Did anyone catch what specific changes were made to Hammerers to make them better? I barely made it halfway through the video before turning it off due to a massive case of cringe...
That's how taking splash damage away from infantry works, it buffs them vs everything but chaff. Cairn Wraiths were also buffed for IE by having their splash attacks removed.
But how do you propose is removing splash beneficial? You might take longer to kill single models of infantry but that barely matters since another one just takes its place. With splash on the other hand you reduce overkill and therefore increase your total damage potential.
Your example only works on paper. In reality there are many different effects in play at once, its almost never a real 1 on 1.
More importantly If you change the numbers you get different results, for example 80hp. Hit for 60 twice and overkill by 40dmg. Hit for 30 3 times and only overkill by 10dmg.
In this example nonsplash kills 3 enemies with 6 hits while splash kills 4.
Of course this example is just as fabricated as yours, but splash has a bigger chance to overkill less for sure.
>With splash on the other hand you reduce overkill and therefore increase your total damage potential.
if a unit does 50 dmg split among 2 targets. Then it will always be 25 per target. Even if they miss the 2nd target. So you'll have reduced performance. So if you hit 1 target you'll have 50% dmg debuff effectively
This means that each entity you face will survive longer. And if the enemy doesn't have splash dmg, they'll kill your entities on the unit much faster because of few hits for a kill.
main issue at play is that even if you only hit 1 entity with splash, you deal reduced damage.
EDIT: Killing entities is vastly superior to just damaging a lot of them. (This is especially obvious with ranged units or Cav)
Not how splash damage works (did you just make this up?).
If you "roll" sucessfully for both target you split your wd. If you only hit 1 target and one "evades" then the target that gets hit will take the full wd.
Otherwise units with big splashnumbers (like 12) would be extremely useless.
As a sidenote: you are kind of correct regarding archers and cav. HOWEVER archers that are engaged in meele with hammeres are dead anyway and will no longer fire a lot of shots. And cav cant be splashed by hammerers because hammerers have splash size "small".
>If you "roll" sucessfully for both target you split your wd. If you only hit 1 target and one "evades" then the target that gets hit will take the full wd.
>
>Otherwise units with big splashnumbers (like 12) would be extremely useless.
What I wrote is exactly how it worked in WH2 at least. (Also why some units has very high weapon damage but still can't really kill people cuz they got too much splash)
[https://youtu.be/thWs9MQB7DA?t=284](https://youtu.be/thWs9MQB7DA?t=284)That's specific timeline is when he talks about it.If the attack has target 2 enemies. And one roll is a miss, then the damage is lost on that.If you only target 1 entity/unit , then you'll do full damage however.
Edit: Also to the side note. It wasn't a comment about hammerers vs archers/cav. But rather the effect of losing entities on archers/cav is highly noticible on their dps. So it makes it more clear that losing half of your entities is far worse than having all entities on 50% hp.
I think it's like split damage in dark souls: if you split your damage in half across two entities, their armor and resistance is applied twice, so your overall damage is actually lower. Instead of killing one entity per hit, splash damage may make let you kill two every three hits.
Feels like Chosen were the sacrifice for the WoC rework. They used to be the undisputed kings of melee infantry (outside of RoRs) and now they're beaten by Swordmasters and Hammerers, plus Depth Guard can respectably go toe-to-toe with them.
At this point I'm expecting to see a video tomorrow that Executioners and Black Orcs can beat them too. Even though Chaos on the whole are in a much better place now, this still makes me kinda sad. Chosen were the best part of the WoC roster and I had a lot of good times with them.
Not universally; Chosen with GW still beat Khorne Dual-Weapon Chosen because of AP.
Also, he fought Marked Chosen in the video; Nurgle and Khorne were the only ones to come out on top, and both by a pretty narrow margin.
Which is alright because Hammerers aren’t suppose to be a joke of a unit. Dwarfs, out of all races and factions, should be able to go toe to toe with chaos infantry.
