Why Kharadron Overlords never win any major tournament?

[Aeonotakist]

Ever since KO has been released it was considered as one of the top army with Khemist + cannon burst. However, the time was too short before GHB 2017 fixed that so I didn't remember Ko won any event using this. Ever since GHB2017, KO has developed another very reliable crown car tactic.  It is a very solid battalion and I see it as the hardest counter to most kinds of TZ army. 

With current meta going on,  TZ (or changehost) is in my opinion the most powerful meta in tournament, especially after SCE Vanguard Wings has been significantly nerfed. But, I still have never seen any KO won a major tournament or even listed as top 3 in major tournament with more than 50 players. In the top 3 I could find TZ,  SCE, Nurgle and even grand order alliance or Fyre Slayers,  but I cannot remember seeing any of KO players list there. 

What do you think is the reason behind that? I especially want to hear from players who have experience on tournament games.

[Guest]

This answer probably won't be particularly helpful, but from what I understand the top tournament players for the most part are only interested in armies that have a significant advantage that can be exploited. That's how they get to be the top tournament players. Yes, they need to be excellent players too - people who know the game and their army inside out and practice relentlessly - but most players at a tournament will have these things covered, so for the edge they need to be the best of the best they have to take a list with an imbalance of advantages that can be exploited.

You ask, 'why not Kharadron Overlords?' but you could ask the same question of most of the 60 factions currently in the game. Only a handful of these are ever seen on the top tables. In many cases that's because these factions aren't very good, but many of them are well designed, balanced factions with a very good chance of winning any game they're used in. But a 'very good chance' isn't enough to win tournaments. We could have 59 brilliantly designed and perfectly balanced factions, but if you have 1 that has an unbalanced advantage that can be exploited, this is the faction that top tournament players will be drawn to, and this is the faction that you'll see dominating the top of the results tables.

So to me, it seems pointless to try to understand why Kharadron Overlords aren't winning tournaments by studying Kharadron Overlords, because the reasons don't lie within that faction itself. The reasons lie within the mechanics and advantages of Tzeentch, Nurgle, et al. All other factions are pushed out by the factions that - whether through bad design or power creep - can be exploited by an elite minority of very talented players. Not just Kharadron Overlords.

To put it glibly - Kharadron Overlords don't win tournaments because they're a well written, well designed, well balanced faction. Tournaments will always be won by factions that are unbalanced in that faction's favour, because that's what top tournament players need from their armies. That's exactly what the 'meta' is - people moving from one overpowered faction to another as new factions are released and older factions get FAQ'd. Asking why any particular faction gets left behind is an exercise in futility. There's nothing you can do to change it. You might as well try to change the weather.

[Qaz]

1 hour ago, Aeonotakist said:

Ever since KO has been released it was considered.. [..] What do you think is the reason behind that? I especially want to hear from players who have experience on tournament games.

I played and won two tournaments with KO although with less than 24 players each (because they are only around 50 AOS active players in the country). The meta is different here (hurricanum-gunline is still a thing, so is changehost, stardrake and murderhost) and I'm the only Fyreslayers and KO player hence take it with a pinch of salt so local meta has less exposure an experience playing against a KO. 

 In my opinion, it is because KO has bad-matchups. Games where you would play for a minor victory. If they have enough bodies/resilient; have the ability to 'beta-strike' or not dependant on hero/monster units, you are going to have a tough time (but not impossible).  For example, against Fyreslayers on Scorched Earth, what would you kill? The targets that threatens you are the ones that are very hard to kill and  probably have enough survive your double-turn or is waiting for you drop down first. 

Hence like @Jamie the Jasper said, KO is more balanced when comparing between factions and less exploitable advantages. 

[DantePQ]

The thing is that KO are perfect against DoT, Clown-Car is close to auto-win against Changehost. Also  KO are doing pretty well  at tournaments -  Gary Percival has awesome reults with them in UK.

[Aeonotakist]

22 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

The thing is that KO are perfect against DoT, Clown-Car is close to auto-win against Changehost. Also it's not true that KO are winning tournaments Gary Percival has awesome reults winning Masters with them and as far as I remember won/had great results in other tournaments in UK as well. 

