Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Hammerers will be missed - worse performance for more gold; pre and post-patch tests

123468

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    Yes an elite AP damage dealer on a dwarf roster has more points allocated to some defense than the same type of unit in a greenskins roster. And all elf inf have low hp, etc.

    None of this suggests that the unit variation within a roster isn’t important to allow you to play differently.
    And if you didn’t have those options and had only one infantry per roster you’d be far easier to counterpick with no variety in builds. For now they’ve made one elite dwarf infantry non viable so ironbreakers will have to fill the role (imperfectly) for both. If both became nonviable it would have serious problems for faction viability.

    As for hammerers specifically, their stat line is aggressive hammer no matter what roster it is in. Charge bonus, more attack than defense, tons of weapon strength. The defense helps them be durable but their orientation is unmistakeable.

    As for organ guns those three high elf bolt throwers would’ve hard countered them, which is why I don’t take organ guns Vs high elves.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:

    Yes an elite AP damage dealer on a dwarf roster has more points allocated to some defense than the same type of unit in a greenskins roster. And all elf inf have low hp, etc.

    None of this suggests that the unit variation within a roster isn’t important to allow you to play differently.
    And if you didn’t have those options and had only one infantry per roster you’d be far easier to counterpick with no variety in builds. For now they’ve made one elite dwarf infantry non viable so ironbreakers will have to fill the role (imperfectly) for both. If both became nonviable it would have serious problems for faction viability.

    As for hammerers specifically, their stat line is aggressive hammer no matter what roster it is in. Charge bonus, more attack than defense, tons of weapon strength. The defense helps them be durable but their orientation is unmistakeable.

    As for organ guns those three high elf bolt throwers would’ve hard countered them, which is why I don’t take organ guns Vs high elves.

    "None of this suggests that the unit variation within a roster isn’t important to allow you to play differently."
    But you see that's my whole goddam point, in my opinion, hammerer are not different Enough to allow for substantially differing play, they don't bring enough to the table.
    "And if you didn’t have those options and had only one infantry per roster you’d be far easier to counterpick with no variety in builds."
    Even if the dwarves didn't have hammers, they would have more than one infantry option and viable ones at that, i have no idea what you mean by this? like i agree and follow what your saying but i don't understand your point?

    "For now they’ve made one elite dwarf infantry non viable so ironbreakers will have to fill the role (imperfectly) for both. If both became nonviable it would have serious problems for faction viability. "
    I think through tis whole thing i think we can establish that Non-viable is a bit of a blanket label. There are plenty of non viable units that can have play in certain matchups and skill levels. I never thought hammers were really viable at all, you as mentioned do disagree. Nonviable is an opinion not a fact.

    As for hammerers specifically, their stat line is aggressive hammer no matter what roster it is in. Charge bonus, more attack than defense, tons of weapon strength. The defense helps them be durable but their orientation is unmistakeable.
    But lets consider some rosters, would they be considered good aggressive options for the Dark elfs? or Chaos? or Greenskins?
    I'm drawn to the comparison of grail Knights to grail guardians, it is clear that Grail guardians are the more defensive unit but i don't think anyone would disagree that best use for both involves cycle charging to maximise their value. Garial guardians are clearly built differently but they have the same common approach.
    I see another example again in the movement from Witch elves to Harganeth. Har ganeth do not sit as a straight upgrade from witch elves, they lose out on some offensive capabilities in speed, the madness of khaine debuff and frenzy. Its clear these two units, while sharing a similar goal serve two distinct purposes and can find different targets ideal. This on an aggressive roster, we see that their is some give in take in the aggressive nature of the units as we move up the price range.
    Longbeard GW to Hammerers represent a similar price movement, but all that's added is some offensive capability, this on a very defensive roster, with no movement in defensive nature, tells me that hammerers have hitting power, but its hitting power that's secondary to its primary defensive nature.