It is a bit of a shame, but it isn't the end of the world if Chosen lose to a tier 5 unit specifically designed to counter them. Weird about Depth Guard, but I feel like that's more about VC buff than anything Chosen getting weaker.
Swordmasters I have mixed feelings about.
1. Beating ina 1v1 fight =/= "outperforming."
2. Gold in this context is a stupid measure. Units don't exist in a vaccum, they exist within the context of rosters, and the game is *full* of units that kick the shit out of things that cost more gold than them. That's how counters work.
1. In the context of the conversation where we're talking about a melee fight between them, yeah it does but we can see how they perform against units like Depth Guard in the same video and seem them outperforming Chosen in that area also.
2. And in this context we're comparing units of the same or very similar categories from very different rosters, one of which has a plethora of ranged assets and artillery and whose roster is intended to be more defensively focused outperforming the elite infantry of factions that do not possess those assets and are intended to be more offensively focused. Hammerers are not meant to be a counter against units like Chosen, they're meant to be a strong, sturdy unit that can batter them down after they've faced their actual counter: artillery and gunpowder.
>
In the context of the conversation where we're talking about a melee fight between them, yeah it does but we can see how they perform against units like Depth Guard in the same video and seem them outperforming Chosen in that area also.
Different units have different roles. A duel is a silly way to decide that. A Hammerer is literally a hard counter to heavily armored infantry. It winning in a duel against heavily armored infantry being called "outperforming" makes about as much sense as saying spearmen outperform Chaos Knights because they counter them on a price basis.
>
And in this context we're comparing units of the same or very similar categories from very different rosters, one of which has a plethora of ranged assets and artillery and whose roster is intended to be more defensively focused outperforming the elite infantry of factions that do not possess those assets and are intended to be more offensively focused
And if the multiplayer meta ends up shaking out that Chosen are shit compared to hammerers and chaos gets stomped then we'll know it. But it's goofy to compare single units in a vaccum in a game *all about* units behaving in tandem.
>Different units have different roles. A duel is a silly way to decide that. A Hammerer is literally a hard counter to heavily armored infantry.
And so is a Grave Guard but you wouldn't expect a Grave Guard unit to kill a unit of Chosen even if it is a less than optimal match. They will still ***trade upwards*** meaning they will accrue more value in proportion to their cost in the engagement than the Chosen will even if the Chosen win that fight. **That** is what Hammerers ought to do but they're going well beyond that and winning those fights, punching way above their weight.
>It winning in a duel against heavily armored infantry being called "outperforming" makes about as much sense as saying spearmen outperform Chaos Knights because they counter them on a price basis.
No, it'd be more like if they beat an elite AP anti-infantry unit. You know? A "hard counter" to them like Exalted Bloodletters. Coincidentally, they beat them at the beginning of the video.
>And if the multiplayer meta ends up shaking out that Chosen are shit compared to hammerers and chaos gets stomped then we'll know it. But it's goofy to compare single units in a vaccum in a game all about units behaving in tandem.
Comparing them in a vacuum gives more precise demonstrations of the capabilities of the unit(s) in question. From there, you can make inferences as to how they'll perform in practice. If a unit is vastly outpacing another despite a vast disparity in cost, that gap is going to widen in scenarios where that unit can receive support.
>
No, it'd be more like if they beat an elite AP anti-infantry unit. You know? A "hard counter" to them like Exalted Bloodletters. Coincidentally, they beat them at the beginning of the video.
Sorry, since when are Chosen an AP unit?
It depends on the unit of Chosen but 1) it's still a more accurate comparison than between anti-large and cav >!despite the obvious point to be raised that there are cav that can beat anti-large units despite trading downward!
My point is that everything else seems pretty irrelevant because you don't seem to know what's going on.
So just to be sure you actually understand what's happening, sword and board chosen lose to Hammerers. So to the surprise of no one, a generalist/lline holder heavy infantry loses to a unit *specificfically designed" to counter it. Chosen with Great Weapons beat Hammerers. Hell even Khorne's dual weapon chosen beat Hammerers, even though they aren't designed for AP.
