Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

EnixLHQ

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

234 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About EnixLHQ

  • Rank
    Protector
  • Birthday 06/03/1980

Recent Profile Visitors

488 profile views
  1. See for yourself. First image is from the GHB2020 digital version in Azyr. The second is the hardcopy in my own grubby little hands. They are identical. They are probably reading from a leak. And if this latest round of leaks is any indication they aren't real, or finalized, or otherwise not worth investing in until the real thing comes out. A lot of people are very eager to jump on any bit of info out there. But, unless you get it from an official channel don't trust it.
  2. Updated: Relics Primed for Corruption artefact section updated with the new GHB2020 selection (and some passive-aggressive salt). Coming soon: Updated sample lists with new points (once the NH PDF supplement drops with WD+) A new "all-comers" list designed to be as solid and versatile as possible against all opponents. I would really appreciate if you guys could comb through and find any other bits I need to update now with the new changes.
  3. Updated: Relics Primed for Corruption artefact section updated with the new GHB2020 selection (and some passive-aggressive salt). Coming soon: Updated sample lists with new points (once the NH PDF supplement drops) A new "all-comers" list designed to be as solid and versatile as possible against all opponents.
  4. When I was first starting out and couldn't find any useful data on NH at the tournament scene I wrote in sort of asking why that was. I got into how I had been playing them and losing casually, too. The reply didn't go into detail, just more along the lines of "around here we like our NH a bit more "woundy." In another someone said that the new battalions reflected "they way they test internally" and "they struggled to find ways to show the player base and thought new battalions could do just that." Like most things GW they weren't straight forward and open to interpretation. I took the first clue to mean to lean more heavily in mortal wounds. I took the second to mean to be more mobile, if not via calvary then just in general. Since taking both of those to heart my lists were so much better.
  5. I suppose that could be true, depending on regions. Here in the Pacific Northwest pre-orders opened on Saturday, and delivery at the earliest is this coming Saturday, a week delay. At any rate, the rest of this still stands. GW was clear about it.
  6. Considering the first look at a real book won't be until Saturday, and that digital downloads will be a huge deal for more reasons than just a cutoff date (covid), I'm willing to bet we'll see the battalions. If not, it's a simple matter to email them and ask for an official opinion and stance on Nighthaunt. That's been great for me to learn certain ways to play them that wasn't readily apparent with their lack of presence on the tournament scene. If enough people ask they'll address it.
  7. So much hate for Hexwraiths. Take the Dolorous Guard for the extra attack. Maybe All-Out Attack on them. Pretty good output if what you're looking for is mortal wounds over a sheer amount of wounds
  8. Well, I'll know come next Saturday. Just finished my pre-order. I asked my GW manager what he thought and he sort it dismissed it out of hand saying he doesn't trust the leaks. They are often for beta testing or samples for print and don't usually match what comes out. When asked specifically about the Emerald Host battalions he said it's not usual for GW to release something in WD and then not legitimize it later. Either the leak is older than the battalions (October/November), the battalions had not yet been considered by that print, or its falls in the "Anything after Cities was released" print cutoff. He urged to remind me that other than serious edits, the 2020 Handbook was pretty much set in October/November and everything that came out after will be addressed in a digital download. So we likely still have our battalions. They came out solidly after that cutoff. @The_Dudemeister My point is that we don't know anything beyond that, yet. Yes, you have to choose a realm to play in. No more playing "nowhere." Yes, realm artifacts are being streamlined with many being dropped. But what's not being said is if we still have a "Realm of Origin," which if not eliminates being able to choose from two realm artifacts (origin and realm the fight takes place in), and we haven't seen any other realms but Ulgu. Hysh may still have the Aetherquartz Brooch. It may be a realm spell now (cast value: X, gain CP or refund one if spent), or the realm's Command Ability. All we know for sure is the line that said "now you’ll also be encouraged to branch out and look at your own army’s artefact lists rather than always having to compare them to an Aetherquartz Brooch!" That doesn't mean it's gone.
  9. Hoping it's fake, but even if not it's absolutely incomplete. I'm resisting forming an opinion until I have the book in my hands. Keep in mind that beyond the points page there are artifact changes (they have been very vague on if we lose Aetherquartz, they just said we won't have to compare everything to it), and gameplay changes we haven't even been teased at yet. For all we know we get an eratta that applies to all asterisked warscroll cards that buffs us, or we are so thoroughly nerfed that Legion of Nagash becomes our only viable avenue to play ghosts. Or somewhere in the middle where everyone gets similar changes to limit power creep.
  10. I hear you. You're not wrong. Would be great if we could have an equal chance without having a forecast of an enemy's list. I'm hoping the handbook makes some concessions for older tomes, especially since they may be taking our crutch artifacts away. Yes, it is hard mode. For now, anyway.
  11. We're Malignant. We may even have traits from other Death groups since we're not named.
  12. Which ones? I want to be as accurate as I can, even if I am glossing over how I get there for the sake of the reader.