Which Master do you mean? I checked the AoS Master and could not even find a KO in the ten participating list.

[DantePQ]

Sorry he did't win (I edited my post) UK Masters 2017 - Gary was 3rd with KO 

[Aeonotakist]

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

This answer probably won't be particularly helpful, but from what I understand the top tournament players for the most part are only interested in armies that have a significant advantage that can be exploited. That's how they get to be the top tournament players. Yes, they need to be excellent players too - people who know the game and their army inside out and practice relentlessly - but most players at a tournament will have these things covered, so for the edge they need to be the best of the best they have to take a list with an imbalance of advantages that can be exploited.

You ask, 'why not Kharadron Overlords?' but you could ask the same question of most of the 60 factions currently in the game. Only a handful of these are ever seen on the top tables. In many cases that's because these factions aren't very good, but many of them are well designed, balanced factions with a very good chance of winning any game they're used in. But a 'very good chance' isn't enough to win tournaments. We could have 59 brilliantly designed and perfectly balanced factions, but if you have 1 that has an unbalanced advantage that can be exploited, this is the faction that top tournament players will be drawn to, and this is the faction that you'll see dominating the top of the results tables.

So to me, it seems pointless to try to understand why Kharadron Overlords aren't winning tournaments by studying Kharadron Overlords, because the reasons don't lie within that faction itself. The reasons lie within the mechanics and advantages of Tzeentch, Nurgle, et al. All other factions are pushed out by the factions that - whether through bad design or power creep - can be exploited by an elite minority of very talented players. Not just Kharadron Overlords.

To put it glibly - Kharadron Overlords don't win tournaments because they're a well written, well designed, well balanced faction. Tournaments will always be won by factions that are unbalanced in that faction's favour, because that's what top tournament players need from their armies. That's exactly what the 'meta' is - people moving from one overpowered faction to another as new factions are released and older factions get FAQ'd. Asking why any particular faction gets left behind is an exercise in futility. There's nothing you can do to change it. You might as well try to change the weather.

To be honest, KO should be considered as a faction with top power in tournament. Itself is well designed and balanced, but it is just so good in beating DoT, which is dominating all major events. Imagine you face 2~3 DoT in your five games and auto win all of them. You have to lose all the other games to not climbing up.

Since KO is not that shining in tournaments, I wonder what is there problem that happens so often.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Aeonotakist said:

To be honest, KO should be considered as a faction with top power in tournament. Itself is well designed and balanced, but it is just so good in beating DoT, which is dominating all major events. Imagine you face 2~3 DoT in your five games and auto win all of them. You have to lose all the other games to not climbing up.

Since KO is not that shining in tournaments, I wonder what is there problem that happens so often.

So there you go - you have your answer. There's nothing wrong with KO, it's just that other things are better at winning games. And since all top tournament players care about is winning games (their whole hobby is 90% focused on this), then they don't play KO, therefore KO don't place highly at tournaments.

It's pretty Darwinian - survival of the fittest. It's a bit like asking why are lions at the top of the food chain? Why aren't antelope top of the food chain? Is there something wrong with antelopes? Could antelopes do anything differently to be on top of the food chain? Why aren't more people picking antelopes over lions in one-on-one cage matches?

[ledha]

My advice is Kharadron Overlord can beat the changehost, yes, mostly because of the clown car, arguably the best KO army list (until someone find a better one). But it can't beat the Changehost AND everything else. I actually saw a clown car loosing to a Moonclan army just because of too much wound and bodies on the table.

The KO can beat the changehost, but can have big trouble with lower-tier army. The changehost can loose against Kharadron, but will smack down everything else. Same thing for the Fyreslayers and the old Vanguard Wing.

The most competitive list of KO is a very extreme list than can be hard-counter if you are not lucky to fall against your counter.

Another thing to note : number of players. There is few Kharadron Overlord players, will you can have 10 to 15% of the tournament being tzeentch player. Which make it easier for tzeentch to be well placed

[Aeonotakist]

31 minutes ago, ledha said:

My advice is Kharadron Overlord can beat the changehost, yes, mostly because of the clown car, arguably the best KO army list (until someone find a better one). But it can't beat the Changehost AND everything else. I actually saw a clown car loosing to a Moonclan army just because of too much wound and bodies on the table.