    Perhaps that was a bit wordy and consfusing , DE have aaggressive infantry options and in the transition between Black arc, to witch elves to har ganeth, we see alot of shifting of ideal targets in line with ooffensively orintated roster.
    Witht the dwarves we see very little movment in odefensive capability on a defensive roster, which does to me indicate that Hammerers are just a pricey defensive unit with a hell of a punch

    wAs for organ guns yes im sceartin that 2100 in anti artillery investment could shut down 1100 worth of investment on the dwarven end. but do not present this in a vacum, for in that match you feilded approx 2800 worth of artillery yourself(Cant recall if you had 4 or 5 units of the stuff) not just 1100 . and organ guns destory infantry far better than cannons and cbolt throwers cant kill them quickly enough to save elite infantry .
    Please dont present my point as if i was advocating in the blind for a single organ gun VS 3 bolt throwers thats obviously ridiculous.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    edited July 2021
    We should obviously strenuously agree that hammerers are no longer viable. you thought they were never viable and they have been nerfed = thus still not viable. I thought they were viable but no longer. I don't see how we could not be in agreement on that. If it is an opinion it's an opinion we clearly both share now.

    would hammerers be seen as aggressive units on another roster? Yes definitely. Prior to this terrible nerf they had a spread of +11 between their MA and MD (compared to -8 for longbeards GW!), in addition to massive charge bonus and weapon strength. Bestigors have the same +11 spread between their MA and MD, in addition to larger charge bonus but lower weapon strength. Would you not say bestigors are offensive oriented infantry? Would you say chaos infantry are aggressive? They have a MA/MD spread of +4 for warriors GW and only +2 for chosen GW. As for the dark elfs and har ganeths, they too have a lower spread (+4) but then much a larger Bvi. Hammerers on a dark elf roster would continue to be an aggressive offensive unit, but they would have more versatility versus cav than the dark elf infantry do and less punching power versus infantry. That's a lateral shift, but no less aggressive.

    then, you seem to be explaining to me that de have offense oriented infantry (even though some are more defensive in orientation within the roster relative to others), while dwarfs have defensive oriented infantry (again with within-roster variation). Nothing to disagree with there. But you repeatedly insist hammerers played no unique or important role, and of course that makes no sense that any roster could give up one of its infantry variants and have that not be important. corsairs and witch elves aren't interchangeable, nor sisters and executioners. units differ in tier/class, in stats, in what they're good against. So of course losing hammerers means dwarfs can't contest vs armoured mid-tier infantry and elites nearly as well as they could before. Any faction that has a unit nerfed to be not viable suffers in the diversity of what it can do and how it can do it.

    re: organ guns i could've taken 3 for the cost of my 2 cannons 3 bolt throwers. and they would've lost badly to the 3 high elf bolt throwers, which is why they're not a good pick in that matchup IMO. too risky. and if you test it they aren't actually much better vs infantry for the cost than either cannons or bolt throwers, when you factor in range earlier fire for the cannons or cost for the bolt throwers. The one place they shine is in protracted fights vs archers where you have more time to shoot at their preferred mid-range, and only against factions that lack or don't bring counter-artillery.




  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:

    We should obviously strenuously agree that hammerers are no longer viable. you thought they were never viable and they have been nerfed = thus still not viable. I thought they were viable but no longer. I don't see how we could not be in agreement on that. If it is an opinion it's an opinion we clearly both share now.

    would hammerers be seen as aggressive units on another roster? Yes definitely. Prior to this terrible nerf they had a spread of +11 between their MA and MD (compared to -8 for longbeards GW!), in addition to massive charge bonus and weapon strength. Bestigors have the same +11 spread between their MA and MD, in addition to larger charge bonus but lower weapon strength. Would you not say bestigors are offensive oriented infantry? Would you say chaos infantry are aggressive? They have a MA/MD spread of +4 for warriors GW and only +2 for chosen GW. As for the dark elfs and har ganeths, they too have a lower spread (+4) but then much a larger Bvi. Hammerers on a dark elf roster would continue to be an aggressive offensive unit, but they would have more versatility versus cav than the dark elf infantry do and less punching power versus infantry. That's a lateral shift, but no less aggressive.

    then, you seem to be explaining to me that de have offense oriented infantry (even though some are more defensive in orientation within the roster relative to others), while dwarfs have defensive oriented infantry (again with within-roster variation). Nothing to disagree with there. But you repeatedly insist hammerers played no unique or important role, and of course that makes no sense that any roster could give up one of its infantry variants and have that not be important. corsairs and witch elves aren't interchangeable, nor sisters and executioners. units differ in tier/class, in stats, in what they're good against. So of course losing hammerers means dwarfs can't contest vs armoured mid-tier infantry and elites nearly as well as they could before. Any faction that has a unit nerfed to be not viable suffers in the diversity of what it can do and how it can do it.

    re: organ guns i could've taken 3 for the cost of my 2 cannons 3 bolt throwers. and they would've lost badly to the 3 high elf bolt throwers, which is why they're not a good pick in that matchup IMO. too risky. and if you test it they aren't actually much better vs infantry for the cost than either cannons or bolt throwers, when you factor in range earlier fire for the cannons or cost for the bolt throwers. The one place they shine is in protracted fights vs archers where you have more time to shoot at their preferred mid-range, and only against factions that lack or don't bring counter-artillery.




