Destruction at Adepticon

[svnvaldez]

@Antipodean7 Feel free too have any of my posts or tweets for the collective AOS knowledge!

[Malakree]

4 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Yeah I flipped the Y axis bud, because it's based on the average ranking, not the score

That's the bit that got me, I assumed it was score.

[bonzai]

On 3/27/2018 at 8:27 PM, PlasticCraic said:

A few more graphs since we're having nerd fun, breaking out average rankings in each of three categories by GA:

Conclusions:

Destruction was the worst GA in terms of competitiveness on the tabletop

However we had the best-painted armies

And I'm sure Death players really are wonderful, wonderful people

 

I'm thinking the painting thing is probably due to a combination of factors:

- The people still playing Destruction are doing so because they really, really love their armies, so they have invested the time and care

- There is no new hotness in the GA, so probably no rushed paint jobs (unless someone decided to crank out a Kunnin Rukk)

- And finally we are just Da Best 

 

 

 

 

Its interesting to see that chaos has caught up with Order performance wise (for this tournament at least. Two years ago Order was completely ahead of the game. Now with 3 or the 4 gods fleshed out they are almost on even footing. Hopefully after this year Death will make some headway, and then it will be Destructions turn for some love.

[svnvaldez]

Next year around this time (start of the year) instead of Malign Portents and Death we will have a "Waaagh" Malign Portents campaign and some Destruction releases. This summer/fall my guess is we get Slaanesh on 40k and AOS sides and GH3/AOS 2.0.

[Skabnoze]

That would be awesome.  But I will believe it when I see it.

[BarrowLord]

According to AoS Shorts, regarding those charts, lower is better performing.  If I am reading this right it looks like Destruction did well overall given their small presence.  They sat firmly in the higher middle rankings (even if they did not score in the top brackets) rather than sinking to the bottom.



From: https://aosshorts.com/adepticon-age-of-sigmar-results/
Rankings: http://warscore.net/event/591/view.html?results=20180327222627

[svnvaldez]

Its hard to tell much from average placing without knowing the players skill. There were 10 Destro at Acon: finishing 13th, 29th, 39th, 76th, 92th, 100th, 113th, and 3 drops. I think the biggest take aways are:

On 3/27/2018 at 5:27 PM, PlasticCraic said:

- The people still playing Destruction are doing so because they really, really love their armies, so they have invested the time and care

- There is no new hotness in the GA, so probably no rushed paint jobs (unless someone decided to crank out a Kunnin Rukk)

Most competitive players have probably moved on to other GAs

[PlasticCraic]

6 hours ago, BarrowLord said:

According to AoS Shorts, regarding those charts, lower is better performing.  If I am reading this right it looks like Destruction did well overall given their small presence.  They sat firmly in the higher middle rankings (even if they did not score in the top brackets) rather than sinking to the bottom.



From: https://aosshorts.com/adepticon-age-of-sigmar-results/
Rankings: http://warscore.net/event/591/view.html?results=20180327222627

What that means is finishing #1 is better than finishing #164

1 is a lower number than 164 but it's best to be first. That's what is meant by "lower is better performing".

The players who persevered with Destruction armies finished in a worse average position than players of the other GAs.

[PlasticCraic]

5 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

Most competitive players have probably moved on to other GAs

Yep

[BarrowLord]

@PlasticCraic Ah!  You are correct.  I looked at that wrong.  I took the 'lower is better' as referring to the line, but it seems obvious (now that you've pointed it out) that it refers to the numbers.  A glance at the placement chart seemed to support what I had been thinking, but I didn't dig too deep into it.  It was probably confirmation bias on my part.

[Tizianolol]

Have you seen the 13 th destruction player list? IJ with godrak, 3 warchanter , 80 pts goblin wizard and 3 x6 pigs with battalion. For me that's the better option for IJ or destruction at moment infact he placed pretty well

[Zambo]

I’ve been playing around with creating a similar list 

double maw crush 920

grot shaman (wolf) 80 

orc boss (boar n banner) 140

2x warchanter 160

2x6 pigs 560

3 pigs 140

bang in 2000pts 

reckon it could cause a headache running boar boss and chanters up with x2 maws +1 to hit reroll 1 to wound 

idea is to create a fast attack how important do u guys think the battalion is to its success? 

 

 

 

[Tizianolol]

With godrakk  pig battalion is very strong.. Basically with his command ability and extra 15" move you got 1 turn charge secured , gotrak command ability gives 3d6 charge at you battalion and IJ got +1 to charge. Your 8" charge is pretty easy. Gotrak gives you + 2 attacks with EACH melee weapons and warchanter gives you +1 to hit making pings really scary. 

Tactic for this list : mystic shield gottakk and push all up! Roll and prey:)

[broche]

16 hours ago, Tizianolol said:

Have you seen the 13 th destruction player list? IJ with godrak, 3 warchanter , 80 pts goblin wizard and 3 x6 pigs with battalion. For me that's the better option for IJ or destruction at moment infact he placed pretty well

I think gorefist with Gordrack pig list is pretty close to a T1 (125+ damage , with 55 rend 1 can't be bad if you manage to get all pig in combat. Problem is that  good players will screen/bubble is important units to mitigate the damages. Also the list is 6 drops, so half the game you won't get to choose to take the turn. 

I think the good part is that it can beat other T1 list if opponent don't set up properly, but you can probably get beat by any decent list against a good player.

[Hot Peanut]

14 hours ago, broche said:

I think gorefist with Gordrack pig list is pretty close to a T1 (125+ damage , with 55 rend 1 can't be bad if you manage to get all pig in combat. Problem is that  good players will screen/bubble is important units to mitigate the damages. Also the list is 6 drops, so half the game you won't get to choose to take the turn. 

