Jump to content

AoS 2 - Living City Discussion


AthelLoren
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Tidings said:

I figured that's what he meant but it's a misleading way to write it, because of the 9" bubble and the fact that it's not a true 24" threat range; you only shoot once if you move.
 

I get everything you are saying and agree that it is very strong. It's the same thing when playing against FEC basically, but even better than FEC. The main thing I don't like is that it can still be played around. I have never lost to an ambushing army in tournaments because if you build a good list, you will have cheap screeners and you can decide what is okay to let die and screen what you need to win. It definitely forces your opponent to play smart and make tough choices, but it's always able to be played around by a good player who made a good list. 

Regarding Irondrakes and Sisters, Irondrakes are mathematically more efficient. They do more damage per point than the more expensive sisters, carry buffs better, all while being more durable. Mortal Wounds are nice though and they're pretty close so it really is preference. Here's a chart though in case you are curious!

Graph is comparing units of 30, and does NOT factor in the point cost - just damage output. Buffs include +1/+1 as you can do that in TE easily, and Irondrakes also have their rending improved (which you can stack btw, I only show it once)

StatsSisterDrakes.JPG

This can be true but if you encounter also variance SoW will be better then this, because as you get lucky on 6 your damage will rise better then dwarfs damage. Working on means is not statistically a good stuff. On top of this Ethereal stuff always exist in this game.

In the end, SoW has 2" more in range. That can make the difference for large units coming out from hidden paths.

Edited by Raffonerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cerve said:

In fact I found quite the opposite. Against light targets Sisters shine and thar MW it's just a double wound on 6s (which is pretty good for maths). But if I need, I can focus theme on hard targets precisely for those MW.  While I find rend-1 something less specific. I mean, against ts2+/3+ it's not enough and against ts6+/- it's nearly redundant. Sisters gives me that edge against 2+/3+ that Rend-1 can't afford, and they just adds double wounds on 6s on light targets. 

The question is a mathematical one, so let's look at the math.

 

30 Sisters of the Watch, unbuffed

Spoiler
  • Vs no save: 33.61 damage (.07 damage per point)
  • vs 6+:  29.12 damage (.061 damage per point)
  • vs 5+: 24.65 damage (.051 damage per point)
  • vs 4+: 20.17 damage  (.042 damage per point)
  • vs 3+: 15.69 damage (.033 damage per point)
  • vs 2+: 11.2 damage (.023 damage per point)

30 Sisters of the Watch, buffed (+1 hit)

Spoiler
  • vs no save: 41.67 damage (.087)
  • vs 6+: 36.11 damage (.075)
  • vs 5+: 30.56 damage (.064)
  • vs 4+: 25 damage (.052)
  • vs 3+: 19.44 damage (.041)
  • vs 2+: 13.89 damage (.029)

30 Irondrakes, unbuffed

Spoiler
  • vs no save: 27.55 damage (.061)
  • vs 6+: 27.55 damage (.061)
  • vs 5+: 23.26 damage (.052)
  • vs 4+: 18.67 damage (.041)
  • vs 3+: 14.07 damage (.031)
  • vs 2+: 9.48 damage (.021)

30 Irondrakes, buffed (+1 hit, -1 rend, rr 1s to wound)

Spoiler
  • vs no save: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 6+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 5+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 4+:  33.92 damage (.075)
  • vs 3+:  27.22 damage (.06)
  • vs 2+: 20.53 damage  (.046)

30 Freeguild Crossbows, unbuffed

Spoiler
  • vs no save: 20.22 damage (.067)
  • vs 6+: 16.85 damage (.056)
  • vs 5+: 13.48 damage (.045)
  • vs 4+: 10.11 damage (.034)
  • vs 3+: 6.74 damage (.022)
  • vs 2+: 3.37 damage (.011)

30 Freeguild Crossbows, buffed (+2 hit, +1 wound)

Spoiler
  • vs no save: 41.67 damage (.139)
  • vs 6+: 34.62 damage (.115)
  • vs 5+: 27.78 damage (.093)
  • vs 4+: 20.83 damage (.069)
  • vs 3+: 13.89 damage (.046)
  • vs 2+: 6.94 damage (.023)

I think that these numbers illustrate my point nicely. With a high rend option (like buffed Irondrakes), you see really flat efficiency against poor saves but good efficiency against good saves. With a no rend option like Crossbows you see great efficiency against poor saves that falls off sharply as the save gets better.

With a mixed option like SotW, you see more consistency across different saves. The peaks aren't as high, relatively speaking, but the valleys aren't as low either. 

Comparing the tables shows that without the benefit of buffs, Sisters of the Watch have the best overall performance although the difference between Sisters and Irondrakes is really small. Freeguild Crossbows are pretty competitive against poor saves but significantly worse against really good saves. 