    "We should obviously strenuously agree that hammerers are no longer viable. you thought they were never viable and they have been nerfed = thus still not viable. I thought they were viable but no longer. I don't see how we could not be in agreement on that. If it is an opinion it's an opinion we clearly both share now."
    I wholly agree, I just think that the change that's been made, is a step in the right direction, but just not far enough.

    Bestigors are certainly offensive, primal furry clearly points to this alone. But 24 MD compared to 38? i think i know which is more defensive.
    I would say which Chaos infantry units you refer to but generally yes, they have to be aggressive their roster isn't super supportive of defensive play (but ceartinly possible)
    I would think hammers had the speed for aggresive play witht he dark elves, and with Black Gaurd thier role vs large would be further lessened. Low range on alot of dark elf trange does not encorage a static playstyle though again, it is possible.
    Looking a t the spread of MA and MD is interesting, but i feel unhelpful because what about Grave guard GW and Swordmasters which have the Same MA and MD, i think they are both clearly offensive but their MA and MD are not strictly indicative of this.
    The stats relative to the tools of the roster is the true indication for the role of units i think.

    "But you repeatedly insist hammerers played no unique or important role, and of course that makes no sense that any roster could give up one of its infantry variants and have that not be important."
    I dunno, i reckon if the skaven had one less skavenslave or clanrat it wouldn't make the biggest possible difference

    Further Hammerers are still there! The option hasn't faded into he void, The unit still exists!
    If there were matchups in which they were so essential and option opening that the roster depended on them so totally, I'm sure you can still find use out of them.
    Yeah thats true fopr the DE, my whole point its that its not as true for the dwarves.
    A witch elf unit for instance will be better at clearing out chaff than har ganeth, not just as a matter of cost, but their kits have fundamental differences that inform thier ideal targets.
    Not so for LBGW and Hammers, their ideal targets are the same thing basically, the only thing that defines their targets are their relative costs in terms of return on investment. DE have differences outside of just the price point/quaility of the units.

    Re Organ guns, Excuse me it was 5 pieces. 3 organ guns is WAY overkill, you never need more than 2 and even then 1 with cannons is usually best. VS HE i always bring at least 1 organ gun and even with bolt throwers ive never failed to see them play a decisive role.
    With cannons you force the Elf player into an impossible situation, the cannons range them in and force the HE player to advance or risk feeding the cannons too much value. The oragn gun works to rip into the low HP pools of advancing elf lions and SM, if the elf player went hard on Bolt throwers good, your cannons thereabouts beat them by firing sooner and hitting harder and the organ gun still cleans up the advancing infantry.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 807
    I guess my issue with hammerers at 1200 is in a lot of scenarios giant slayers will out perform seems weird.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    good to be in agreement on some things.

    You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists.

    hammerers are obviously not on par with a skavenslave variant. Its more on par with removing sisters of slaughter from the dark elf roster. Yes they have witch elves. They don't do the same thing even though they have some similarities. in the same way longbeards GW are a partial substitute, but they don't do the same things.

    But i agree with you hammeresr (or chosen GW) or sisters of slaughter are not as essential as a unit with no substitutes on a roster (whether in design or in class/tier). Which is why I don't think this has fundamentally not damaged dwarf matchups too much. But it's still sad for the unit and playstyel.

    The unit is NOT still there. Add 100 gold to any infantry unit in the game and it will not still be there. Because at that point even if what you want is an AP unit you might as well take a cost effective non-AP unit. Units that are priced horribly are just useless units that should never be taken.

    re: organ guns, yes you can combine them with cannons but that still gives the bolt throwers a good pricey target to shoot sooner, so cannons alone would be more dangerous. Also, they don't do as well vs chariots which is the biggest challenge in the matchup.
  • griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,317
    I did a lot of testing with Hammerers after patch.
    I tried a test where I put regular hammerers chevroned to full up against the ROR while using runepriest to negate the affect from ROR armor sunder by giving the sundered hammerer their armor back.

    Assuming that the ROR version doesn't have the splash attacks and the regular ones do
    the splash attack version seems to do more damage on the charge while falling behind in the grind.

