Jump to content

AOS tier list!


Recommended Posts

Honestly my hope is that GW's move toward improving balance sparked record sales from them and msot of that  was just giving updated edition rules to ALL factions at launch and all updated codex/battletomes in under a 2 year period. Contrast that to the past where you could miss editions or even wait 5 years or more and get your updated rules at the end of the edition etc... Basically GW just giving updated rules has sparked big increases in sales. 

I hope that they see that and alongside the annual updates; continue to work toward improved balanced even more. The better balanced the more sales because all those one and two army players who aren't going to army-hop remain your customers; even if they never attend a competitive event it means that their local games have far more chance for them to win. It means increased customer retention which means and ever greater circle of gamers - even those who aren't buying from GW right now are there providing games for those who do; heck they might even help organise the local gaming community - again preserving sales and increasing the playerbase for GW.

 

That I think is the positive angle - GW seeing a real world increase in profits and sales as a result of improved game support and balance. That's the direction gamers and GW should be moving toward because basically everyone comes out winning. Even meta-army hoppers are winning because even in a very balanced system there will be a few subtle bonuses they can hunt out and aim for. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Deadscribe, I respect that's how you like playing this way, but IMHO this is what's wrong with the game.

Like it or not though thats how the game designers have designed the game and what they are running with.  Until they balance the game, I and people like me (who are more numerous then what people like to think) are not going to self-handicap ourselves.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cofaxest said:

How you run this list? If I remember correctly you can take only 1 KO unit and 1 SCE unit for 4 CoS units.

For every Kharadon unit you field you need to field 4 Tempest Eye units, they then gain the key words and are considered Tempest Eye units when tallying up the required 1/4 for SCE and VisaVersa,  GW has done a fantastic job updating the Warscroll builder to include all of the unit requirements and city roles, which made it possible to slowly puzzle together the best list to take advantage of the KOs, TE, and SCE synergy 

And while normally my build/tactic partner and I tend to sit on the specifics of a decent list to protect any edge we have gained the window on this sucker is going to close in a month so.... Viola!

 

Skyraiders.pdf

Skyraiders of Titanspear.bmp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Surprisingly this list also turned out to be a great one to build really sweet multirace conversions and fluffy background about, the remaining twins of three legendary blackark triplets turn their back on the sea after it claims their brother and a couple limbs, cursing the waves they drag the remains of their hereditary hulks and troops inland as far as they can (a'la a man in the wilderness) and sell their swords to the City of Tempest Eye and after a few years some of their sailors who ended up working the docks of Titanspear run into visiting Kharadon Overlords and see a new way to use their sea-honed skills and begin refitting their ships and chariots.... you get the picture :)

Edited by Rotary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rotary said:

For every Kharadon unit you field you need to field 4 Tempest Eye units, they then gain the key words and are considered Tempest Eye units when tallying up the required 1/4 for SCE and VisaVersa,  GW has done a fantastic job updating the Warscroll builder to include all of the unit requirements and city roles, which made it possible to slowly puzzle together the best list to take advantage of the KOs, TE, and SCE synergy 

And while normally my build/tactic partner and I tend to sit on the specifics of a decent list to protect any edge we have gained the window on this sucker is going to close in a month so.... Viola!

 

Skyraiders.pdf 5.73 MB · 1 download

Skyraiders of Titanspear.bmp 1.12 MB · 0 downloads

Oh I see. You use scourgerunners. But sadly it's still not KO list( It's so sad that CoS battletome has more sinergy with KO then KO battletome

But at the same time any competitive KO list can one shot all your Ironclades on turn one (or two of them). So it's still not the best solution for KO.

Edited by cofaxest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

Oh I see. You use scourgerunners. But sadly it's still not KO list( It's so sad that CoS battletome has more sinergy with KO then KO battletome

But at the same time any competitive KO list can one shot all your Ironclades on turn one (or two of them). So it's still not the best solution for KO.

Actually nope :) 

List haven't lost to one KO list out of the 5 played,  and not one of them lasted longer then three rounds. In fact pure KO fared the worst of any list on average. The stacked impact of buffs of Tempest Eye command, the Lord Ordinator, Hurricanum, and Flag ship flags gives the skyraider Ironclads 2 hit 2 wound torpedoes that reroll ones, and 2 hit 3 hit volley and carbines rerolling as well, and the scourgerunners are 2/2 dealing D3 with an average of 3.8 free deadly wounds. In addition to far superior movement stats of a Tempest Eye list.

