Jump to content

AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion


Chris Tomlin

Recommended Posts

Short Story: Wenn are going to Play a Path to Glory Campain, so i startet to build an Warband using the Rules in the KO Battletome. Later i hot the Path to Glory Rulebook from a friend, who do you think got a new warband table? Of course, the KO!

 

I think their is no single page of rules in the KO Battletome, which isn't changed or replaced by now. If I would buy the Book today, I would want my money back.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arkanaut Admiral said:

Hey guys, my friend and I are trying to arrange a small game during the week to demo some of the ideas I’ve had for the Overlords.  Particularly, the one about garrisoning for the ships.  I’ll let you know how it goes.

Look forward to it bud 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

Some nerfs are, others make no sense with the general trend of GW buffing many of the already tournament strong armies (SCE got a buff. Nurgle got a buff. Seraphon got a buff. ETC). Why put so much effort in nerfing KO?

 

It almost certainly has nothing to do with balance and how good the army is relative to others and most likely involves the way GW thinks you should play KO, but lacking the gumption to actually make that way good, instead preferring to just nerf any way the faction plays outside what they consider the true way until that's the only way to play, too bad you'll still lose most of your games.

Mmmm. I’m tending to agree. Having only been an AoS gamer for 6 months I’ve seen plenty to praise GW but an awful lot that I don’t. Currently my view is that GW are good at the models, and getting a little better with the lore, but they are starting to suck at the rules. To take this factor out of the game and improve enjoyment is to really play narrative games only as they don’t rely too heavily on GW meddling in their own design.

Id love it if TGA set up their own warscrolls and points system based on lore, common sense and enjoyment rather than other agendas perhaps designed around commercial behaviour. I think we’d see a better game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I had a few small games at 1000 points against the new Stormcast. Lost 2 in devastating fashion, won  one 1 decisively. Here are my thoughts:

- At minimum loadouts, Unit vs Unit, Stormcast battlelines eat Arkanaut companies alive if they have a chance to attack first.

- Weird as it sounds (for Dwarfs), it seems Mobility is the key factor for KO as it was in previous edition which I only played in sparringly. Its all bout identifying the weakpoint in the line as it pushes up. This is assuming you are playing Barak Zilfin and chooses to go 2nd. At 1000 pts, the table size plays a part.

- If you hang back to shoot, you are going to get charged. And with Cavalry and hero units with a 12" movement and the new 36" artillery piece, there is really no range you are safe it.

- As it turns out, charging in with Skypikes is respectable. 6 attacks (maxed out on 3 dudes) and D3 damage should put a dent in something. Preferrably on a Hero or Monster. If you +1 to those attacks using the Aether-Khemist, your chances go WAY up and your opponent's hero or monster doesn't benefit from Look out sir.

 

Its tough but as I suspected, our average statline can be balanced out by our movement shenanigans. 

Edited by Badlander86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mcthew said:

Mmmm. I’m tending to agree. Having only been an AoS gamer for 6 months I’ve seen plenty to praise GW but an awful lot that I don’t. Currently my view is that GW are good at the models, and getting a little better with the lore, but they are starting to suck at the rules. To take this factor out of the game and improve enjoyment is to really play narrative games only as they don’t rely too heavily on GW meddling in their own design.

Id love it if TGA set up their own warscrolls and points system based on lore, common sense and enjoyment rather than other agendas perhaps designed around commercial behaviour. I think we’d see a better game.

This is a slippery slope because even with companies with "tighter" rules systems like Privateer Press, there is always going to be winners and losers and everything in between with every new addition.

This saltiness is existent in many game systems where a major review/revision of rules comes about. Maybe KO power players (and there are many of those) bought into armies because they were at the time, above the curve or an army with a wider threat range in the wider...and I hate this term because I've heard it so much in other games...."meta". But now, we have a significant meta change in a new edition of the game in its infancy. Is KO good/bad/somewhere in between? Who can say? If someone top 3's a tournament of note somewhere in world, suddenly KO will be hot again regardless of how janky the list is.

And quite frankly, I don't trust players anymore than the designers to make "balance" gameplay. We are all self-indulgent to some degree. What seems fine to me, might feel overpowered if you are on the receiving end. If a Stormcast player rolls utter nonsense in a few games, we might be inclined to believe Stormcast are not as good.