I think the good part is that it can beat other T1 list if opponent don't set up properly, but you can probably get beat by any decent list against a good player.

I played this list a few weeks ago: 

 

[broche]

I want to try a variant of a  Gorkrak list, but with an ironfist instead (i don't own 18 pig anyway)

Con is that you can't alpha strike as effectively as the Gorefist on T1, but you get to take Brutes and Ardboys, wich give you more longterm punch and increase your models count.

Gordrack	620
Weirnob	120
Warchanter	80
10 brutes	360
3 goregruntas	140
3 goregruntas	140
10 ardboys	180
5 brutes	180
ironfist	160

[tchad78]

On 3/31/2018 at 6:52 PM, Tizianolol said:

With godrakk  pig battalion is very strong.. Basically with his command ability and extra 15" move you got 1 turn charge secured , gotrak command ability gives 3d6 charge at you battalion and IJ got +1 to charge. Your 8" charge is pretty easy. Gotrak gives you + 2 attacks with EACH melee weapons and warchanter gives you +1 to hit making pings really scary. 

Tactic for this list : mystic shield gottakk and push all up! Roll and prey:)

The frustrating part is that command abilities don't affect mounts.  Imagine d3 piggie damage if they also got 2 extra attacks.

[Richelieu]

15 hours ago, tchad78 said:

The frustrating part is that command abilities don't affect mounts.  Imagine d3 piggie damage if they also got 2 extra attacks.

The GHB 2017 FAQ revised the wording.  Only command traits and artifacts don't apply to mounts. 

[Hot Peanut]

2 hours ago, tchad78 said:

The frustrating part is that command abilities don't affect mounts.  Imagine d3 piggie damage if they also got 2 extra attacks.

yeah, it is working, but the 8" charge is just too risky, i once had a game were two of my 3 units of GGs had a 7 or less on the charge roll.... that game was over quickly.

You don't measure the distance of the charge, at the beginning of the charge the distance to the nearest enemy model...

[tchad78]

7 minutes ago, Hot Peanut said:

yeah, it is working, but the 8" charge is just too risky, i once had a game were two of my 3 units of GGs had a 7 or less on the charge roll.... that game was over quickly.

You don't measure the distance of the charge, at the beginning of the charge the distance to the nearest enemy model...

It seems like you could drastically change your chances of winning on 3d6 getting a 7.  Prior to learning about the FAQ a bit ago in this thread I would have felt the 8" charge for d3 was required to win, but the extra 2 attacks per pig probably makes up for it.

 

I'm also 3 pigs shy of your list.  Squig lobba or Orc Warboss with banner on a pig were my thoughts.

[broche]

1 hour ago, Hot Peanut said:

yeah, it is working, but the 8" charge is just too risky, i once had a game were two of my 3 units of GGs had a 7 or less on the charge roll.... that game was over quickly.

You don't measure the distance of the charge, at the beginning of the charge the distance to the nearest enemy model...

You were pretty unlucky to miss two 7'' charge on 3d6 (90% likelihood of success per charge)

I think it depend on the matchup, if you don't need the damage that much no point on risking, in some matchup / scenario it worth the risk.

[Tizianolol]

Ye it's only command trait and artifact! So pigs are scary and 8" charge with 3d6 is not so hard. There are more risky lists where you have to be so lucky for making them perform! Anyway IJ need rework imo. New armies seems more competitive

[Malakree]

46 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:

Ye it's only command trait and artifact! So pigs are scary and 8" charge with 3d6 is not so hard. There are more risky lists where you have to be so lucky for making them perform! Anyway IJ need rework imo. New armies seems more competitive

3d6+1 with the allegiance.

Yeah I read the deepkin weapon profile the when it came up yesterday, their bog standard awful unit is 2/3+/3+/-1/1 compared to the Ardboys 2/4+/3+/-1/1 and that's their "bad" unit. Then you look at their cav, 4+ ignoring rend....oh good, so when they get mystic shield and have charged we have another 2+ can't be reduced save, good to know. What the ****** is going on in the designers minds, it's like they have no understanding of balance.....

[Hot Peanut]

3 hours ago, tchad78 said:

It seems like you could drastically change your chances of winning on 3d6 getting a 7.  Prior to learning about the FAQ a bit ago in this thread I would have felt the 8" charge for d3 was required to win, but the extra 2 attacks per pig probably makes up for it.

 

I'm also 3 pigs shy of your list.  Squig lobba or Orc Warboss with banner on a pig were my thoughts.

get the Orc Warboss with Banner then, you have 165 attacks with 15 pigs, that wound reroll is worth it. I already thought about that.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Malakree said:

3d6+1 with the allegiance.

Yeah I read the deepkin weapon profile the when it came up yesterday, their bog standard awful unit is 2/3+/3+/-1/1 compared to the Ardboys 2/4+/3+/-1/1 and that's their "bad" unit. Then you look at their cav, 4+ ignoring rend....oh good, so when they get mystic shield and have charged we have another 2+ can't be reduced save, good to know. What the ****** is going on in the designers minds, it's like they have no understanding of balance.....

I hear you, but I think we should wait to see the full book before getting too upset.  They may have fairly low wounds or end up expensive to compensate.  Also, they would only have the 2+ save possibility when they charge.  But, being flying fish dudes I would not be surprised to see some form of ability to leave combat and still charge.

There might be some serious rules creep interactions going on here, but before I can look at the army as a whole I won't cry foul.

Your point about stats is valid, but again I would argue that Ironjawz are simply suffering from an army that came out extremely early in a brand new edition and when GW did not really seem to have a full grasp of where they were going with the game.  I would say a number of the earliest forces like this are prime for a book rewrite.