Once you factor in available buffs, Irondrakes become significantly better than SotW except against null saves. This is the flattening that I was talking about earlier -- high rend is relatively inefficient against low armor. Meanwhile, Freeguild Crossbows just blow the other options out of the water against low saves. It's not even close to close. SotW only surpass crossbows against a 2+ save, although they are very close at 3+. Meanwhile, Irondrakes pass crossbows against a 4+ save and are markedly better against 3+ and 2+ saves. 

Here are the defensive efficiencies:

Spoiler

Sisters of the Watch: .094-.063

Irondrakes (melee): .133-.067

Irondrakes (ranged): .2-.067

Freeguild Crossbows: .12-.1

Additionally, Sisters of the Watch have a slight speed advantage, slight range advantage over Irondrakes, the benefit of stand and shoot (although at half strength) and require the lowest effort to buff (only a Nomad Prince OR Hurricanum). Offensively they are probably the most efficient choice without buffs, and they perform decently against any armor type. Defensively they are the least efficient.

Irondrakes have the lowest speed and lowest range and require the highest effort to fully buff (Longbeards, Runesmith, and Hurricanum), but they have a slight extra bonus against monsters. Defensively they are the most efficient against low rend attacks, and are by far the most efficient against low rend shooting.

Crossbows have medium speed and require medium effort to buff (Freeguild General and Hurricanum) but enjoy the longest range by far. Defensively they are middle of the pack against low rend and by far the best against mortal wounds. 

 

TL;DR: Mathematically speaking all of these options are valid and all have a role depending on the composition of the rest of your list. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

The question is a mathematical one, so let's look at the math.

 

30 Sisters of the Watch, unbuffed

  Reveal hidden contents
  • Vs no save: 33.61 damage (.07 damage per point)
  • vs 6+:  29.12 damage (.061 damage per point)
  • vs 5+: 24.65 damage (.051 damage per point)
  • vs 4+: 20.17 damage  (.042 damage per point)
  • vs 3+: 15.69 damage (.033 damage per point)
  • vs 2+: 11.2 damage (.023 damage per point)

30 Sisters of the Watch, buffed (+1 hit)

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 41.67 damage (.087)
  • vs 6+: 36.11 damage (.075)
  • vs 5+: 30.56 damage (.064)
  • vs 4+: 25 damage (.052)
  • vs 3+: 19.44 damage (.041)
  • vs 2+: 13.89 damage (.029)

30 Irondrakes, unbuffed

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 27.55 damage (.061)
  • vs 6+: 27.55 damage (.061)
  • vs 5+: 23.26 damage (.052)
  • vs 4+: 18.67 damage (.041)
  • vs 3+: 14.07 damage (.031)
  • vs 2+: 9.48 damage (.021)

30 Irondrakes, buffed (+1 hit, -1 rend, rr 1s to wound)

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 6+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 5+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 4+:  33.92 damage (.075)
  • vs 3+:  27.22 damage (.06)
  • vs 2+: 20.53 damage  (.046)

30 Freeguild Crossbows, unbuffed

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 20.22 damage (.067)
  • vs 6+: 16.85 damage (.056)
  • vs 5+: 13.48 damage (.045)
  • vs 4+: 10.11 damage (.034)
  • vs 3+: 6.74 damage (.022)
  • vs 2+: 3.37 damage (.011)

30 Freeguild Crossbows, buffed (+2 hit, +1 wound)

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 41.67 damage (.139)
  • vs 6+: 34.62 damage (.115)
  • vs 5+: 27.78 damage (.093)
  • vs 4+: 20.83 damage (.069)
  • vs 3+: 13.89 damage (.046)
  • vs 2+: 6.94 damage (.023)

I think that these numbers illustrate my point nicely. With a high rend option (like buffed Irondrakes), you see really flat efficiency against poor saves but good efficiency against good saves. With a no rend option like Crossbows you see great efficiency against poor saves that falls off sharply as the save gets better.

With a mixed option like SotW, you see more consistency across different saves. The peaks aren't as high, relatively speaking, but the valleys aren't as low either. 

Comparing the tables shows that without the benefit of buffs, Sisters of the Watch have the best overall performance although the difference between Sisters and Irondrakes is really small. Freeguild Crossbows are pretty competitive against poor saves but significantly worse against really good saves. 

Once you factor in available buffs, Irondrakes become significantly better than SotW except against null saves. This is the flattening that I was talking about earlier -- high rend is relatively inefficient against low armor. Meanwhile, Freeguild Crossbows just blow the other options out of the water against low saves. It's not even close to close. SotW only surpass crossbows against a 2+ save, although they are very close at 3+. Meanwhile, Irondrakes pass crossbows against a 4+ save and are markedly better against 3+ and 2+ saves. 