Here is another example, and this is a stretch but bear with me here: Most of us are old enough to know what Street Fighter is (I hope. I'm old so maybe the new hotness is something else). We all know, Ryu is the main character of the game. Ryu is generally easy to pick up and it feels cool playing as him, most new players start as Ryu. After awhile, you may get bored of the basics of playing Ryu and try another character like say...I dunno, Cammy or Balrog that have almost no similarities to Ryu . The curve suddenly picks up and you need to put in more effort to pull off moves and combos and competitively, Cammy and Balrog don't have the range of Ryu and is harder to use, but a good Cammy/Balrog/whatever player can beat an average Ryu player if he/she knows what he is doing. Then we go to the upper end of the spectrum. Lets say Street Fighter pro players, who are they using?  Usually characters like Ryu or Akuma (Ryu on steroids) that are known to be basic in their inputs. Of course, these guys have their characters down pat, they know their subtleties and combos like the back of their hand. The "pros" need to gravitate to something familiar, with the least amount of effort and once mastered, with the lowest amount of variance. Yet why is it even at such high play, with money on the line, do we see guys coming into to play I dunno, Zangief or something on twitch against players like Infiltration or Daigo? Why not just play Ryu and clones? Because its not fun. Sometimes beating guys you know are above the curve is where the mark of a true competitor is. If every team in the world rolled over for Real Madrid because Ronaldo plays, of for the Lakers because LeBron plays, what would be the point of having a game? Not everything is Moneyball. It's why we play the games.

The Stormcast Eternals are Ryu. They are meant to be good, easy for newer players to pick up and feel great then they will either hit a wall or get bored. Even the design of the Stormcast are meant for them to be easy to pick up from a hobby perspective. 

Edited by Badlander86
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Khadorans,

let´s say I´d like to start with Khadorans and because I really love all the ships I have to get some of them! Well, I wonder if I should go with 2 Frigates or 1 Iroclad and I like to get some advice. The basics:

- 1000 points games (yes, I know it will be light on troops then, but that´s the way I like to go.

- 1 Ironclad or 2 Frigates?

The Ironclad is a bit cheaper compared to two Frigates (-60 points), offer less wounds and less board presence. But it is one hell of a cool looking miniature! And it allows to run a one-drop-army in 1k points.

2 Frigates on the other hand offer more board presence and some kind of redundancy, which might be advantageous. Though I have to buy and paint 2 models instead of one. Big advantage: Frigate is part of the battleforce boxed set.

The thing I really can´t estimate is the comparison in firepower. Which one is stronger. 2 Frigates or 1 Ironclad when it comes down to shooting?

 

Well, overall, what´s your opinion on this topic?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hannibal said:

Hi Khadorans,

let´s say I´d like to start with Khadorans and because I really love all the ships I have to get some of them! Well, I wonder if I should go with 2 Frigates or 1 Iroclad and I like to get some advice. The basics:

- 1000 points games (yes, I know it will be light on troops then, but that´s the way I like to go.

- 1 Ironclad or 2 Frigates?

The Ironclad is a bit cheaper compared to two Frigates (-60 points), offer less wounds and less board presence. But it is one hell of a cool looking miniature! And it allows to run a one-drop-army in 1k points.

2 Frigates on the other hand offer more board presence and some kind of redundancy, which might be advantageous. Though I have to buy and paint 2 models instead of one. Big advantage: Frigate is part of the battleforce boxed set.

The thing I really can´t estimate is the comparison in firepower. Which one is stronger. 2 Frigates or 1 Ironclad when it comes down to shooting?

 

Well, overall, what´s your opinion on this topic?

 

Hi Hannibal, at 1000 pts, the Ironclad is too much of a points sink for you to have in an already smaller game. With the changes to shooting (if you aren't aware, if your model is engaged i.e. within 3 inches of an enemy model or unit, you can only shoot at the models you are currently engaged with), the Ironclad can be tied up effectively by chaff or stubbornly tanky units.

