Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok so I have found there is a group in my area that play Kings of War fairly regularly (maybe Deadzone too), hooray. Except they tend to be of the more competitive persuasion, the type that in Warhammer would only play tournament-caliber games or think 40k is a great competitive tournament game. So as much as I hate to ask this question, is there a sort of "competitive breakdown" for the factions in KoW? As I understand it, the game seems to be fairly balanced but there has to be a power structure and "competitive" type builds, so against my own better judgment I am asking what is the current "competitive" standards in KoW for lists, just in case.

If it helps any armies for KOW that caught my eye are: Elves, Empire of Dust (but no Chariots? ), Abyssal Dwarves, maybe regular Dwarves (they've kinda grown on me) and maybe Basilea. I'm only looking at the Mantic figure range because I don't have anything I could transfer over from old Warhammer.

Most 'competitive' builds you see around this edition tend to focus on breath weapons and lightning bolts, but generally they require leeching off other armies; taking a token amount of Goblins so you have access to their War Trombones, for example. Tournaments get around this usually by limiting repeats of certain units, but occasionally you might find one that doesn't.

Even then, though, it's much more down to the quality of the player than what they take. You'll find that even one of the consistently lower-ranked armies like Kingdoms of Men is more than capable of taking on a top-tier force like Abyssals or Basileans, given the right generalship.

What KoW really lacks, though, is information. Warhammer benefits from being able to construct 'accurate' tables of faction power due to its huge playerbase. KoW doesn't have that luxury, and often entire faction results can be skewed simply by a player having a bad day with the dice at a tournament. What tables have been accrued have been done off as much information as could be obtained, and even then it's only off a registered international playerbase numbering no more than the mid-hundreds, collected over a short period of time.

To put it simply: no, there isn't really an accurate competitive breakdown of KoW. There are very basic tables based off a low number of tournament results, likely with several repeat, veteran players playing different armies, and depending on country, different factions in different places, and you can find those here: http://vb.manticforum.com/forum/kings-of-war/general-discussion-aa/292222-emerging-army-rankings The one constant, however, seems to be that almost all of the armies rank fairly close to average in terms of condensed score.

Often in KoW, you might find a list is competitive by accident. It's entirely possible to simply build a 'good' list without meaning to, and you generally have to put more effort into making bad lists than making good ones.

Of the armies you're looking at, Abyssal Dwarves and Basilea tend to rank slightly higher than the rest, but neither Elves, EoD, nor regular Dwarves are by any means noncompetitive. It's pretty much a case of choosing which army you most like the models of. If you're a poor general, the army you chose won't matter, but this is also true if you're a good general in KoW especially.

The armies in KoW are balanced fairly well, so there are no real "tiers" for how good particular armies are.

There are certain things that are considered powerful (LB/BW, for example) and other things are really good for their meta and/or till a counter is figured out.
Even then, having a better list is an advantage, but does not ensure victory.

I've been running BW spam for a while and I'm far from convinced. I was (honestly ) testing it to see if the Internet was right or if it was a hyperbole (again). I ran variations of 3 efreet & Chroneas for a total of 80 Breath Weapon, 40 of which had piercing.

It wasn't as good as you'd think. 80 shots sound great on paper, but in reality you struggle to get your BW players to where they need to be and safely. Against a good player you're very reactive in hiding your Efreet and by doing so you're often forced to either move at the double or pick targets that you'd rather not pick.

The rest of the list was also extremely fragile. A good player would be able to take out your scoring units and stop you from winning scenarios. This was my biggest downfall playing with this list archetype. I lost so many games because my scoring units had either been eliminated or tied up.

I've found that I've been doing much better since toning down the BW spam to just 2 efreet and taking a more balanced list overall. I also beat one of the other netlists (goblin trombones, ranged hordes + bane chant) with ease this week with my toned down/more balanced list.