Here are the defensive efficiencies:

  Reveal hidden contents

Sisters of the Watch: .094-.063

Irondrakes (melee): .133-.067

Irondrakes (ranged): .2-.067

Freeguild Crossbows: .12-.1

Additionally, Sisters of the Watch have a slight speed advantage, slight range advantage over Irondrakes, the benefit of stand and shoot (although at half strength) and require the lowest effort to buff (only a Nomad Prince OR Hurricanum). Offensively they are probably the most efficient choice without buffs, and they perform decently against any armor type. Defensively they are the least efficient.

Irondrakes have the lowest speed and lowest range and require the highest effort to fully buff (Longbeards, Runesmith, and Hurricanum), but they have a slight extra bonus against monsters. Defensively they are the most efficient against low rend attacks, and are by far the most efficient against low rend shooting.

Crossbows have medium speed and require medium effort to buff (Freeguild General and Hurricanum) but enjoy the longest range by far. Defensively they are middle of the pack against low rend and by far the best against mortal wounds. 

 

TL;DR: Mathematically speaking all of these options are valid and all have a role depending on the composition of the rest of your list. 

Pretty nice write! thanks :) it helps alot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Myrdin said:

So I`ve been tinkering with the idea of running a "mostly non 1W models" list for Living City to make a little use of the +1W regeneration the city bonus confers.

Big monsters, and lots of all sorts of cavalry (Outrides instead of Handgunners. Demis, Wildwood Riders, multiple Hydra, DrdonBdragon and such). The exception being SistersoW. Taking Emerald Lifeswarm and a Runepriest in order to recast it as necessary each turn for maximum Healing potency.

Since units like Outriders, Hydra, DarkRiders and such would still benefit from this as well as the Command Ability, it doesnt sound so bad on paper.

Has anyone tried that, or is the Living City Regeneration just a nice little gimmick and not really something to be considered when army building ?

I like it for hydra,  combined with the hydra's own regeneration it makes for an effective,  attention-drawing roadblock that can tie up enemy units. I don't know if it's worth building you army around though. 

29 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 6+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 5+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 4+:  33.92 damage (.075)
  • vs 3+:  27.22 damage (.06)
  • vs 2+: 20.53 damage  (.046)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Sisters of the Watch: .094-.063

Irondrakes (melee): .133-.067

Irondrakes (ranged): .2-.067

Freeguild Crossbows: .12-.1

Additionally, Sisters of the Watch have a slight speed advantage, slight range advantage over Irondrakes, the benefit of stand and shoot (although at half strength) and require the lowest effort to buff (only a Nomad Prince OR Hurricanum). 

Any particular reason you wouldn't use both a hurricanum and a nomad prince or are you just saying that only one is necessary for the buff? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Orsino said:

I like it for hydra,  combined with the hydra's own regeneration it makes for an effective,  attention-drawing roadblock that can tie up enemy units. I don't know if it's worth building you army around though. 

Any particular reason you wouldn't use both a hurricanum and a nomad prince or are you just saying that only one is necessary for the buff? 

Yeah, only one is necessary for the buff. You can of course use both (and there are certainly valid reasons to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, prochuvi said:

And why in every data you are putting irondrakes with the extra rend?

 

Following this logic every other rangued unit must have a buff of a mague that have same cost than runelord or the data is useless

Did you not see the separate table for buffed and unbuffed versions of all three units? The unbuffed version of Irondrakes does not include the extra rend. I also discussed the fact that SotW require less support to reach maximum effectiveness, crossbows require a moderate amount of support and Irondrakes require the most support. That said removing the Longbeard buffs only takes drakes down a little bit, and without them the total investment in support units vs. crossbows is basically identical.

It's also not really fair to fully incorporate the cost of the buffing units because they provide additional value on top of the buff they provide. Nomad prince has his bird and can cover multiple units with his buff. Hurricanum provides loads of extra value. Freeguild general can targets multiple units. Runelord also has a great dispell/unbind. Longbeards are also a solid meatshield.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

Did you not see the separate table for buffed and unbuffed versions of all three units? The unbuffed version of Irondrakes does not include the extra rend. I also discussed the fact that SotW require less support to reach maximum effectiveness, crossbows require a moderate amount of support and Irondrakes require the most support. That said removing the Longbeard buffs only takes drakes down a little bit, and without them the total investment in support units vs. crossbows is basically identical.

It's also not really fair to fully incorporate the cost of the buffing units because they provide additional value on top of the buff they provide. Nomad prince has his bird and can cover multiple units with his buff. Hurricanum provides loads of extra value. Freeguild general can targets multiple units. Runelord also has a great dispell/unbind. Longbeards are also a solid meatshield.

I enjoy the math! Really appreciate it.

Would you mind add:

one table of Buffed SotW, with Prince (+1hit) & stand & shoot (double attacks)

And one for Irondrakes with only Runelord +1 hit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

The question is a mathematical one, so let's look at the math.