The KO can beat the changehost, but can have big trouble with lower-tier army. The changehost can loose against Kharadron, but will smack down everything else. Same thing for the Fyreslayers and the old Vanguard Wing.

The most competitive list of KO is a very extreme list than can be hard-counter if you are not lucky to fall against your counter.

Another thing to note : number of players. There is few Kharadron Overlord players, will you can have 10 to 15% of the tournament being tzeentch player. Which make it easier for tzeentch to be well placed

I agree with you. KO is not good against most army with very high wounds. Damage from KO is almost mortal cause they have so high rend characteristic, but their damage output limit is low. They can make about 30~50 wounds before FNP each round but some guys just don't care about it. 

But, it still amaze me how KO is not shining in even one tournament since there are now more than 30% DoT army in some competitive event. You just luckily face 4 of DoT and then you are the best! 

Maybe it is really because there are too few players of KO participating.

[BunkhouseBuster]

6 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

To put it glibly - Kharadron Overlords don't win tournaments because they're a well written, well designed, well balanced faction. Tournaments will always be won by factions that are unbalanced in that faction's favour, because that's what top tournament players need from their armies. That's exactly what the 'meta' is - people moving from one overpowered faction to another as new factions are released and older factions get FAQ'd. Asking why any particular faction gets left behind is an exercise in futility. There's nothing you can do to change it. You might as well try to change the weather.

True, but sad.  Thankfully, there aren't any of those types of competitive AoS players in my area (they stick with 40K and WarmaHordes).

4 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

It's pretty Darwinian - survival of the fittest. It's a bit like asking why are lions at the top of the food chain? Why aren't antelope top of the food chain? Is there something wrong with antelopes? Could antelopes do anything differently to be on top of the food chain? Why aren't more people picking antelopes over lions in one-on-one cage matches?

And when there are only lions, they will scare away all the antelopes from playing anymore.  And that's not to mention the zebras and crocodiles and their place in the food chain

1 hour ago, Aeonotakist said:

Maybe it is really because there are too few players of KO participating.

That would affect the chances of KO winning just from probability.  Even assuming that the armies were equal in strength, by having other armies better represented at the events, the KO have a small percentage chance of winning.  Granted, the numbers of armies represented is reflective of players's perceptions of army power, and the "meta-chasers" are going to so with the army that they believe to be strongest.

But then again, every so often you hear of an unusual army winning or placing high at an event due to an unexpected combo of "weaker" units.  I can speak from experience that when you play a unit or army that your opponent is not expecting, that right there gives you an advantage, regardless of the game system.  Messing with your opponenet's head is a legit strategy in miniatures gaming, and new/unusual army combos can provide that.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

True, but sad.  Thankfully, there aren't any of those types of competitive AoS players in my area (they stick with 40K and WarmaHordes).

There are one or two players in my group who are concerned with the 'the meta' - but they actually play regularly in tournaments and the challenge of organised competitive play is a big part of their hobby. And they're very nice people, so fair play to them.

What I don't get is when people who don't go to tournaments (or who perhaps only go to one or two small competitive event in a year) talk about 'the meta' as if this is something that should have any influence on the way they hobby. It seems ludicrous to me, and just goes to show how the outlook and language of top players in big tournaments has a disproportionate influence on the impressionable. Only about 5% of AoS players have any real justification for giving serious thought to 'the meta' - for the other 95% it should be completely irrelevant. I'd be interested to know (purely from personal curiosity) why @Aeonotakist is interested in 'the meta' and whether he/she is a committed tournament player.

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

There are one or two players in my group who are concerned with the 'the meta' - but they actually play regularly in tournaments and the challenge of organised competitive play is a big part of their hobby. And they're very nice people, so fair play to them.

What I don't get is when people who don't go to tournaments (or who perhaps only go to one or two small competitive event in a year) talk about 'the meta' as if this is something that should have any influence on the way they hobby. It seems ludicrous to me, and just goes to show how the outlook and language of top players in big tournaments has a disproportionate influence on the impressionable. Only about 5% of AoS players have any real justification for giving serious thought to 'the meta' - for the other 95% it should be completely irrelevant. I'd be interested to know (purely from personal curiosity) why @Aeonotakist is interested in 'the meta' and whether he/she is a committed tournament player.