Breath Weapon spam will get you to the mid-upper tables at a tournament, but you won't win. Even versus the average opponent it's not an auto-win list. One chap took the 3 efreet/chroneas/10 LB list to a recent UK tournament and placed 16th out of 26.

e; This is what I took to a 2200 point tournament:
3 x Gargoyle Troops
2 x Lower Abyssals Regiments w/2 handers
1 x Lower Abyssals Horde w/2 handers
2 x Flamebearers Regiments
1 x Abyssal Horsemen regiment w/Potion of the Caterpillar
1 x Abyssal Champion w/Wings & Ensorcelled Armour
1 x Harbinger
1 x Harbinger w/The Boomstick
1 x Efreet w/Heart Seeking Chant
2 x Efreet
1 x Chroneas


This is what I'm currently playing for my 2k list, and I think it's much stronger than my 2.2k list;
1 x Gargoyle Troop
1 x Lower Abyssal Regiment w/2 handers
1 x Lower Abyssal Horde w/2 handers
1 x Tortured Souls Regiment
1 x Horsemen Regiment w/Brew of Haste
1 x Horsemen Regiment w/Potion of the Caterpillar
1 x Abyssal Champion w/Wings
1 x Efreet w/Heart Seeking Chant
1 x Efreet w/Boots of Levitation
1 x Temptress w/Bane-Chant & Inspiring Talisman
1 x Daemon Lord Ba'el

"A more balanced list worked better", I hear this A LOT. Probably because balanced/all round list are better.

Wayniac wrote:
Ok so I have found there is a group in my area that play Kings of War fairly regularly (maybe Deadzone too), hooray. Except they tend to be of the more competitive persuasion, the type that in Warhammer would only play tournament-caliber games or think 40k is a great competitive tournament game. So as much as I hate to ask this question, is there a sort of "competitive breakdown" for the factions in KoW? As I understand it, the game seems to be fairly balanced but there has to be a power structure and "competitive" type builds, so against my own better judgment I am asking what is the current "competitive" standards in KoW for lists, just in case.

If it helps any armies for KOW that caught my eye are: Elves, Empire of Dust (but no Chariots? ), Abyssal Dwarves, maybe regular Dwarves (they've kinda grown on me) and maybe Basilea. I'm only looking at the Mantic figure range because I don't have anything I could transfer over from old Warhammer.

As said, the lists in KoW are fairly well balanced against each other. Which is a great thing for people used to "competetive Warhammer" as they have a far wider choice of units and armies they can use without handicapping themselves.

Flying stuff (especially Monsters) was previously considered a bit overpowered for their cost and has been reigned back somewhat in a 'not wholly official but kinda encouraged' update: The CoK (Clash of Kings) rules pack. The CoK also places extra restriction on allies. I recommend using the rules as it makes the different unit types more balanced and the rules are quite widely used nowadays.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10049744/dave/Mantic%20Kings%20of%20War%20Clash%20of%20Kings%202016.pdf


As the game is now, with CoK included, the main imbalance is generally considered to be the 4+ unmodified shooting (Breath Weapons, Lightning bolts, Flame weapons) that's seen as superior to regular shooting and can unbalance the game when taken in large quantities, but as Daedleh mentions, it's debatable to which extent these weapons are really unbalancing the game.

I'd say all the armies you list are considered among the upper tier of competitiveness (to the extent such tiers exist in KoW), and regularly win tournaments with possibly Dwarfs, EoD and Basileans bordering on middle-tier armies but still showing success regularly.

If there's lists who's a bit behind the curve I'd guess it'd be the Trident Realm, Orcs, Salamanders and Kingdoms of men. But it's hard to say as some of these armies tend to be played rather seldom so it's hard to get reliable data.

If I'm to attempt a tier list, It'd be something like this, with no ranking intended with the order within the tiers (It's very speculative though and don't take this as any authoritative statement)

Top Tier:
-Elves
-Abyssal Dwarfs
- Undead
- Ratkin
- Varangur

Middle Tier:
- Dwarfs
- Goblins
- Ogres
- Basilea
- Forces of Nature
- Abyssals
- Empire of Dust
- The Herd
- Twilight Kin
- Brotherhood
- Night Stalkers

Bottom Tier:
- Kingdoms of men
- Orcs
- League of Rhordia
- Salamanders
- Trident realm of Neritica

 DarkBlack wrote:
"A more balanced list worked better", I hear this A LOT. Probably because balanced/all round list are better.