 

30 Sisters of the Watch, unbuffed

  Reveal hidden contents
  • Vs no save: 33.61 damage (.07 damage per point)
  • vs 6+:  29.12 damage (.061 damage per point)
  • vs 5+: 24.65 damage (.051 damage per point)
  • vs 4+: 20.17 damage  (.042 damage per point)
  • vs 3+: 15.69 damage (.033 damage per point)
  • vs 2+: 11.2 damage (.023 damage per point)

30 Sisters of the Watch, buffed (+1 hit)

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 41.67 damage (.087)
  • vs 6+: 36.11 damage (.075)
  • vs 5+: 30.56 damage (.064)
  • vs 4+: 25 damage (.052)
  • vs 3+: 19.44 damage (.041)
  • vs 2+: 13.89 damage (.029)

30 Irondrakes, unbuffed

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 27.55 damage (.061)
  • vs 6+: 27.55 damage (.061)
  • vs 5+: 23.26 damage (.052)
  • vs 4+: 18.67 damage (.041)
  • vs 3+: 14.07 damage (.031)
  • vs 2+: 9.48 damage (.021)

30 Irondrakes, buffed (+1 hit, -1 rend, rr 1s to wound)

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 6+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 5+: 40.19 damage (.089)
  • vs 4+:  33.92 damage (.075)
  • vs 3+:  27.22 damage (.06)
  • vs 2+: 20.53 damage  (.046)

30 Freeguild Crossbows, unbuffed

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 20.22 damage (.067)
  • vs 6+: 16.85 damage (.056)
  • vs 5+: 13.48 damage (.045)
  • vs 4+: 10.11 damage (.034)
  • vs 3+: 6.74 damage (.022)
  • vs 2+: 3.37 damage (.011)

30 Freeguild Crossbows, buffed (+2 hit, +1 wound)

  Reveal hidden contents
  • vs no save: 41.67 damage (.139)
  • vs 6+: 34.62 damage (.115)
  • vs 5+: 27.78 damage (.093)
  • vs 4+: 20.83 damage (.069)
  • vs 3+: 13.89 damage (.046)
  • vs 2+: 6.94 damage (.023)

I think that these numbers illustrate my point nicely. With a high rend option (like buffed Irondrakes), you see really flat efficiency against poor saves but good efficiency against good saves. With a no rend option like Crossbows you see great efficiency against poor saves that falls off sharply as the save gets better.

With a mixed option like SotW, you see more consistency across different saves. The peaks aren't as high, relatively speaking, but the valleys aren't as low either. 

Comparing the tables shows that without the benefit of buffs, Sisters of the Watch have the best overall performance although the difference between Sisters and Irondrakes is really small. Freeguild Crossbows are pretty competitive against poor saves but significantly worse against really good saves. 

Once you factor in available buffs, Irondrakes become significantly better than SotW except against null saves. This is the flattening that I was talking about earlier -- high rend is relatively inefficient against low armor. Meanwhile, Freeguild Crossbows just blow the other options out of the water against low saves. It's not even close to close. SotW only surpass crossbows against a 2+ save, although they are very close at 3+. Meanwhile, Irondrakes pass crossbows against a 4+ save and are markedly better against 3+ and 2+ saves. 

Here are the defensive efficiencies:

  Reveal hidden contents

Sisters of the Watch: .094-.063

Irondrakes (melee): .133-.067

Irondrakes (ranged): .2-.067

Freeguild Crossbows: .12-.1

Additionally, Sisters of the Watch have a slight speed advantage, slight range advantage over Irondrakes, the benefit of stand and shoot (although at half strength) and require the lowest effort to buff (only a Nomad Prince OR Hurricanum). Offensively they are probably the most efficient choice without buffs, and they perform decently against any armor type. Defensively they are the least efficient.

Irondrakes have the lowest speed and lowest range and require the highest effort to fully buff (Longbeards, Runesmith, and Hurricanum), but they have a slight extra bonus against monsters. Defensively they are the most efficient against low rend attacks, and are by far the most efficient against low rend shooting.

Crossbows have medium speed and require medium effort to buff (Freeguild General and Hurricanum) but enjoy the longest range by far. Defensively they are middle of the pack against low rend and by far the best against mortal wounds. 

 

TL;DR: Mathematically speaking all of these options are valid and all have a role depending on the composition of the rest of your list. 

This is algebric speaking. You still not counting the positive deviation buff of SoW. (As you get lucky Mortal on 6 effect will increase more damage in respect to other units in comparison). 

Anyway, you have pointed out for the basic concept that I've been trying to explain from like 2 months in the forum so Good Job!

Edited by Raffonerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rockmanko said:

Would you mind add:

one table of Buffed SotW, with Prince (+1hit) & stand & shoot (double attacks)

And one for Irondrakes with only Runelord +1 hit

The SotW buffed table already covers the buff from prince or hurricanum (+1 to hit), and that buff is enough to make SotW hit on 2+, so adding an extra +1 to hit doesn't really help unless the target has a -1 hit penalty. The tables all assume the units are standing still for the +1 attack. Stand and shoot response will deal half the damage that the table says because Sisters only get +1 attack if they don't move and no enemies are within 3". When stand and shoot triggers there will be enemies within 3" by definition, so no second attack.