In terms of firepower though the Ironclad hands down has the advantage, with 8 to 10 Carbine shots (a special ability gives it +2 to Attacks), the Torpedoes and Aethermatic Volleygun (optional weapon). It has a better save value (+4) and a ton of special rules which are dependent on dice rolls. The problem is, if you run it and your 2 battlelines, your effectively more than 1/2 your points in 3 units. Against a horde army, you might be severely outnumbered and the board might get crowded enough that your mobility doesn't count for much.

I would suggest going for the Frigate. At 240 points and your 2 battleline, you have 480 points, freeing up the rest either for more heroes or units. The battleforce box comes with the Skywardens/Endrinriggers. Both versions are now 3 man squads at 120 points. Statwise, Endrinriggers are better (for now, things can change) so I suggest going with what you like in terms of the looks.

If I were to recommend you next purchase, aside from another unit of Arkanauts get the Heroes: Aether-Khemists and a maybe a Navigator for anti-magic. If you are ready to upscale to 2000 points, then you should consider the Ironclad because you do have more points to work with and the table size (which is a factor) can really help in your list-building.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Badlander86 said:

This is a slippery slope because even with companies with "tighter" rules systems like Privateer Press, there is always going to be winners and losers and everything in between with every new addition.

This saltiness is existent in many game systems where a major review/revision of rules comes about. Maybe KO power players (and there are many of those) bought into armies because they were at the time, above the curve or an army with a wider threat range in the wider...and I hate this term because I've heard it so much in other games...."meta". But now, we have a significant meta change in a new edition of the game in its infancy. Is KO good/bad/somewhere in between? Who can say? If someone top 3's a tournament of note somewhere in world, suddenly KO will be hot again regardless of how janky the list is.

And quite frankly, I don't trust players anymore than the designers to make "balance" gameplay. We are all self-indulgent to some degree. What seems fine to me, might feel overpowered if you are on the receiving end. If a Stormcast player rolls utter nonsense in a few games, we might be inclined to believe Stormcast are not as good.

Here is another example, and this is a stretch but bear with me here: Most of us are old enough to know what Street Fighter is (I hope. I'm old so maybe the new hotness is something else). We all know, Ryu is the main character of the game. Ryu is generally easy to pick up and it feels cool playing as him, most new players start as Ryu. After awhile, you may get bored of the basics of playing Ryu and try another character like say...I dunno, Cammy or Balrog that have almost no similarities to Ryu . The curve suddenly picks up and you need to put in more effort to pull off moves and combos and competitively, Cammy and Balrog don't have the range of Ryu and is harder to use, but a good Cammy/Balrog/whatever player can beat an average Ryu player if he/she knows what he is doing. Then we go to the upper end of the spectrum. Lets say Street Fighter pro players, who are they using?  Usually characters like Ryu or Akuma (Ryu on steroids) that are known to be basic in their inputs. Of course, these guys have their characters down pat, they know their subtleties and combos like the back of their hand. The "pros" need to gravitate to something familiar, with the least amount of effort and once mastered, with the lowest amount of variance. Yet why is it even at such high play, with money on the line, do we see guys coming into to play I dunno, Zangief or something on twitch against players like Infiltration or Daigo? Why not just play Ryu and clones? Because its not fun. Sometimes beating guys you know are above the curve is where the mark of a true competitor is. If every team in the world rolled over for Real Madrid because Ronaldo plays, of for the Lakers because LeBron plays, what would be the point of having a game? Not everything is Moneyball. It's why we play the games.

The Stormcast Eternals are Ryu. They are meant to be good, easy for newer players to pick up and feel great then they will either hit a wall or get bored. Even the design of the Stormcast are meant for them to be easy to pick up from a hobby perspective. 

KO were never meta. Even when Paul was getting good results with them in tournaments, there was never a mass shift to KO for tournament players. Their saving grace was a strong match up against tzeentch, and fairly alright matchups against a few other torunament armies like murderhost. But, as new army books came out, there were increasingly poor matchups. Nurgle is a poor matchup. Daughters of Khaine could very easily become a poor match up based on the temple (which is now a far far worse matchup) and Deepkin are a poor match up.