I completely agree, but I just wanted to illustrate that I've tried out the skew list and still come out the other side thinking balanced is better

 Zywus wrote:
Top Tier:
- Elves
-Abyssal Dwarfs
- Undead
- Ratkin
- Varangur

Middle Tier:
- Dwarfs
- Goblins
- Ogres
- Basilea
- Forces of Nature
- Abyssals
- Empire of Dust
- The Herd
- Twilight Kin
- Brotherhood
- Night Stalkers

Bottom Tier:
- Kingdoms of men
- Orcs
- League of Rhordia
- Salamanders
- Trident realm of Neritica

FWIW I agree with this ranking, particularly the high and low ends, at least going by my own experience playing the game and paying some attention to tournament results / battle reports. The two Night Stalkers at a recent GT I went to did quite well, but ultimately couldn't crack the top lists, and I think at least some of that success was due to the uniqueness of the faction and a lot of our general inexperience.

One of the things I really appreciate about KOW is the internal balance as well as the balance between different armies, meaning there aren't nearly as many Obviously Better Things as there are in GW armies. While there are certainly some units that are a little undercosted or a little too good at all things, rather than focusing on one thing at the cost of others, those units are fairly rare, or have been errata'd (Chroneas limited to 1) or comped (Pharaoh DEF drop) in rather official ways.

What you'll find with the 'competitive KOW' meta is that types of units appear more frequently than in 'non-competitive KOW' (I'm not sure what that means, given the balance of the game and my personal interest in taking cool models and making them work; I guess understanding that if you take a bottom tier list you'll be working a little harder / relying on luck? I say as I work on a Trident Realms army). This is especially the case with magic items. For example, you can expect to face big flying monsters with high DEF, and they'll almost always have the +1 DEF or regen item. If there's a horde of shooters (and there will be 1-2 of them, often literally Shooters ), it'll likely have +1 to hit or reroll 1's to hit or possibly +1 piercing. A single cav unit? Pathfinder item is a good guess. And so on. Originally this predictability in builds made me a little sad, but then I think of WHFB 8E, where we had these enormous lists of common and army magic items, yet saw the same combos or items on the table, pretty much right where you expected them. So it's not so different.

- Salvage

Though the Nightstalkers are excellent as allies....

The Twilight Kin player in our group has gone from the bottom of the pack to mid range... Nightstalker make it easier for him to play the Kin the way he wants to play them. (His good lady is in the top three - she and my own good lady swap second and third place on a regular basis. His good lady plays orcs, and my good lady plays dwarfs, but plans to switch to goblins soon.)

The Auld Grump - in four player/two sided games his wife's orcs tend to use his Twilight Kin as a screening force... which seems exactly backwards, somehow.

Abyssal dwarfs are top tier? That's excellent to know. I've finally selected a top tier army!
Not played them yet so this weekend's GT will be informative. Looks like Abyssals (never seen them at all) are the most common army, and me the only demonic midgets.

Please note that in many cases, the options that make some armies look like "top tier" are in fact things that are easy to use, or to learn to use effectively, so they will give an advantage for new and mid players, but against veteran who learned how to counter them they will often be perfectly manageable, and abusing them will in fact be counter effective against trully skilled players.

For exemple, a hero on dragon with the ensorcelled armor (to get def 6+) or the artafact that get regenration is very hard to kill, very mobile and powerful, so any beginner will find that this unit always perfoms greatly and think of it as a must have.

But in practice this hero will cost a lost of points, and a competent player will probably be able to get a similar result with the same hero without a defensive artefact, saving points that can then serve elsewhere, or maybe replace the dragon with a cheaper hero that will do 80% of the job for 60% of the points.

Some players always take the caterpillar potion on a cavalry units, and while it's true that it's nice to have pathfinder on your knights, It's also perfectly viable to simply not send your knights into woods and use other units for this role that are not as dependent on the initial charge.

Sure, I won't say no to pathfinder on a fast unit, but once again the points might be better used elsewhere, I have to balance the usefulness of this with other options.