You don't have to go to tournies for the meta to matter. You just have to play in a local group that pays attention to it.

[Aeonotakist]

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

There are one or two players in my group who are concerned with the 'the meta' - but they actually play regularly in tournaments and the challenge of organised competitive play is a big part of their hobby. And they're very nice people, so fair play to them.

What I don't get is when people who don't go to tournaments (or who perhaps only go to one or two small competitive event in a year) talk about 'the meta' as if this is something that should have any influence on the way they hobby. It seems ludicrous to me, and just goes to show how the outlook and language of top players in big tournaments has a disproportionate influence on the impressionable. Only about 5% of AoS players have any real justification for giving serious thought to 'the meta' - for the other 95% it should be completely irrelevant. I'd be interested to know (purely from personal curiosity) why @Aeonotakist is interested in 'the meta' and whether he/she is a committed tournament player.

I have won two tournaments with WB of SCE back in 2016 time in East Asian with about 35 players. However that was the largest event in that area for AoS by then.

I left the game since I had a kid in 2016 and now trying to get back. Now I am analyzing the historical tournament result to make me ramp up faster. 

[Chaotic Neutral]

9 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

top tournament players for the most part are only interested in armies that have a significant advantage that can be exploited

they have to take a list with an imbalance of advantages that can be exploited

if you have 1 that has an unbalanced advantage that can be exploited, this is the faction that top tournament players will be drawn to

tournaments will always be won by factions that are unbalanced in that faction's favour

that's exactly what the 'meta' is - people moving from one overpowered faction to another

there's nothing you can do to change it

you sir, are my hero

[generalchaos34]

3 hours ago, Chaotic Neutral said:

  12 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

top tournament players for the most part are only interested in armies that have a significant advantage that can be exploited

they have to take a list with an imbalance of advantages that can be exploited

if you have 1 that has an unbalanced advantage that can be exploited, this is the faction that top tournament players will be drawn to

tournaments will always be won by factions that are unbalanced in that faction's favour

that's exactly what the 'meta' is - people moving from one overpowered faction to another

there's nothing you can do to change it

Im going to have to agree with that. We have people who buy every new army that comes along for AoS or 40k, play it at a tournament, sell it, then move on to the next new hot army, all within the space of a few months. Its maddening for someone like me who has had more than my fair share of armies but only play the ones I love the "style" of. I originally got into KO only after I won some Fyreslayers in a raffle, realized that I am spiritually a dwarf at heart, then went headlong into both Slayers and KO and haven't looked back. I also have SCE (who are fun as well) but they will never be a main army for me, since I enjoy the look and feel of the KO (who I had always wanted to play but came out at a weird time for me gamewise).  Funny thing is I also am a hardcore Guard player in 40k with a full company of Ultramarines hanging around, it feels like I mirror my tastes in both games for shooting and hordes. 

I guess my main point is that the 'meta" is whatever wins, and those who only care about winning play whatever is the new hotness. I feel like if AoS didnt exist they would simply be playing some other game and doing the exact same thing , be it Xwing, Warmahordes, or Infinity.  Wherein the weirdos like me actually enjoy the fluff and backgrounds of the armies and lavish attention to painting and modelling them because I enjoy the armies themselves more than I enjoy playing or winning, so I will never be winning any tournaments anytime soon, and neither do I care to. 

[stratigo]

A lot of tourney players enjoy the models and background of Warhammer too. Several prolific tournament players are also amazing and dedicated hobbyists. And some don’t care at all. The meta is usually slow enough that you can paint and play an army for some time before there’s a big shift

[Hyperion]

Clown car is a 50/50 win. And they are bad at objectives.  You can’t make any mistakes in posistioning and even then if you fail a key charge with the blooms you lose anyway.  So.  Doesn’t matter if you destroy the 1-2 tzeentch lists you play if you lose the other 3-4 games on a coin flip. 

[stratigo]

flatly, KO are worse than tzeentch, even when they can beat tzeentch, worse than stormcast, worse than nurgle, and now worse than death. They are worse than fyreslayers generally, but fyreslayers get suppressed by tzeentch. They're also probably worse than some mixed order lists.