 

Maybe there is some exploitative way to make a KO power list. I don't see how at all, but anything is possible. Even then... few people want to play that list. And it will guaranteed get nerfed the next balance pass, as GW has done consistently to every KO build that doesn't fit their vision. I'd be fine if their vision of the army actually worked, but it doesn't, and I'm not sure they can make it work with just point changes, and I can count on one hand the number a actual warscroll changes they have done (and it was done to nerf KO specifically).

 

Flatly, I want a good army. Not the best army. A good army that I like the look and background of. And KO are not that army any longer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Mohojoe said:

Anyone usin Lord magnate in any lists? 

I Just picked him up today.  He is slightly better than 1 unit of riggers in CC.  Better at shooting than and almost as tough at two units.  Now with command points I think he might be worth something.   Plus he is another hero for scenarios and he is mobile.

Edited by Bruinin
Typo
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bruinin said:

Some other questions:

Does anyone move the ships with units inside after turn one or after a drop?

It was mentioned above that GW wants us to play a certain way.  What is that way?

Thanks

The continued changes GW makes to KO indicate to me that they want KO to be played with a lot of ships. They want to see a fleet on the table, that is their conception of KO. They’ve tried to buff those units, and they have conclusively nerfed any standout strategies or units not based around ships. The problem is that they haven’t made ships able to carry the army, they’re far too timid in buffing them and their synergy characters. On the other hand, they have been more than willing to come down like a hammer on any unit or rule that allows a strategy that doesn’t revolve around multiple ships

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the Moneyball reference someone made earlier, but I have a slightly different take on it. 

The idea of Moneyball is that if you are in a situation where you have a competitive disadvantage you have to be ahead of the curve in finding new ways to succeed. In the book it was a baseball team with very small payroll capacity, that adopted advanced stats before other teams. That analytics powered the to a run of unexpected success. The lesson is to always look for new ways to succeed and not to be wedded to how things have been done in the past.

Our constraint is the small selection of units and high cost of many of them.  We just need to be creative and forward thinking to find a way to win in AoS2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I’ve got my list for that test game:

Ironclad

2 frigates

Admiral

khemist

navigator

endrinmaster

x3 10 Arkanauts

x2 3 endrinriggers

I’m not sure which skyport to go as but the plan is to put the command staff and 1 unit of Arkanauts in the Ironclad, and then the frigates each take a unit of arkanauts and endrinriggers.  This should really test my ideas out.

All three ships will have healing and plenty of embarked crew to fight with.  Plus the navigator will actually be able to assist in moving them too.

I might take Barak Morhar.  Running and shooting in the first turn and the opportunistic privateers trait could be lethal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WatcherintheWater said:

I really like the Moneyball reference someone made earlier, but I have a slightly different take on it. 

The idea of Moneyball is that if you are in a situation where you have a competitive disadvantage you have to be ahead of the curve in finding new ways to succeed. In the book it was a baseball team with very small payroll capacity, that adopted advanced stats before other teams. That analytics powered the to a run of unexpected success. The lesson is to always look for new ways to succeed and not to be wedded to how things have been done in the past.

Our constraint is the small selection of units and high cost of many of them.  We just need to be creative and forward thinking to find a way to win in AoS2.

Age of sigmar isn’t baseball

 

There are stronger ways to build a KO army, but none of them matter in the current meta, it’ll be too slow to stop enemies from hitting critical mass with summoning and so you’ll be unable to push them off objectives or hit synergy heroes. If you try and run a mobile list, you’re no longer fast enough, and most armies are much more resilient now and mobile KO have always been a glass cannon army, but they disarmed the cannon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m taking a Thryng list based on sniping basically while taking advantage of maximum grudges.

yet to finalise troop choices but I do feel two navigators are a decent choice to allow you to unbind. An argument could be made fir taking Barak-Nar but to be honest i don’t like relying on a one dimensional list when you might not play against a magic army. 

Im kinda wanting to try the Lord magnate  but I am a little concerned at his high point cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mohojoe said:

I’m taking a Thryng list based on sniping basically while taking advantage of maximum grudges.

yet to finalise troop choices but I do feel two navigators are a decent choice to allow you to unbind. An argument could be made fir taking Barak-Nar but to be honest i don’t like relying on a one dimensional list when you might not play against a magic army. 

Im kinda wanting to try the Lord magnate  but I am a little concerned at his high point cost. 