  13. I'm going to take the time to go through each of the concerns here, but before I do let me give a general disclaimer about my position about all these statistics: First, I'm not going into this being defensive. There were a couple good catches here that I will use to update my guide. However, since I will be throwing out some numbers here it is going to look like I'm trying to defend my points with math, and that can seem harsh. That is not my intention. It's just for clarity. And second, be careful of mathhammer. I don't know of an easier or faster way to kill your enjoyment of the game than to mathhammer it into the ground. By adhering to statistics and math over your enjoyment of the game you will often find yourself in situations where your statistically-perfect unit or army gets inevitably shafted by dice probability or your own tactical mistakes stemming from those numbers. There is a danger to succumbing to a general smugness that comes from thinking you are starting from a superior advantage. I am not saying anyone here correcting me is being smug, but I am speaking from personal experience that trying to math every move is a frustrating waste of time, taxes your enjoyment of the game, and makes you less fun to play against. This is not to say that you shouldn't learn and know your army and know its strengths and weaknesses--you absolutely should--but please make sure you are enjoying your time with the hobby first and foremost, and that everything else comes second. /soapbox Okay, now on to my self-defense. I used https://aos-statshammer.herokuapp.com/ just like you did. What likely skews our agreement here is unit size, using all available buffs on the warscroll, and the enemy save. Whenever possible I try to skew my statistics and math to real-world expectations and point-to-point comparisons. In this case, a single model of Bladegheists vs a single model of Glaivewraiths, if you enable all the buffs on each (charged and ST on 'geists, charged on 'wraiths) is 25% more damage for the 'geists against a 4+ save. But at max unit size, 20 for the 'gheists and 16 for the 'wraiths, the 'geists will do 66.24% more damage assuming all the models could attack, which isn't a realistic scenario. However, 10 'ghests who can all attack, and 12 'wraiths who also all can attack, which both cost the same amount of 180 points, is a difference of 49.36708860759494 damage. Granted, I rounded up instead of down to 49.4%. Exact numbers have a way of not being exact. As I said above, any change of the variables involved, sample size, or even replication size can skew the results. Very few people who mathhammer actually use statistically sound biases and frequently find themselves subject to something called "P-hacking" whether they mean to or not. In order to prevent that as much as I can for myself, I try to stick to comparisons that are likely to show up on the board or be a factor in people's lists. For example, point-for-point comparisons because most people will wonder what to do with 200 points and not 20 vs 16 models, and reasonable expectations of how many of those models will actually be doing something, which I will get into below. I'm just trying to offer "back of the napkin" math and do so only in areas where it illustrates the point. It's 50% more damage that gets through the save based on the pior examples. Not your rolls, theirs. Which is a sliding scale. +2 to +3 is 50%. +3 to +4 is 25%, +4 to +5 is 20%. It's the end-result we're looking at here. As for Spectral Lure, casting is two dice needing to meet or exceed a base value. In this case 6. The probability of a 6 or higher appearing on two dice is 6 13.89 7 16.67 8 13.89 9 11.11 10 8.33 11 5.56 12 2.78 or a total of 72.22%, like you say. Dropping that cast to a 5+ adds 11.11% to that pool, making it 83.3%. Again, just as you say. Until you factor in the unbind attempt. Those 72% and 83% chances are for your roll, now you have to see if an opponent can snipe it and unbind you. Assuming you made the exact roll you needed to make to cast each time (6) then your opponent needs to roll a 7 to beat your roll, no matter your bonus. They'll have a 58.34% chance to undo you. If you add this in, then your actual chances of getting the cast off is 72-58=14% for the 6 and 83-58=25% for the 5. So, you have a 25% chance at getting the spell through with the +1. So, if I were to correct it I would drop the 30% statement I made down to 25%, which I can do. And honestly, I got the original 30% from TellTaleNoob. I assumed I could shorthand it by stealing his stat. And lastly, the 15 attacks statement. This one I need to go back and reword for sure. I don't mean that All-Out Attack will increase your damage by 50%. I'm trying to say that spending a CP on All-Out Attack will be worth more on units that can throw out more attacks in general, and that I personally don't like spending it on units that won't be throwing out at least 15, because 15 seems to be the breakpoint of reasonable attacks you can actually get to throw and is 50% more damage than if you threw any less. In before that gets challenged, here is my math on it. Let's assume that you have Y unit with X number of attacks and no other buffs. You may or may not have various ways of increasing the number of X, like the Knight of Shrouds on steed's CA or Bladegheists charging. 10 Bladegheist attacks will average 2.96 wounds against a 4 save. 15 attacks will average 4.44 wounds. That's 50% more. For Spirit Hosts, let's say you had 12 vs 18 attacks. 12 is an average of 2.5 wounds and 18 is an average of 3.75 wounds. Again, 50%. This will hold true across most units that have ways of generating both below and above 15 attacks, making it the breakpoint. So, if you want to know where to spend a KoSoES CA, look for places to push the number of attacks to at least 15. And if you are looking for where to spend CA on All-Out Attack, don't waste it on units who will be attacking less than 15 unless it's all you've got (and aren't spending the CP on charge re-rolls instead).
×
×
  • Create New...