hours ago, Earthtremor said:

The necropolis Knight issue is also about the synergies and buffs they get as part of the setup with settra and the other characters. I forget how it works precisely. But that coupled with the banner effect made them so tough. Just like savage orc arrers, not all that on their own, but run 40 in a rukk and then they are a problem. 

Yup. This is what makes them amazing. They are decent on their own but once you add in for example Settra who can double their movement and grant extra attacks, they become amazing. Even if they don't get this buff, just the threat of it is worth it. In my eyes, this is why they needed the cost increase.

But it's by the by as unless you can source them, it's not an issue  

 

59 minutes ago, wanderingrogue said:

ziflin, with reroll charge artcycle

admiral general with fleetmaster

3 khemists

3x 10 arks

9 riggers

2 x 6 wardens

ironclad

Nice army Gary. It's something which has me tempted with the Kharadrons but I'm waiting for GHB2 to see how that shakes up the meta. But that is exactly how I would want to play them with the aggressive alpha strike ability  

[stato]

 

1 hour ago, wanderingrogue said:

It was mine..

 

basically

 

ziflin, with reroll charge artcycle

admiral general with fleetmaster

3 khemists

3x 10 arks

9 riggers

2 x 6 wardens

ironclad

Love that someone has shown Kharadron dont just have to be (pure) shooty.  Well done!   Would love to see/hear more about your army, and any contributions you can make to the 'lets chat Kharadron' topic.

[wanderingrogue]

1 hour ago, Well of Eternity said:

 

Nice army and great play!

You already have nice option for alpha strike/deep strike with Zilfin`s Endrinwork so why Fleetmaster on your general?

 

 

Because of little things like changeling and defensive deployments.

being able to redeploy next to a changeling, drop a khemist off, hero move. drop everyone else off, shoot then charge turn 1 , meant i could take 1st turn and not have changeling harrying my back lines and scoring shed loads of points.

 

also helps when they deploy defensivly vs the drop. so you dont drop and play the long game instead

[Mandolinovolante]

How riggers and wardens were equipped?

[azmar]

On 05.07.2017 at 2:03 PM, wanderingrogue said:

Because of little things like changeling and defensive deployments.

 

can u do report  ? maybt blog u have ? )

[Captain Marius]

I dont get why the tournies report armies by Grand Alliance rather than what the army actually is eg Stormcasts, Sylvaneth, Freeguild, Mixed Order etc.

Its fostering this ludicrous notion that the four GAs should be in some way balanced against each other, or even seen as distinct factions in and of themselves.

In reality each Alliance is made up of a number of distinct factions - if these were reported rather than just the GA i think we would get a better idea of the meta, and less gnashing of teeth about 'Death' being underpowered!

[Sleboda]

On 7/4/2017 at 2:38 PM, Siegfried VII said:

This is a very good question. Frankly I suspected that the Skyfires lists would dominate the field...

Shows why a measured, time-will-tell response to internet knee jerking is the right way for GW. Once yearly minor updates seem smart as opposed to omgizzbrokefixitnow reactionary fixing.

FWIW,  I figured the same thing you did. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

6 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

I dont get why the tournies report armies by Grand Alliance rather than what the army actually is eg Stormcasts, Sylvaneth, Freeguild, Mixed Order etc.

Its fostering this ludicrous notion that the four GAs should be in some way balanced against each other, or even seen as distinct factions in and of themselves.

In reality each Alliance is made up of a number of distinct factions - if these were reported rather than just the GA i think we would get a better idea of the meta, and less gnashing of teeth about 'Death' being underpowered!

Indeed!  Heck, if nothing else, it is just more accurate of a depiction.  Maybe once the armies get their own Allegiance Abilities, maybe then the tournaments will record them listing that.  In this day and age of big data, it shouldn't be hard to update spreadsheets to better dipslay what is going on.

[Sleboda]

I get that,  but where do you stop? There is no requirement to draw an army from one battletome, nor is there one to keep to certain units within one.

If the marker is tome or mixed, why not also break it further into battalions, or even Units XY&Z "armies?" After all, that would really tell us which "armies" are doing well.

 

Nah. I say keeping it at the highest allowable grouping, Alliances, is the way to go.  Plus,  it feeds both the AoS narrative and the basic AoS force structure.

[Arkiham]

On 07/07/2017 at 6:38 PM, Sleboda said:

I get that,  but where do you stop? There is no requirement to draw an army from one battletome, nor is there one to keep to certain units within one.

If the marker is tome or mixed, why not also break it further into battalions, or even Units XY&Z "armies?" After all, that would really tell us which "armies" are doing well.

 

Nah. I say keeping it at the highest allowable grouping, Alliances, is the way to go.  Plus,  it feeds both the AoS narrative and the basic AoS force structure.

well its not a hard break down...and just chance the tab heading from Alliance to Allegiance 

if i take a mixed Tzeentch and khorne force i am chaos as that's all i can pick

if i go all khorne and take the chaos stuff i am chaos, as i've chosen that

if i go all khorne and take khorne i am khorne. as i chosen that. 

this gives a good idea of what sort of armies are going without essentially listing every army so they can be net listed. 

fits in the spreadsheet. easy enough to do. v little hassle, further breakdown is not required.

 

[Captain Marius]

@Arkiham now you've pointed that out i have no idea how that is not the system used. That makes complete sense and will only become more useful as more battletomes are released.

[Mirage8112]

On 7/7/2017 at 10:12 AM, Sleboda said:

Shows why a measured, time-will-tell response to internet knee jerking is the right way for GW. Once yearly minor updates seem smart as opposed to omgizzbrokefixitnow reactionary fixing.

FWIW,  I figured the same thing you did. 

This makes sense to me. 

My original position was that skyfire spam did exceptionally well at adepticon and few other tournaments around that time because of it's release date. The book basically came out just before those tournaments and players were just caught off guard. It's hard to design counters if a book/unit is brand new and the meta hasn't really gotten a chance to adapt. 

Certainly they aren't the easiest to handle, but they clearly aren't the 'autowin' that players make them out to be. 

 

[SuperHappyTime]

On 7/9/2017 at 1:26 PM, Arkiham said:

well its not a hard break down...and just chance the tab heading from Alliance to Allegiance 

if i take a mixed Tzeentch and khorne force i am chaos as that's all i can pick

if i go all khorne and take the chaos stuff i am chaos, as i've chosen that

if i go all khorne and take khorne i am khorne. as i chosen that. 

this gives a good idea of what sort of armies are going without essentially listing every army so they can be net listed. 

fits in the spreadsheet. easy enough to do. v little hassle, further breakdown is not required.

 

1. If you take 1920 points of Khorne and 80 points of Chaos, you have to take Chaos. Even though we can clearly tell this is a Khorne list.

2. If you take 2000 points of Khorne, you can still run it as Chaos. You may even want to choose this for certain allegiance benefits.

3. Armies are reported by GA because it's the easy and clear dividing lines. I can't run a Order/Destruction or Chaos/Death list.  

4. It's always important to look at the further breakdown. Did Order take the Top 5 spots because everyone with those lists had a Celestial Hurricanum? Maybe they were all Stormcast lists? 

[Valenae]

Maybe some one know nickname or blog of High Elf player who get fourth place?