7 hours ago, Raffonerd said:

This is algebric speaking. You still not counting the positive deviation buff of SoW. (As you get lucky Mortal on 6 effect will increase more damage in respect to other units in comparison). 

Anyway, you have pointed out for the basic concept that I've been trying to explain from like 2 months in the forum so Good Job!

You are correct that all of this mathhammer should be factoring in standard deviations as well. The maximum possible damage for SotW is indeed higher. That said, the greater standard deviation cuts both ways: instances where they will underperform their means will also be more common.

You have framed the higher standard deviation of SotW as a benefit, and I don't think that is necessarily accurate. It really depends on the situation. Lets look at a couple of examples:

  • Scenario 1: You are in a situation where you are very unlikely to win the game and need an extreme outcome to win. In this case having the high performance ceiling and higher standard deviation is to your advantage, as an average result won't be enough.
  • Scenario 2: You are in a situation where you are very likely to win and it would take an extreme outcome for you to lose. In this case having high performance ceiling with higher standard deviation is to your disadvantage, as getting an extreme positive result isn't necessary for victory, but having a higher likelihood of a well below average result means losing is more likely.
  • Scenario 3: You are playing in a tournament with the goal of going 5-0. If you are a good player with a good list, then you want consistent results from your units as you are more likely to be able to win through outplaying your opponent unless an outlier result drags you down. If you are a less good player or are using a less good list, then you want more variance because you can get lucky and win games that you would otherwise not win with average results.

I'll also try another way of explaining it. Imagine you have two units. One unit produces a result of 1-7, with each number coming up an equal percent of the time. Another unit produces a result of 3-5, with 4 coming up 90% of the time and 3 and 5 each coming up 5% of the time respectively. Both of these units have an average result of 4.

In Scenario 1, you are behind in the game and are activating your unit. You need a result of 6 or better in order to get back into the game. In this case, the first unit will get you the result you want about 29% of the time. The second unit will never get you the result you want. In this situation, having the higher variance unit is clearly better.

In Scenario 2, you are ahead in the game and are activating your unit. Any result of 3 or better will win the game. In this case the first unit will win the game about 71% of the time, while the second unit will win the game 100% of the time. In this case the second unit is clearly better.

TL;DR: The more favored you are in a given game, the more variance works against you. Conversely, the less favored you are in a given game, the more variance works in your favor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just other 2 cents that I can bring in the discussion is why I prefer Sisters above all other choices in Living City (and here only).

The best way to play LC that I found is about scattering threats all over the edges. Or, better, keeping this opportunity. There's some few matched where castling up it is better, but most of the time I play a mind game with my opponent by scattering (usually) 4 units in multiple edges. That mean: 1) no buffers with Sisters on the edge; 2) no screens for them on the edge; 3) no multiple Sisters units within 13-15"+ themselves, and 4) never use more than 10 Sisters per unit. Do I need to disrupt the advancing of the opponent? I just throw 10 within 18" from him, dropping 21 shoots and then...I'm there. He needs to kill them with shoot (drawing away his fire from my core), magic (forcing him in casts that he won't do), and (the best) forcing him to come back and charge them. Now multiply this for any outflanking unit and you have an idea. Thanks to the range you can focus the same target some times from 2 different edges. The best you will find out with LC is to force your opponent to split himself. Sisters are expendable, for 160 points they bring to you a lot if you play them in this way. Expecially against full melee army (Ironjawz, FeC etc) you can literally play with your opponent. 

You can castle if you need to. Try multiple of 10 sisters shielding themselves, make them all shoot once after an enemy charge and try to lose only the first screen of the castle. 

You can outflank and killing out some warmachines, or sniping some mages, minor heroes.

You can focus a single target, shooting from different positions (I found 3x10 Sisters and Drycha an amazing amount of attacks/MWs to ourflanking with. And of course, make charge Drycha with 1CP).

And don't forget about moving 10 Sisters after the shoot just for screening if you need to! It helps too a lot them to give some good position for the next turn double shots without moving.

 

Basically, I love LC because the keyword here is "Adaptability". And SotW are the best choice for me with no buffs at all, because a lot of time I will send them alone as a merely (powerful) distraction that cannot be left alive because their shooting is a pain in the ---.

Plus, I saw a lot of maths, but I'm not sure someone remembered another super good rule of them: they shoot once free if someone enter within 3" from them, with a charge. So most of the times you're going to shoot almost THREE times with them, not just two. And that means: 1) you're shooting when they charge you; and 2) you're shooting when you're behind an enemy charge target (I used it a lot behind 9 Kurnos Hunters..). 