 

That's a lot of armies to be worse than just to have a good matchup with the best army

[Sleboda]

I really dislike "cute" shortcut terms for things in this hobby. Aside from implying a sneering sort of disdain and elitism, they also present a barrier to understanding the discussion at hand - which is sort of counter productive on a discussion board.

Case in point ... Clown Car?

[ledha]

39 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I really dislike "cute" shortcut terms for things in this hobby. Aside from implying a sneering sort of disdain and elitism, they also present a barrier to understanding the discussion at hand - which is sort of counter productive on a discussion board.

Case in point ... Clown Car?

There is some variations of the list and i'll do a very broad generalization, but the clown car list consist on dropping via deepstrike (most of the time) or by advancing in the hero phase before the movement phase a ship (most of the time, an ironclad, sometime a frigate) fully stuffed of arkanaut company, and around 18 balloons guys.

Everyone disembark and shoot the hell out of everything in sight with rend -2/-3 shots. You can't bubble wrap against this and the only way to not see your characters/focused unit to die is to have a enormous scenery blocking like of sight.

The term "clown car" is a reference to the old gag of ton of clown disembarking from a very little car that can't transport so many people. Here it's a same. A single ship where a whole army disembark from.

[Honk]

I played Undead for a long time now, and actually started AoS off with my awesome Flesh Eaters... Now we got the new book and all the excitement and opponents calling out the cheese.

But, after wrecking my archenemys Ironjawz with the first cohort in Round 3, we talked and I almost lost due to VP...

I guess this is one of the weak spots of KO and it‘s communicated throughout the web. Sure, you‘re first strike wrecks face, VLoZD melt like ice in the sun, but you’re not scoring  points and incoming retaliation (if your opponent doesn‘t ragequit) just wipes you off the board...exaggerated for bringing the point across.

and as wiser men have mentioned above, well balanced book, no broken imba exploits. hard stuff, mean stuff yes, sure, but nothing dedicated and well read/ informed pro-players (not me ?) can‘t stand up against

[wanderingrogue]

ko do win the odd tournie.

thing you have to remember tho is if you look at the tournie "winning lists" thier a mixed bag. cos on the day match ups and luck are a big factor.

 

tzeentch and fyre slayers are the "best" lists atm and thier not winning everything.  not even close. hell squigs won heat 3.

 

good factions/armys are considered good if they can regularly make podiums. so.. ko.. are good. they dont win everything....but then nothing is.

 

id also argue they are a lot less forgiving of mistakes and as stated theres not many of us still out there. which will always make a difference to perceived power.

ive done ok with em. ended up 3rd in the rankings and 3rd at masters. got some silverware too. but a 1st place has eluded me as yet its true. you just got to be a bit lucky on the day

 

[ledha]

47 minutes ago, wanderingrogue said:

ko do win the odd tournie.

thing you have to remember tho is if you look at the tournie "winning lists" thier a mixed bag. cos on the day match ups and luck are a big factor.

 

tzeentch and fyre slayers are the "best" lists atm and thier not winning everything.  not even close. hell squigs won heat 3.

 

good factions/armys are considered good if they can regularly make podiums. so.. ko.. are good. they dont win everything....but then nothing is.

 

id also argue they are a lot less forgiving of mistakes and as stated theres not many of us still out there. which will always make a difference to perceived power.

ive done ok with em. ended up 3rd in the rankings and 3rd at masters. got some silverware too. but a 1st place has eluded me as yet its true. you just got to be a bit lucky on the day

 

Squig won Heat 3 in July 2017, before the ghb2018.

There is so many differences between july 2017 and today that it's nearly not even the same game (new scenario, point cost, allegiance ability for everyone, etc).

I think those resultts (as well as the stormcast army who won with a bataillion that doesn't exist anymore) are irrelevant to the present day. This squig army, in the days of Changehost, Fyreslayers, Vanguard Wing and so on, would be smashed to pieces. There is the "luck factor", too. The 14 drop stormcast list with 8 dracoth who won the Australian Tournament didn't faced any of the numerous tzeentch list or fyreslayer, which could have been a very hard match-up

[wanderingrogue]

yes there is a big difference, id argue KO are better in ghb18