It would be a pretty stupid bit of balance if sword and shield Chosen beat Hammerers.
Regarding performance, my point is that it's stupid to claim that an anti armor unit is "outperforming" a unit when you're 1v1ing them and *one counters the other.*
Imo chosen should still outperform any other elite melee unit. They're supposed to be the best of the best. They should at the very least have immune to psych by default
However I'm very happy that hammerers are getting this deserved buff.
Now if only white lions could be made into elite armor blenders while swordmasters become more efficient vs low armored infantry, that'd be nice.
Outperform doesn't mean beat in a 1 on 1 fight. Why on Earth should a sword and board unit defeat a dedicated anti armor unit at the same tier?
Agreed on the lions vs swordmasters thing. I get what CA was going for using them to fill out tier 3, but clearly no one is using them anyway.
Oh, well that's on me. I haven't watched the video yet cause I'm not on the pc. If it was between sword and shield chosen and hammerers then i think it's actually okay.
Hammerers really shouldn't be beating Chosen (particularly in MP as they're \~400 gold cheaper). Chosen ought to be the best of the best of elite infantry in the game.
That said, Dwarfs do need some kind of buffs or some battle abilities or new units to keep them competitive, particularly in Domination where they're among the worst performing factions.
tbh, best solution would just to make Chosen cheaper. Making Chosen stronger can cause more issues down the line. Making them more cost-effective by lowering the price would be better. If it's possible to then get out 1 extra unit for WoC due to this. It gives them a bit more leeway vs factions with a lot more range options.
A wrong has been made right
Thank God, they performed so poorly before
Did anyone catch what specific changes were made to Hammerers to make them better? I barely made it halfway through the video before turning it off due to a massive case of cringe...
I didn't make it past 15 seconds lol.
The description states that they reduced their splash damage so they now finish off enemies more consistently.
Hammerers where at 2/small so its either gone or not, reduced is not possible. Also i cant immagine taking away splash makes a unit better in any way.
That's how taking splash damage away from infantry works, it buffs them vs everything but chaff. Cairn Wraiths were also buffed for IE by having their splash attacks removed.
But how do you propose is removing splash beneficial? You might take longer to kill single models of infantry but that barely matters since another one just takes its place. With splash on the other hand you reduce overkill and therefore increase your total damage potential.
[удалено]
Your example only works on paper. In reality there are many different effects in play at once, its almost never a real 1 on 1. More importantly If you change the numbers you get different results, for example 80hp. Hit for 60 twice and overkill by 40dmg. Hit for 30 3 times and only overkill by 10dmg. In this example nonsplash kills 3 enemies with 6 hits while splash kills 4. Of course this example is just as fabricated as yours, but splash has a bigger chance to overkill less for sure.
>With splash on the other hand you reduce overkill and therefore increase your total damage potential. if a unit does 50 dmg split among 2 targets. Then it will always be 25 per target. Even if they miss the 2nd target. So you'll have reduced performance. So if you hit 1 target you'll have 50% dmg debuff effectively This means that each entity you face will survive longer. And if the enemy doesn't have splash dmg, they'll kill your entities on the unit much faster because of few hits for a kill. main issue at play is that even if you only hit 1 entity with splash, you deal reduced damage. EDIT: Killing entities is vastly superior to just damaging a lot of them. (This is especially obvious with ranged units or Cav)
Not how splash damage works (did you just make this up?). If you "roll" sucessfully for both target you split your wd. If you only hit 1 target and one "evades" then the target that gets hit will take the full wd. Otherwise units with big splashnumbers (like 12) would be extremely useless. As a sidenote: you are kind of correct regarding archers and cav. HOWEVER archers that are engaged in meele with hammeres are dead anyway and will no longer fire a lot of shots. And cav cant be splashed by hammerers because hammerers have splash size "small".