The Thrying Grundstock List doesnt seem too bad. Unfortunately the Skywardens feel like an unnecesary tax but if you max them out at 9 guys, 3 of which with Drill Cannons, you have more than a good chance of denting something . You could use the Focus Fire ability to maximum effect for your 3 Gunhaulers, whether for the Cannon or the Drill. With the speed of the Gunhaulers you can play a run and gun style battle, hitting on 3+ on a specific enemy unit, re-rolling 1s thanks to the grudge.  

Exploding Drill for is actually a good deterrent or counter to Look Out Sir actually...hmmm...

The Thrying Grundstock Escort list lets you take another Frigate but I don't think you will need it. Use the grudges (you should at least get 2 in the worset case) run your Arkanauts to be bait or contest objectives or hold up chaff, hang back and shoot whatever takes the bait. Use the Thunderers only as a last resort. In fact keep them loaded up in the Frigate and only drop them in when you absolutely need to max out on shooting. 

With all the necessary taxes (3 battleline, 3 Gunhaulers, 1 Skywarden unit of 9 optionally, 10 man unit of Thunderers, 1 Frigate  with a Skyhook maybe and your Battalion cost) you are looking at maybe 1770, 1800 pts. With only 200 pts to work with,  either drop the skywardens to a minimum and you can bring Brokk in. But I like the idea of 9 Skywardens, 3 with Drills, hitting on 3+ with Focus Fire and re-rolling 1s to the grudge. Throw an Aetherkhemist into the mix and you have 6 Drill shots. If you minimize your Thunderers and max out on a 12 man unit of Skywardens with 4 Drills....I think you get the picture. 

Its tempting. A highly mobile army with a significant ranged punch. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stratigo said:

Age of sigmar isn’t baseball

 

There are stronger ways to build a KO army, but none of them matter in the current meta, it’ll be too slow to stop enemies from hitting critical mass with summoning and so you’ll be unable to push them off objectives or hit synergy heroes. If you try and run a mobile list, you’re no longer fast enough, and most armies are much more resilient now and mobile KO have always been a glass cannon army, but they disarmed the cannon. 

You're right. As an obvious and ignorant snub to baseball, AoS is supposed to be fun.

I can understand your anger if Kharadron Overlords was an old faction with 10, 15 years of history in a game just as old. AoS like many of its factions are new and there is going to be a feeling out process with checks and balances. And if GW never gets around to it, C'est la vie. At least I have an army I am proud I put time and effort into painting, and I can still run them in casual games with friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zetsu20 said:

I have a question.

Did lord Ordinator can set as general of kharadron overload allegiance  ?  in Azyr it was valid

Yes. There was a Malign Portents Errata that allows you to take a Lord-Ordinator as your Warlord even when not using the Malign Portents expansion. 

But beware, some Reviews say that he will lose his current command ability. His +1 to-hit for war machines is still strong but we have to see if he is worth the new point costs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

Yes. There was a Malign Portents Errata that allows you to take a Lord-Ordinator as your Warlord even when not using the Malign Portents expansion. 

But beware, some Reviews say that he will lose his current command ability. His +1 to-hit for war machines is still strong but we have to see if he is worth the new point costs. 

oh ok

thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zetsu20 said:

oh ok

thank you.

 

13 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

Yes. There was a Malign Portents Errata that allows you to take a Lord-Ordinator as your Warlord even when not using the Malign Portents expansion. 

But beware, some Reviews say that he will lose his current command ability. His +1 to-hit for war machines is still strong but we have to see if he is worth the new point costs. 

Can the Lord Ordinator be brought in Barak Thrying Grundstock Warscroll Battlion as an Ally? Suddenly Gunhaulers hitting on 2+ from 24" seems a lot more appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Badlander86 said:

 

Can the Lord Ordinator be brought in Barak Thrying Grundstock Warscroll Battlion as an Ally? Suddenly Gunhaulers hitting on 2+ from 24" seems a lot more appealing.

You can take a Lord-Ordinator as an Ally but he can't be part of a Battalion. 

I had a similar Idea yesterday. I was planning on using a Lord-Ordinator along side a Barak-Mhonar Grundstock Escort Wing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...