The more I play, the less I like to rely on those supposed "no brainers" as I find that they make you dependant en them and less effective in the long term or less likely to learn how to play better so you don't need them anymore.

Also some of the so called "bottom tier" armies are from my point of view armies that simply have a different play style that the easy to learn default, so it's not that they have less chance to win by themselves, and more than you have to unlearn the default tactics and learn new ones, so it take more finesse to use them at their best.

 Zywus wrote:


Top Tier:
-Elves
-Abyssal Dwarfs
- Undead
- Ratkin
- Varangur

Middle Tier:
- Dwarfs
- Goblins
- Ogres
- Basilea
- Forces of Nature
- Abyssals
- Empire of Dust
- The Herd
- Twilight Kin
- Brotherhood
- Night Stalkers

Bottom Tier:
- Kingdoms of men
- Orcs
- League of Rhordia
- Salamanders
- Trident realm of Neritica

I would agree with this. I would say Dwarfs are high middle tier, maybe top tier. Twilight Kin is pretty good. Basilea, I think, trends towards the bottom tier. Night Stalkers struggle with the new Breath Weapon/Lightning Bolt meta that is popular. I almost always see Undead and Elves in the top 3 at tournaments. I don't think I've ever seen KoM or Triden Realms in a competitive spot in tournaments.

Wayniac wrote:


Top Tier:
-Elves
-Abyssal Dwarfs
- Undead
- Ratkin
- Varangur

Middle Tier:
- Dwarfs
- Goblins
- Ogres
- Basilea
- Forces of Nature
- Abyssals
- Empire of Dust
- The Herd
- Twilight Kin
- Brotherhood
- Night Stalkers

Bottom Tier:
- Kingdoms of men
- Orcs
- League of Rhordia
- Salamanders
- Trident realm of Neritica

I salute your bravery for attempting a tier list.

I'd put Twilight Kin in the top though. I think their current list is better than Elves.

I feel like the Clash of Kings comp hurt Basilea more than most, not sure where they stack up now. I think they were real strong before

It only really hurt the flying circus list with spammed Elohis + Phoenixes, Basilea still has a very nice list of options, they have a very nice melee light cavalry, probably the best flying large infantry, access to a hero on dragon, phenix, decent wizards.

They are not specially strong for shooting, but still human crossbows and balistas are not too bad, and they have enough fast units to not fear shooting too much, especially with iron resolve letting them heal some shooting damage while they advance.

While it's true that certain armies can be harder to handle due to not having the easier to use options of flying units or mass breath attack and lightning bolt options, those are certainly not required to win, and any army can not only compete but probably have a decent chance of even winning a tournament with the correct player.

In short, even if there is a difference between those "tiers", part of the difference is not in the potential of the armies but of their learning curve, and the real difference that might be left after that is probably so small that I would think that it the delta between the top and lower tiers in KoW is probably smaller than the one beetween two armies of the same tier in any edition of Warhammer

jtrowell wrote:

In short, even if there is a difference between those "tiers", part of the difference is not in the potential of the armies but of their learning curve, and the real difference that might be left after that is probably so small that I would think that it the delta between the top and lower tiers in KoW is probably smaller than the one beetween two armies of the same tier in any edition of Warhammer

I agree 100%

I've tried to make the same point before, but stumbled on the words. Nicely put.

Yes, very well put

Typically i find that running a Gimmick List in KoW is generally a bad idea, as they have a tendency to fall apart, as has been illustrated. My own experiences with Nightstalkers (fighting Dwarves) has been good, except the time that the dice decided to me, but when the dice are rolling about average they do pretty good. Im a big fan of Butchers and a Void Lurker with Dark Lords Onyx Ring. I will agree that Nightstalkers are a bit odd, but i adjusted fine, though that may be because i play Undead and the two have a few things in common.

A joke i've made about KoW is that you could make an entire list of Peasant Legions and still win if you dont play like an idiot, i dont think im to far off from the truth.