Hopefully the new battletome will give the KO what they need to be a viable army on their own.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cofaxest said:

Oh I see. You use scourgerunners. But sadly it's still not KO list( It's so sad that CoS battletome has more sinergy with KO then KO battletome

But at the same time any competitive KO list can one shot all your Ironclades on turn one (or two of them). So it's still not the best solution for KO.

In addition to the superior offensive numbers the Skyraider Ironclads far outpace the KOs Ironclads defensively, with the combination of +1 to saves in the first round and re-rolling 1s on saves every round because of the battening the hatches ability on the Ironclads every round because they don't carry or need to drop any other units.  Of course the +3 inches the first round and +1 every other is pretty great as is the 'Run and still shoot' command ability.

Cool eh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CB42 said:

For me, I first identify the subset “what factions/builds/lists are good enough for me to win a tournament with” and then I’ll assemble an army from that subset that I think would be interesting to build and paint and play. 

That is exactly how I play,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Like it or not though thats how the game designers have designed the game and what they are running with.  Until they balance the game, I and people like me (who are more numerous then what people like to think) are not going to self-handicap ourselves.

I don't think anyone has an issue with people taking the best to a competitive event, even meta=chasing or army-hopping isn't something they would do themselves. 

People aren't against people going for the best in a wargame in a competitive environment. It's more that many would like to see less impact from army lists at the top end of the scale for each army so that player skill becomes the greater component of winning matches; whilst at the same time allowing a more open field of entry for all armies. 

 

It's basically seeking for "army equality" at the competitive level. Because through that you achieve a greater player equality and greater overall diversity and a higher chance of increasing the gaming population. Because now all those "mono army collectors" can be competitive players too without "having" to chase the meta to have that edge. 

 

Such a system would have gains and losses, they'd just be more slight gains than all out broken tricks. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree.  I think many people want list building to be as potent as it is right now, otherwise the game gets boring.  If there is no list building phase you can sink your teeth into then everything is the same, which will turn a lot of people off.

I think the consequence of listbuilding having such a big impact in the game is that that means you have to have things that are good and things that are bad, which means the more you want listbuilding to matter in this game, the worse the balance has to be to accomodate that..

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rotary said:

Actually nope :) 

List haven't lost to one KO list out of the 5 played,  and not one of them lasted longer then three rounds. In fact pure KO fared the worst of any list on average. The stacked impact of buffs of Tempest Eye command, the Lord Ordinator, Hurricanum, and Flag ship flags gives the skyraider Ironclads 2 hit 2 wound torpedoes that reroll ones, and 2 hit 3 hit volley and carbines rerolling as well, and the scourgerunners are 2/2 dealing D3 with an average of 3.8 free deadly wounds. In addition to far superior movement stats of a Tempest Eye list.

Hopefully the new battletome will give the KO what they need to be a viable army on their own.  

Actually yes.

KO can do 18-60 wounds into 3+ save on turn one (with 51 skyhook shots with rerolls and 4 skycannon shots with rerolls) So it all will depends on how good KO will roll.

BUT! only from stat perspective this list is basically better version of KO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

Like it or not though thats how the game designers have designed the game and what they are running with.  Until they balance the game, I and people like me (who are more numerous then what people like to think) are not going to self-handicap ourselves.

 

Who cares? In my local stores we have peoples who prefer hobby more then competition and peoples who chasing the meta and everyone totally OK with that. Play your game like you wanna play but don't think that this is the way it meant to be played.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I'd have to disagree.  I think many people want list building to be as potent as it is right now, otherwise the game gets boring.  If there is no list building phase you can sink your teeth into then everything is the same, which will turn a lot of people off.

I think the consequence of listbuilding having such a big impact in the game is that that means you have to have things that are good and things that are bad, which means the more you want listbuilding to matter in this game, the worse the balance has to be to accomodate that..

And yet the list building champion of Magic the Gathering has far superior internal balance  between top tier decks. 