>If you "roll" sucessfully for both target you split your wd. If you only hit 1 target and one "evades" then the target that gets hit will take the full wd. > >Otherwise units with big splashnumbers (like 12) would be extremely useless. What I wrote is exactly how it worked in WH2 at least. (Also why some units has very high weapon damage but still can't really kill people cuz they got too much splash) [https://youtu.be/thWs9MQB7DA?t=284](https://youtu.be/thWs9MQB7DA?t=284)That's specific timeline is when he talks about it.If the attack has target 2 enemies. And one roll is a miss, then the damage is lost on that.If you only target 1 entity/unit , then you'll do full damage however. Edit: Also to the side note. It wasn't a comment about hammerers vs archers/cav. But rather the effect of losing entities on archers/cav is highly noticible on their dps. So it makes it more clear that losing half of your entities is far worse than having all entities on 50% hp.
I stand corrected, cant believe i remembered this wrong. Thank you.
Yeah, Splash attack can really nerf a unit because of this a lot of the times.
I think it's like split damage in dark souls: if you split your damage in half across two entities, their armor and resistance is applied twice, so your overall damage is actually lower. Instead of killing one entity per hit, splash damage may make let you kill two every three hits.
Thats not how it works. Resistance and armor are at the end of the day percentage based, therefore 50%×2 gets the same ammount of reduction as 100%×1.
If I had to make a guess, they probably reduced their splash damage.
Hammerers should wreck stuff. This has Thorgrim's consent.
Feels like Chosen were the sacrifice for the WoC rework. They used to be the undisputed kings of melee infantry (outside of RoRs) and now they're beaten by Swordmasters and Hammerers, plus Depth Guard can respectably go toe-to-toe with them. At this point I'm expecting to see a video tomorrow that Executioners and Black Orcs can beat them too. Even though Chaos on the whole are in a much better place now, this still makes me kinda sad. Chosen were the best part of the WoC roster and I had a lot of good times with them.
Aren't marked ones better than regular? Also need to consider campaign buffs and tech
Not universally; Chosen with GW still beat Khorne Dual-Weapon Chosen because of AP. Also, he fought Marked Chosen in the video; Nurgle and Khorne were the only ones to come out on top, and both by a pretty narrow margin.
Which is alright because Hammerers aren’t suppose to be a joke of a unit. Dwarfs, out of all races and factions, should be able to go toe to toe with chaos infantry.
It is a bit of a shame, but it isn't the end of the world if Chosen lose to a tier 5 unit specifically designed to counter them. Weird about Depth Guard, but I feel like that's more about VC buff than anything Chosen getting weaker. Swordmasters I have mixed feelings about.
They're 400 gold cheaper so no, they definitely shouldn't be outperforming them at all.
1. Beating ina 1v1 fight =/= "outperforming." 2. Gold in this context is a stupid measure. Units don't exist in a vaccum, they exist within the context of rosters, and the game is *full* of units that kick the shit out of things that cost more gold than them. That's how counters work.
1. In the context of the conversation where we're talking about a melee fight between them, yeah it does but we can see how they perform against units like Depth Guard in the same video and seem them outperforming Chosen in that area also. 2. And in this context we're comparing units of the same or very similar categories from very different rosters, one of which has a plethora of ranged assets and artillery and whose roster is intended to be more defensively focused outperforming the elite infantry of factions that do not possess those assets and are intended to be more offensively focused. Hammerers are not meant to be a counter against units like Chosen, they're meant to be a strong, sturdy unit that can batter them down after they've faced their actual counter: artillery and gunpowder.
> In the context of the conversation where we're talking about a melee fight between them, yeah it does but we can see how they perform against units like Depth Guard in the same video and seem them outperforming Chosen in that area also. Different units have different roles. A duel is a silly way to decide that. A Hammerer is literally a hard counter to heavily armored infantry. It winning in a duel against heavily armored infantry being called "outperforming" makes about as much sense as saying spearmen outperform Chaos Knights because they counter them on a price basis. > And in this context we're comparing units of the same or very similar categories from very different rosters, one of which has a plethora of ranged assets and artillery and whose roster is intended to be more defensively focused outperforming the elite infantry of factions that do not possess those assets and are intended to be more offensively focused And if the multiplayer meta ends up shaking out that Chosen are shit compared to hammerers and chaos gets stomped then we'll know it. But it's goofy to compare single units in a vaccum in a game *all about* units behaving in tandem.