    Not weighing in on their current viability in this patch compared to previous patch but if someone wants to try to get good use out of the new hammerers it seems like the place to look would be in finding strategies that allows this slow dwarf unit to get multiple charges in. Maybe smokebombs or other chaff to cover their retreat or something.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:

    good to be in agreement on some things.

    You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists.

    hammerers are obviously not on par with a skavenslave variant. Its more on par with removing sisters of slaughter from the dark elf roster. Yes they have witch elves. They don't do the same thing even though they have some similarities. in the same way longbeards GW are a partial substitute, but they don't do the same things.

    But i agree with you hammeresr (or chosen GW) or sisters of slaughter are not as essential as a unit with no substitutes on a roster (whether in design or in class/tier). Which is why I don't think this has fundamentally not damaged dwarf matchups too much. But it's still sad for the unit and playstyel.

    The unit is NOT still there. Add 100 gold to any infantry unit in the game and it will not still be there. Because at that point even if what you want is an AP unit you might as well take a cost effective non-AP unit. Units that are priced horribly are just useless units that should never be taken.

    re: organ guns, yes you can combine them with cannons but that still gives the bolt throwers a good pricey target to shoot sooner, so cannons alone would be more dangerous. Also, they don't do as well vs chariots which is the biggest challenge in the matchup.

    "You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists."
    I did mention chaos , that their lack of ranged play forces them to want to play aggressively and the model loss as they go up tiers. The units have defensive merits but still offensively orientated I would say, the roster demands them to be. I also addressed my issue with looking solely at MA/MD spread.
    You absolutely can, Bestogors are good examples of this but hammerers are not.

    I feel strongly that you are missing my point, There are more differences between Sisters and Witches compared to LBGW and Hammers.
    sisters lose anti infantry frenzy, gain a sheild and some poison. theres also 32 MD between them.
    Relative to LBGW to hammerers which just gain alot of offensive power.
    My whole entire point, is that outside of just the price point and stats for cost, there are differences in what SoS and WE are looking for to make value and the purpose they serve in the roster, they are fundamentally different. LBGW and Hammerers want the same target just at differening price ranges, they are very simialr units to what you can normally get for that kind of price difference.

    I reckon if silvren got +100g(Instead of 50g) they would still see some play. They are fundamentally unique in what they can bring to the roster and while it would make them worse, they would still have a role to play and they would still be there even if the price is different. If the price had seriously shifted i would see your point, but for 100g, hammerers are still hammerers, the unit is still there.

    Re organ guns, bolt throwers are going to have good targets no matter what, you still brought cannons did you not? unless you decide not to bring aqrty at all and risk allowing the HE pto force you to advance with bolt throwers. Strongly disagree that in this particular matchup that cannons alone would be more dangerous. Cannons are not going to be great for chariots either, part of the reason i couldnt imagine bringing 5 peices of the stuff as the dwarves.
  • FedakynFedakyn Registered Users Posts: 31
    edited July 2021
    Regarding what I think hammers have always needed to be; its not to make them chaff killers. The elite best of the Dwarven holds are not there to fill the roll of being better for killing goblins and clan rats. That a role they should not be targeted for and because of their cost will never be taken for. I actually think this is the opposite direction I would have taken them to a better place. As we've alluded to a few times they already had a niche use to fighting strong Armored AP, something that GW long beards could have trouble with. They could really help some match-ups and add versatility to the roster if this was enhanced even modestly from their place before. I'm just theory crafting now but if they had +4 MA (same base as giant slayers) and you'd have a unit I'd use filling a unique roll that id take and I think would balance well with the dwarven roster. I don't get the splash attack direction here...I just don't
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 817
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405


    I don’t know of any other high elf player (myself included) who would pay 950 for a silverin guard. White lions work Vs armoured cav and inf, Spears Vs Unarmoured cav, Rangers Vs unarmoured inf. Such a unit at 950 would not be used, but would be missed.

    You’re getting super arbitrary in your comparison of the upgrade to sisters Vs the upgrade to hammerers. +31md is a big shift in unit; but so is +16ma and +21(!) ws and -3mD. In both cases you have same style of unit but with very different situations where it trades well for the increased cost.

    Then for chaos you simply state that the unit stats don’t matter in determining if a unit is offensive but instead any Melee unit put on the (ranged lacking) chaos faction is automatically an offensive unit type. If that’s your definition than sure no dwarf infantry unit could ever possibly be offensive in nature due to their roster. Weird contention but fine.
    Analog said:

    eumaies said:

    good to be in agreement on some things.