I'm not saying that SotW are the best alwayas and ever. I'm just argue about how I play LC, the best way for me, It is not like bringing a super charge or a castle from an edge of your choice. No, it's like making guerrilla: spread between more edges at the same time, drawing enemy attentions away from the core of the game/your army. And with this in mind, Sisters are the best for me. Because they shoot even """in melee""", and because their threat is really good with no buffs and by themselves. 

 

If I would go with Irondrakes, I think I would prefer something TempestEye, and I would try to build a castle with them. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zadolix sure. Here are some numbers for full sized handgunner units:

 

Handgunners while moving

Spoiler
  • Vs no save:  10.33 damage ( .034 damage per point)
  • vs 6+:   10.33 damage ( .034 damage per point)
  • vs 5+:  8.61 damage ( .029 damage per point)
  • vs 4+:   6.89 damage ( .023 damage per point)
  • vs 3+:  5.17 damage ( .017 damage per point)
  • vs 2+: 3.44 damage (.011 damage per point)

Handgunners while stationary, no buffs

Spoiler
  • Vs no save:  13.78 damage ( .046 damage per point)
  • vs 6+:   13.78 damage ( .046 damage per point)
  • vs 5+:  11.48 damage ( .038 damage per point)
  • vs 4+:   9.19 damage ( .031 damage per point)
  • vs 3+:  6.89 damage ( .023 damage per point)
  • vs 2+: 4.59 damage (.015 damage per point)

Handgunners fully buffed

Spoiler
  • Vs no save:  21.52 damage ( .072 damage per point)
  • vs 6+:   21.52 damage ( .072 damage per point)
  • vs 5+:  17.94 damage ( .06 damage per point)
  • vs 4+:   14.35 damage ( .048 damage per point)
  • vs 3+:  10.76 damage ( .036 damage per point)
  • vs 2+: 7.18 damage (.024 damage per point)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2020 at 6:50 PM, swarmofseals said:

The SotW buffed table already covers the buff from prince or hurricanum (+1 to hit), and that buff is enough to make SotW hit on 2+, so adding an extra +1 to hit doesn't really help unless the target has a -1 hit penalty. The tables all assume the units are standing still for the +1 attack. Stand and shoot response will deal half the damage that the table says because Sisters only get +1 attack if they don't move and no enemies are within 3". When stand and shoot triggers there will be enemies within 3" by definition, so no second attack.

You are correct that all of this mathhammer should be factoring in standard deviations as well. The maximum possible damage for SotW is indeed higher. That said, the greater standard deviation cuts both ways: instances where they will underperform their means will also be more common.

You have framed the higher standard deviation of SotW as a benefit, and I don't think that is necessarily accurate. It really depends on the situation. Lets look at a couple of examples:

  • Scenario 1: You are in a situation where you are very unlikely to win the game and need an extreme outcome to win. In this case having the high performance ceiling and higher standard deviation is to your advantage, as an average result won't be enough.
  • Scenario 2: You are in a situation where you are very likely to win and it would take an extreme outcome for you to lose. In this case having high performance ceiling with higher standard deviation is to your disadvantage, as getting an extreme positive result isn't necessary for victory, but having a higher likelihood of a well below average result means losing is more likely.
  • Scenario 3: You are playing in a tournament with the goal of going 5-0. If you are a good player with a good list, then you want consistent results from your units as you are more likely to be able to win through outplaying your opponent unless an outlier result drags you down. If you are a less good player or are using a less good list, then you want more variance because you can get lucky and win games that you would otherwise not win with average results.

I'll also try another way of explaining it. Imagine you have two units. One unit produces a result of 1-7, with each number coming up an equal percent of the time. Another unit produces a result of 3-5, with 4 coming up 90% of the time and 3 and 5 each coming up 5% of the time respectively. Both of these units have an average result of 4.

In Scenario 1, you are behind in the game and are activating your unit. You need a result of 6 or better in order to get back into the game. In this case, the first unit will get you the result you want about 29% of the time. The second unit will never get you the result you want. In this situation, having the higher variance unit is clearly better.

In Scenario 2, you are ahead in the game and are activating your unit. Any result of 3 or better will win the game. In this case the first unit will win the game about 71% of the time, while the second unit will win the game 100% of the time. In this case the second unit is clearly better.

TL;DR: The more favored you are in a given game, the more variance works against you. Conversely, the less favored you are in a given game, the more variance works in your favor.

The fact is that you need some lucky to win a tournament. If everything goes average the chance of winning is more or less 0. Plus, as shooting happens in your turn, you are able to modify the strategy in charge phase to overcome negative outcomes or positive outcomes. 

Anyway, this is not the element to focus on. The fact are: 

1) you cannot rely on buffs, the opponent can remove the buffers

2) They have more range, best stat for shoters

3) Stand and Shot, if you opponent is good you wont have the chance to delete his stuff in shooting so having at least one chance to shot is very important. (in example, you can delete chaff without beeing  engaged in cac in your turn.)