Worse balance doesn't make list building more interesting, it makes it even more dull. Because when you've got very clear very obvious "win" buttons to include your list almost builds itself. There's no subtle changes for different opponents; there's no hunt for a good combo within a balanced system. There's just "Ok so 3 Keepers wins - I take 3 Keepers done". 

Furthermore for a game which has a very large population who won't meta/army hop on a whim and who might spend several years building one hobby; a system where one army might well end up at the bottom for a whole edition is not good for sales nor fun. It plagued Old World. Those cool Tombkings? One reason they didn't sell well near the end was terrible rules and being at the bottom of the curve - look at Slaves to Darkness and how many were discouraged form picking them up for years of AoS (esp once 2.0 got moving). That means players leaving; it means players not joining and it means armies not selling and being at a high risk of being removed from sale. 
You can do that in a cardgame like Magic because it basically rolls over new content every year and you don't have to make and paint your card, you buy and collect it and collecting is part of the hobby for many. So it rolls over very nicely. For miniatures it might take a year to build and paint your beginning army - you can't just have a rolling system of overpowered options that travels around the armies. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cofaxest said:

Actually yes.

KO can do 18-60 wounds into 3+ save on turn one (with 51 skyhook shots with rerolls and 4 skycannon shots with rerolls) So it all will depends on how good KO will roll.

BUT! only from stat perspective this list is basically better version of KO. 

Actually nope buddy, take time to actually look at the numbers you will see,

And If I was using the format you used for potential of units I could easily point out that the skyraiders can do 79-129 wounds on turn one (with 12 torpedos, 30 volley, 24 carbine, shots rerollng BOTH H&W and 10 harpoon D3 needing 1/2s, 40 xbows etc... To say nothing of the multiple blanket pluses hits, wounds, move, the combination of Lord ordinator, Hurricanum, flagship, Command traits, allegiance traits etc.. that are tied in.  

But nuff said I"m just glad to see you realize it's a better version for the time being and I admire your enthusiasm for KO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rotary said:

Actually nope buddy, take time to actually look at the numbers you will see,

And If I was using the format you used for potential of units I could easily point out that the skyraiders can do 79-129 wounds on turn one (with 12 torpedos, 30 volley, 24 carbine, shots rerollng BOTH H&W and 10 harpoon D3 needing 1/2s, 40 xbows etc... To say nothing of the multiple blanket pluses hits, wounds, move, the combination of Lord ordinator, Hurricanum, flagship, Command traits, allegiance traits etc.. that are tied in.  

But nuff said I"m just glad to see you realize it's a better version for the time being and I admire your enthusiasm for KO 

I just hate when someone tells me that I can't beat his roster. Until I'll play agains it ofc. For example I was thinking that KO can win vs new goblins... until I saw how they kill 80% of my roster on turn two)

Edited by cofaxest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, cofaxest said:

Who cares? In my local stores we have peoples who prefer hobby more then competition and peoples who chasing the meta and everyone totally OK with that. Play your game like you wanna play but don't think that this is the way it meant to be played.

Do you have a designer quote from the gw writers stating "the way it was meant to be played"?  Or are you just stating that you don't think competitive play is the way it was meant to be played beacuse thats your opinion that you are trotting as a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Overread said:

And yet the list building champion of Magic the Gathering has far superior internal balance  between top tier decks. 

Worse balance doesn't make list building more interesting, it makes it even more dull. Because when you've got very clear very obvious "win" buttons to include your list almost builds itself. There's no subtle changes for different opponents; there's no hunt for a good combo within a balanced system. There's just "Ok so 3 Keepers wins - I take 3 Keepers done". 

Furthermore for a game which has a very large population who won't meta/army hop on a whim and who might spend several years building one hobby; a system where one army might well end up at the bottom for a whole edition is not good for sales nor fun. It plagued Old World. Those cool Tombkings? One reason they didn't sell well near the end was terrible rules and being at the bottom of the curve - look at Slaves to Darkness and how many were discouraged form picking them up for years of AoS (esp once 2.0 got moving). That means players leaving; it means players not joining and it means armies not selling and being at a high risk of being removed from sale. 
You can do that in a cardgame like Magic because it basically rolls over new content every year and you don't have to make and paint your card, you buy and collect it and collecting is part of the hobby for many. So it rolls over very nicely. For miniatures it might take a year to build and paint your beginning army - you can't just have a rolling system of overpowered options that travels around the armies. 