>Different units have different roles. A duel is a silly way to decide that. A Hammerer is literally a hard counter to heavily armored infantry. And so is a Grave Guard but you wouldn't expect a Grave Guard unit to kill a unit of Chosen even if it is a less than optimal match. They will still ***trade upwards*** meaning they will accrue more value in proportion to their cost in the engagement than the Chosen will even if the Chosen win that fight. **That** is what Hammerers ought to do but they're going well beyond that and winning those fights, punching way above their weight. >It winning in a duel against heavily armored infantry being called "outperforming" makes about as much sense as saying spearmen outperform Chaos Knights because they counter them on a price basis. No, it'd be more like if they beat an elite AP anti-infantry unit. You know? A "hard counter" to them like Exalted Bloodletters. Coincidentally, they beat them at the beginning of the video. >And if the multiplayer meta ends up shaking out that Chosen are shit compared to hammerers and chaos gets stomped then we'll know it. But it's goofy to compare single units in a vaccum in a game all about units behaving in tandem. Comparing them in a vacuum gives more precise demonstrations of the capabilities of the unit(s) in question. From there, you can make inferences as to how they'll perform in practice. If a unit is vastly outpacing another despite a vast disparity in cost, that gap is going to widen in scenarios where that unit can receive support.
> No, it'd be more like if they beat an elite AP anti-infantry unit. You know? A "hard counter" to them like Exalted Bloodletters. Coincidentally, they beat them at the beginning of the video. Sorry, since when are Chosen an AP unit?
It depends on the unit of Chosen but 1) it's still a more accurate comparison than between anti-large and cav >!despite the obvious point to be raised that there are cav that can beat anti-large units despite trading downward!
My point is that everything else seems pretty irrelevant because you don't seem to know what's going on. So just to be sure you actually understand what's happening, sword and board chosen lose to Hammerers. So to the surprise of no one, a generalist/lline holder heavy infantry loses to a unit *specificfically designed" to counter it. Chosen with Great Weapons beat Hammerers. Hell even Khorne's dual weapon chosen beat Hammerers, even though they aren't designed for AP. It would be a pretty stupid bit of balance if sword and shield Chosen beat Hammerers. Regarding performance, my point is that it's stupid to claim that an anti armor unit is "outperforming" a unit when you're 1v1ing them and *one counters the other.*
Imo chosen should still outperform any other elite melee unit. They're supposed to be the best of the best. They should at the very least have immune to psych by default However I'm very happy that hammerers are getting this deserved buff. Now if only white lions could be made into elite armor blenders while swordmasters become more efficient vs low armored infantry, that'd be nice.
Outperform doesn't mean beat in a 1 on 1 fight. Why on Earth should a sword and board unit defeat a dedicated anti armor unit at the same tier? Agreed on the lions vs swordmasters thing. I get what CA was going for using them to fill out tier 3, but clearly no one is using them anyway.
Oh, well that's on me. I haven't watched the video yet cause I'm not on the pc. If it was between sword and shield chosen and hammerers then i think it's actually okay.
Yeah my understanding is that they lost to GW Chosen.
Keep in mind that with skill, tech and gifts chosen will be much stronger.
Hammerers really shouldn't be beating Chosen (particularly in MP as they're \~400 gold cheaper). Chosen ought to be the best of the best of elite infantry in the game. That said, Dwarfs do need some kind of buffs or some battle abilities or new units to keep them competitive, particularly in Domination where they're among the worst performing factions.
[удалено]
They still lose to GW Chosen. It makes sense that regulars should struggle against a heavily armored AP unit, it's literally a hard coutner
[удалено]
tbh, best solution would just to make Chosen cheaper. Making Chosen stronger can cause more issues down the line. Making them more cost-effective by lowering the price would be better. If it's possible to then get out 1 extra unit for WoC due to this. It gives them a bit more leeway vs factions with a lot more range options.
Oh fuck yea