    You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists.

    hammerers are obviously not on par with a skavenslave variant. Its more on par with removing sisters of slaughter from the dark elf roster. Yes they have witch elves. They don't do the same thing even though they have some similarities. in the same way longbeards GW are a partial substitute, but they don't do the same things.

    But i agree with you hammeresr (or chosen GW) or sisters of slaughter are not as essential as a unit with no substitutes on a roster (whether in design or in class/tier). Which is why I don't think this has fundamentally not damaged dwarf matchups too much. But it's still sad for the unit and playstyel.

    The unit is NOT still there. Add 100 gold to any infantry unit in the game and it will not still be there. Because at that point even if what you want is an AP unit you might as well take a cost effective non-AP unit. Units that are priced horribly are just useless units that should never be taken.

    re: organ guns, yes you can combine them with cannons but that still gives the bolt throwers a good pricey target to shoot sooner, so cannons alone would be more dangerous. Also, they don't do as well vs chariots which is the biggest challenge in the matchup.

    "You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists."
    I did mention chaos , that their lack of ranged play forces them to want to play aggressively and the model loss as they go up tiers. The units have defensive merits but still offensively orientated I would say, the roster demands them to be. I also addressed my issue with looking solely at MA/MD spread.
    You absolutely can, Bestogors are good examples of this but hammerers are not.

    I feel strongly that you are missing my point, There are more differences between Sisters and Witches compared to LBGW and Hammers.
    sisters lose anti infantry frenzy, gain a sheild and some poison. theres also 32 MD between them.
    Relative to LBGW to hammerers which just gain alot of offensive power.
    My whole entire point, is that outside of just the price point and stats for cost, there are differences in what SoS and WE are looking for to make value and the purpose they serve in the roster, they are fundamentally different. LBGW and Hammerers want the same target just at differening price ranges, they are very simialr units to what you can normally get for that kind of price difference.

    I reckon if silvren got +100g(Instead of 50g) they would still see some play. They are fundamentally unique in what they can bring to the roster and while it would make them worse, they would still have a role to play and they would still be there even if the price is different. If the price had seriously shifted i would see your point, but for 100g, hammerers are still hammerers, the unit is still there.

    Re organ guns, bolt throwers are going to have good targets no matter what, you still brought cannons did you not? unless you decide not to bring aqrty at all and risk allowing the HE pto force you to advance with bolt throwers. Strongly disagree that in this particular matchup that cannons alone would be more dangerous. Cannons are not going to be great for chariots either, part of the reason i couldnt imagine bringing 5 peices of the stuff as the dwarves.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    I just don't get it. Hammers were a moderately effective if niche, high tier GW infantry. It saw some use in specifc matchups, but was not ubiquitous.

    You know what that sounds like to me? A balanced unit.

    Don't fix what aint broke.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:



    I don’t know of any other high elf player (myself included) who would pay 950 for a silverin guard. White lions work Vs armoured cav and inf, Spears Vs Unarmoured cav, Rangers Vs unarmoured inf. Such a unit at 950 would not be used, but would be missed.

    You’re getting super arbitrary in your comparison of the upgrade to sisters Vs the upgrade to hammerers. +31md is a big shift in unit; but so is +16ma and +21(!) ws and -3mD. In both cases you have same style of unit but with very different situations where it trades well for the increased cost.

    Then for chaos you simply state that the unit stats don’t matter in determining if a unit is offensive but instead any Melee unit put on the (ranged lacking) chaos faction is automatically an offensive unit type. If that’s your definition than sure no dwarf infantry unit could ever possibly be offensive in nature due to their roster. Weird contention but fine.


    Analog said:

    eumaies said:

    good to be in agreement on some things.

    You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists.

    hammerers are obviously not on par with a skavenslave variant. Its more on par with removing sisters of slaughter from the dark elf roster. Yes they have witch elves. They don't do the same thing even though they have some similarities. in the same way longbeards GW are a partial substitute, but they don't do the same things.

    But i agree with you hammeresr (or chosen GW) or sisters of slaughter are not as essential as a unit with no substitutes on a roster (whether in design or in class/tier). Which is why I don't think this has fundamentally not damaged dwarf matchups too much. But it's still sad for the unit and playstyel.

    The unit is NOT still there. Add 100 gold to any infantry unit in the game and it will not still be there. Because at that point even if what you want is an AP unit you might as well take a cost effective non-AP unit. Units that are priced horribly are just useless units that should never be taken.

    re: organ guns, yes you can combine them with cannons but that still gives the bolt throwers a good pricey target to shoot sooner, so cannons alone would be more dangerous. Also, they don't do as well vs chariots which is the biggest challenge in the matchup.