And yet here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2019 at 12:51 PM, Dolomyte said:

The issue is in a  miniature game this big there are bound to be hits and misses Battletome wise. 

This is only partly true. GW manages to put out insanely broken mechanics that most people would spot immediately which leads to the conclusion that they either overtune on purpose or that they don‘t care enough to invest resources in quality (of Books)

Not without reason the common sentence about GW in my Area is: GW creates the best Miniatures but the worst rules.

 

Edit:

@Dead Scribe

means you have to have things that are good and things that are bad depending on the list and tactic you run, though every unit should be viable on its own - Corrected that for you.

Edited by JackStreicher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think its intentional.  I think its them appeasing the competitive crowd.  I dont think its possible for a professional rules crew to accidently release so many broken rules into the wild lol.

I don‘t mean to offend but your opinion is naiv. You think everything and anything is about competetive play, though it‘s not. They might do it on purpose so people will buy the new strong models (Selling factor) which primarily has nothing to do with comp. gaming. though it will attract most comp. players

If they wanted to appease comp. players the Game would be perfectly balanced and only skill would decide about who wins.

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Do you have a designer quote from the gw writers stating "the way it was meant to be played"?  Or are you just stating that you don't think competitive play is the way it was meant to be played beacuse thats your opinion that you are trotting as a fact?

I think that no one cares about mine or yours opinion. But I think that warhammer can't be competitive as well as any other paytowin random roulette. And basically all heavy tournament players in my meta thinks the same way. 

Edited by cofaxest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cofaxest said:

I think that no one cares about mine or yours opinion. But I think that warhammer can't be competitive as well as any other paytowin random roulette. And basically all heavy tournament players in my meta thinks the same way. 

That doesn't in any way give a quote from a rules designer on how the game is 'intended to be played', as you were trying to state.   Its fine to say "to me, the game is not intended to be a competitive game."  Its not fine to state that its a fact however because its not without a designers intent quote stating such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

I don‘t mean to offend but your opinion is naiv. You think everything and anything is about competetive play, though it‘s not. They might do it on purpose so people will buy the new strong models (Selling factor) which primarily has nothing to do with comp. gaming. though it will attract most comp. players

If they wanted to appease comp. players the Game would be perfectly balanced and only skill would decide about who wins.

Do a poll somewhere asking competitive players what they want.  Most want listbuilding to play a heavy hand in the game and how we play.  Very few competitive players talk about how they want the game to be perfectly balanced so only skill decides who wins.  A great many however will argue against people griping about points and any time there is a topic about points being balanced, you will see them jump in about how boring the game would be if 2000 points matched up equally against 2000 points.

So no I don't think my opinion is naive at all.

I also don't think everything is about competitive play.  Everything as far as I am concerned is about competitive play, but that doesn't mean I think everything overall is about competitive play.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Do a poll somewhere asking competitive players what they want.  Most want listbuilding to play a heavy hand in the game and how we play.  Very few competitive players talk about how they want the game to be perfectly balanced so only skill decides who wins.  A great many however will argue against people griping about points and any time there is a topic about points being balanced, you will see them jump in about how boring the game would be if 2000 points matched up equally against 2000 points.

So no I don't think my opinion is naive at all.

I also don't think everything is about competitive play.  Everything as far as I am concerned is about competitive play, but that doesn't mean I think everything overall is about competitive play.  

Your entire point is based on a assumption that is easily waved aside by one project: The Ninth Age.

balance != Boring

I don‘t know what you assume competetive means but balance and skill is the major factor for any competetive game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

Do a poll somewhere asking competitive players what they want.  Most want listbuilding to play a heavy hand in the game and how we play.  Very few competitive players talk about how they want the game to be perfectly balanced so only skill decides who wins.  A great many however will argue against people griping about points and any time there is a topic about points being balanced, you will see them jump in about how boring the game would be if 2000 points matched up equally against 2000 points.

So no I don't think my opinion is naive at all.

I also don't think everything is about competitive play.  Everything as far as I am concerned is about competitive play, but that doesn't mean I think everything overall is about competitive play.  

I think it's a pretty silly notion that balancing the game would end up making it boring, there are plenty of wargames and boardgames out there that are pretty close to balanced and are not boring at all. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...