To be fair, regardless of how good the enemy is, that's a hell of a lot of nerve to chew through in 6 turns. A lot of units get their hitting power through high Crushing Strength/Piercing, which is wasted against a De3 and high nerve target. 170 points to put a big block of "you need to shove half of your army against this target to break it" area denial is an awesome buy. 4-5 of them is still a relatively small investment, but the sheer staying power of that much nerve is something to behold.

There are a lots of list that a very powerful against beginners or at best average players but that become a liability at high level of play because they have big flaws that can be exploited.

In addition, playing with this kind of list will hurt you (and maybe your main opponents too) over the long term as you come to rely more and more on the advantage of the list and don't learn how to use the rest of your army effectively, and so depend even more on the special element and so on in a vicious circle.

This can start with a player using a big and expensive lord on dragon with the ensorcelled armor, finding hims to be his MVP, and then taking a seocnd one (with regeneration), and then his games always revolve around how he uses his dragons, and the rest then try to be more and more like them until you have a flying circus of dragons + drakons + flying heroes or something simimar

This kind of list can be scary to face when you are still learning the game (especially if you don't use the tournament tweaks), further encouraging the player to think of it as a strong list, until a good player with a good combined arms army show him how it's possible to neutralize this kind of list.

This exemple don't means that heavy fliers don't have a place in high level play, you will find tournament winning list both with and without them, it's just that they tend to be more effective at lower play level giving a wrong first impression.

In summary, there are elements here it is easier to learn how to use them compared to learning how to counter them, and we're back of the topic of learning curve mentionned a few posts back.

I still remember somebody who made a Kingdoms of Man roman legion army where a large part of the list where simple shield wall units, and he reported a decent ration of win/losses. ^_^

I'd say you win Kings of War games more on the table than you do in list building. List building gives you tools, but every game requires a lot of planning to make you win your games.

 Daedleh wrote:
To be fair, regardless of how good the enemy is, that's a hell of a lot of nerve to chew through in 6 turns. A lot of units get their hitting power through high Crushing Strength/Piercing, which is wasted against a De3 and high nerve target. 170 points to put a big block of "you need to shove half of your army against this target to break it" area denial is an awesome buy. 4-5 of them is still a relatively small investment, but the sheer staying power of that much nerve is something to behold.

Oh i know, i run 2 Zombie legions and they've killed Regiments of Ironclad by sheer attrition. Its just that when you say "Showing up with all Peasants is viable" people understand that it isnt really the unit, its how you use them. In this case its using them as a massive wall of area denial meat, which is playing to its strength, which is what KoW is all about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jtrowell wrote:
There are a lots of list that a very powerful against beginners or at best average players but that become a liability at high level of play because they have big flaws that can be exploited.

In addition, playing with this kind of list will hurt you (and maybe your main opponents too) over the long term as you come to rely more and more on the advantage of the list and don't learn how to use the rest of your army effectively, and so depend even more on the special element and so on in a vicious circle.

This can start with a player using a big and expensive lord on dragon with the ensorcelled armor, finding hims to be his MVP, and then taking a seocnd one (with regeneration), and then his games always revolve around how he uses his dragons, and the rest then try to be more and more like them until you have a flying circus of dragons + drakons + flying heroes or something simimar

This kind of list can be scary to face when you are still learning the game (especially if you don't use the tournament tweaks), further encouraging the player to think of it as a strong list, until a good player with a good combined arms army show him how it's possible to neutralize this kind of list.

This exemple don't means that heavy fliers don't have a place in high level play, you will find tournament winning list both with and without them, it's just that they tend to be more effective at lower play level giving a wrong first impression.

In summary, there are elements here it is easier to learn how to use them compared to learning how to counter them, and we're back of the topic of learning curve mentionned a few posts back.

I still remember somebody who made a Kingdoms of Man roman legion army where a large part of the list where simple shield wall units, and he reported a decent ration of win/losses. ^_^

Agreed. I love my Vamp Lord on a Dragon, but frankly my Soul Reaver Cavalry with Brew of Sharpness has probably done more than him and (IIRC) they are cheaper. As we always say, its not the units, its how you use them. I mean, for gods sake i was just talking about the advantages of Peasants. Peasants!!