Edited by Raffonerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2020 at 2:08 AM, Cerve said:

Just other 2 cents that I can bring in the discussion is why I prefer Sisters above all other choices in Living City (and here only).

The best way to play LC that I found is about scattering threats all over the edges. Or, better, keeping this opportunity. There's some few matched where castling up it is better, but most of the time I play a mind game with my opponent by scattering (usually) 4 units in multiple edges. That mean: 1) no buffers with Sisters on the edge; 2) no screens for them on the edge; 3) no multiple Sisters units within 13-15"+ themselves, and 4) never use more than 10 Sisters per unit. Do I need to disrupt the advancing of the opponent? I just throw 10 within 18" from him, dropping 21 shoots and then...I'm there. He needs to kill them with shoot (drawing away his fire from my core), magic (forcing him in casts that he won't do), and (the best) forcing him to come back and charge them. Now multiply this for any outflanking unit and you have an idea. Thanks to the range you can focus the same target some times from 2 different edges. The best you will find out with LC is to force your opponent to split himself. Sisters are expendable, for 160 points they bring to you a lot if you play them in this way. Expecially against full melee army (Ironjawz, FeC etc) you can literally play with your opponent. 

You can castle if you need to. Try multiple of 10 sisters shielding themselves, make them all shoot once after an enemy charge and try to lose only the first screen of the castle. 

You can outflank and killing out some warmachines, or sniping some mages, minor heroes.

You can focus a single target, shooting from different positions (I found 3x10 Sisters and Drycha an amazing amount of attacks/MWs to ourflanking with. And of course, make charge Drycha with 1CP).

And don't forget about moving 10 Sisters after the shoot just for screening if you need to! It helps too a lot them to give some good position for the next turn double shots without moving.

 

Basically, I love LC because the keyword here is "Adaptability". And SotW are the best choice for me with no buffs at all, because a lot of time I will send them alone as a merely (powerful) distraction that cannot be left alive because their shooting is a pain in the ---.

Plus, I saw a lot of maths, but I'm not sure someone remembered another super good rule of them: they shoot once free if someone enter within 3" from them, with a charge. So most of the times you're going to shoot almost THREE times with them, not just two. And that means: 1) you're shooting when they charge you; and 2) you're shooting when you're behind an enemy charge target (I used it a lot behind 9 Kurnos Hunters..). 

I'm not saying that SotW are the best alwayas and ever. I'm just argue about how I play LC, the best way for me, It is not like bringing a super charge or a castle from an edge of your choice. No, it's like making guerrilla: spread between more edges at the same time, drawing enemy attentions away from the core of the game/your army. And with this in mind, Sisters are the best for me. Because they shoot even """in melee""", and because their threat is really good with no buffs and by themselves. 

 

If I would go with Irondrakes, I think I would prefer something TempestEye, and I would try to build a castle with them. 

Mind sharing your list? :). Sounds like fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rune said:

Mind sharing your list? :). Sounds like fun!

I come from 40k where I used to play it competitively, but AoS it's a different game and I need to find some inner balance to the list. Anyway the last one I played vs Ossiarch was a bit unbalanced into shooting and it was this:

Nomad Prince General (Druid, Ghyranstrike from Ghyran, Ironoak Skin)

Battlemage Hysh (Adjutant, Lifesurge)

Drycha (Cage of Thorns)

5x10 SotW

9 Kurnoth Hunters (Scythes)

+1 CP, Total; 1980

 

The damage output is great, but I'm keeping learning about timing. My last game was a loss because I came in game too late (he beats me on VPs).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cerve said:

I come from 40k where I used to play it competitively, but AoS it's a different game and I need to find some inner balance to the list. Anyway the last one I played vs Ossiarch was a bit unbalanced into shooting and it was this:

Nomad Prince General (Druid, Ghyranstrike from Ghyran, Ironoak Skin)

Battlemage Hysh (Adjutant, Lifesurge)

Drycha (Cage of Thorns)

5x10 SotW

9 Kurnoth Hunters (Scythes)

+1 CP, Total; 1980

 

The damage output is great, but I'm keeping learning about timing. My last game was a loss because I came in game too late (he beats me on VPs).  

 

I suggest you to change item on the prince. Use +1 aa to all Sylvaneth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cerve said:

I come from 40k where I used to play it competitively, but AoS it's a different game and I need to find some inner balance to the list. Anyway the last one I played vs Ossiarch was a bit unbalanced into shooting and it was this:

Nomad Prince General (Druid, Ghyranstrike from Ghyran, Ironoak Skin)

Battlemage Hysh (Adjutant, Lifesurge)

Drycha (Cage of Thorns)

5x10 SotW

9 Kurnoth Hunters (Scythes)

+1 CP, Total; 1980

 

The damage output is great, but I'm keeping learning about timing. My last game was a loss because I came in game too late (he beats me on VPs).  

 

I'm assuming your list also includes an extra CP, is that right?  It is an interesting list. So, you can ambush on up to 4 units.  Would that be Drycha and 3 x 10 Sisters, leaving the NP to buff the other two.  I only have 20 Sisters painted myself and not sure I want to paint another 30, but it does look like a fun list to play.  I might try a version of it sometime.  Just about to start painting up a TLA - I like the idea of throwing down a wood, but maybe turn 2 in their backfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aelfric said:

I'm assuming your list also includes an extra CP, is that right?  It is an interesting list. So, you can ambush on up to 4 units.  Would that be Drycha and 3 x 10 Sisters, leaving the NP to buff the other two.  I only have 20 Sisters painted myself and not sure I want to paint another 30, but it does look like a fun list to play.  I might try a version of it sometime.  Just about to start painting up a TLA - I like the idea of throwing down a wood, but maybe turn 2 in their backfield.

Yep, precisely. 3 Sisters and Drycha. Of course you can choose between games, maybe sometimes you need a castle so you will keep more Sisters on the ground. But I'll admit, 2-3 Sisters+Drycha are a good pack for outflanking maneuvres. 

TLA, you can try the Dryads factory.  Another stuff that I need to try too 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2020 at 8:00 AM, Raffonerd said:

The fact is that you need some lucky to win a tournament. If everything goes average the chance of winning is more or less 0. Plus, as shooting happens in your turn, you are able to modify the strategy in charge phase to overcome negative outcomes or positive outcomes. 

Anyway, this is not the element to focus on. The fact are: 

1) you cannot rely on buffs, the opponent can remove the buffers

2) They have more range, best stat for shoters

3) Stand and Shot, if you opponent is good you wont have the chance to delete his stuff in shooting so having at least one chance to shot is very important. (in example, you can delete chaff without beeing  engaged in cac in your turn.)

I disagree with your initial statement. It may be true at the very highest level of play, but most tournaments are winnable with average luck if your skill level is high enough. You certainly don't need exceptionally good luck with combat rolls if you happen to be lucky on the dice rolls that impact the game the most (initiative rolls being the most impactful). 

Addressing your other points:

1. One of the beauties of Living City is that you actually can rely on one turn of buffs as long as they aren't hero phase buffs. When you deepstrike your shooters you can basically guarantee that they will have at least one turn of shooting before your opponent can respond. This works well for passive buffs like the Hurricanum, but not for hero phase buffs. Even with standard deployment though you will get at least one volley with buffs up against many opponents as there are quite a few armies that can't kill a well screened hero on turn 1. Honored retinue and anti-shooting artefacts help a lot too. 

2. Crossbows have far more range that SotW -- 24" vs 18". 

3. I agree that stand and shoot is really good, but Sisters of the Watch lose a lot of firepower when they stand and shoot because they don't get the +1 attack bonus. A good opponent isn't going to charge your stand and shoot blocks with chaff (unless they are following up with a serious charge and forcing you to waste your stand and shoot against the chaff unit). I don't really agree that a good opponent will necessarily get around your shooting though. A few very specific opponents might be able to, but many competitive armies still have to get across the board and many of those armies lack the shooting to directly target your shooters. If you aren't getting at least one volley off before melee begins in most matchups you probably aren't playing Living City very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2020 at 11:15 AM, Raffonerd said:

This can be true but if you encounter also variance SoW will be better then this, because as you get lucky on 6 your damage will rise better then dwarfs damage. Working on means is not statistically a good stuff. On top of this Ethereal stuff always exist in this game.

In the end, SoW has 2" more in range. That can make the difference for large units coming out from hidden paths.

The 6s doing mortals is included in the damage calculation in the graph. The range helps, but both are so pitifully short that you should ambush or use bridge in either case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2020 at 1:00 PM, swarmofseals said:

The question is a mathematical one, so let's look at the math.

TL;DR: Mathematically speaking all of these options are valid and all have a role depending on the composition of the rest of your list. 

This is a fantastic breakdown, and why I say that if you are investing in a ranged hammer unit, Irondrakes are probably the best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering which City to pick for a wanderer / phoenix temple army. I would like it to be at least semi-competitive. Something like:

Allegiance: Cities of Sigmar
 - City: Living City
LEADERS
Anointed of Asuryan on Frostheart Phoenix (320)
Nomad Prince (120)
- General
Sorceress (90)
- City Role : General's Adjutant (Must be 6 wounds or less)
Sorceress (90)
UNITS
20 x Sisters of the Watch (320)
20 x Sisters of the Watch (320)
5 x Wild Riders (130)
5 x Wild Riders (130)
30 x Phoenix Guard (420)
ENDLESS SPELLS / TERRAIN / COMMAND POINTS
Emerald Lifeswarm (50)

I wonder If its actually a Living city or Tempest eye list. I am also not sold on the wild riders. Any suggestions welcome

Edited by Trayanee
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...