    "You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists."
    I did mention chaos , that their lack of ranged play forces them to want to play aggressively and the model loss as they go up tiers. The units have defensive merits but still offensively orientated I would say, the roster demands them to be. I also addressed my issue with looking solely at MA/MD spread.
    You absolutely can, Bestogors are good examples of this but hammerers are not.

    I feel strongly that you are missing my point, There are more differences between Sisters and Witches compared to LBGW and Hammers.
    sisters lose anti infantry frenzy, gain a sheild and some poison. theres also 32 MD between them.
    Relative to LBGW to hammerers which just gain alot of offensive power.
    My whole entire point, is that outside of just the price point and stats for cost, there are differences in what SoS and WE are looking for to make value and the purpose they serve in the roster, they are fundamentally different. LBGW and Hammerers want the same target just at differening price ranges, they are very simialr units to what you can normally get for that kind of price difference.

    I reckon if silvren got +100g(Instead of 50g) they would still see some play. They are fundamentally unique in what they can bring to the roster and while it would make them worse, they would still have a role to play and they would still be there even if the price is different. If the price had seriously shifted i would see your point, but for 100g, hammerers are still hammerers, the unit is still there.

    Re organ guns, bolt throwers are going to have good targets no matter what, you still brought cannons did you not? unless you decide not to bring aqrty at all and risk allowing the HE pto force you to advance with bolt throwers. Strongly disagree that in this particular matchup that cannons alone would be more dangerous. Cannons are not going to be great for chariots either, part of the reason i couldnt imagine bringing 5 peices of the stuff as the dwarves.
    Ok but there's the thing,
    I specifically addressed all of that.
    For silvrens i said +100 instead of the +50 they got, soo 900 total, you may still believe they would be untenable but cmon man how did you miss this when it was in the same sentence you refer to?

    "You’re getting super arbitrary in your comparison of the upgrade to sisters Vs the upgrade to hammerers. +31md is a big shift in unit; but so is +16ma and +21(!) ws and -3mD. In both cases you have same style of unit but with very different situations where it trades well for the increased cost."
    Gona skip over the poison and lack of anti infantry huh? You really feel that SoS and Wich elves are the same kind of unit? certainly not. They are both unarmoured sure but have some very clearly defined differences outside of stat movement. Hammers and LBGW do not.
    And again, that's my whole point, if CA wanted to they could have gotten away with calling hammerers Longbeard Hammers and it would have flown, that tracks for where their stats end up. Im not trying to say (As you seem to assume) that their is literally no difference in optimal targets for hammers and LBGW, just that said targets have almost identical characteristics at different price points. Its not disimilar to dragons, and sun dragon and a moon dragon are both dragons, just at different price points, you get to choose how much you want your dragon to cost and what price range of ideal targets it has. Dwarf GW infantry is very similar to this, each is just a quality upgrade of each other gaining some but sacrificing very little.
    Also how am I being arbitrary when yall wanted to talk about MA/MD spread? But no by all means fixate on One of the points i made in the comparison between sisters and wich elves. i imagine you have to because its the only point that could WOrk for LBGW and Hammerers(Which again, is my whole point).


    "Then for chaos you simply state that the unit stats don’t matter in determining if a unit is offensive but instead any Melee unit put on the (ranged lacking) chaos faction is automatically an offensive unit type. If that’s your definition than sure no dwarf infantry unit could ever possibly be offensive in nature due to their roster. Weird contention but fine. "
    I talked about chaos before, how are you forgetting this stuff? I never said stats didn't matter, i just don't think they pull at being a defensive units. And the comparison i invited was that of the progression of GW infantry in their roster, where chaos clearly covers more ground than the dwarves.
    Slayers are definatly offensive units, there can always be exceptions to a rule, i already discussed how there can be play outside of faction strength. I just don't think hammerers are.









  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    No one would take silverin at 900 gold either. And that’s 100 gold nerf relative to a unit that at launch was spammed in most matchups. Hammerers at 1100 obviously we’re never spammed like that and can’t come close to absorbing a 100 gold nerf.

    As for slayers they have exactly the same stats ratios as hammerers. You think their offensive because they lack armour and are fast I guess. But chaos inf are armoured and slow and more defense oriented than hammerers were and yet somehow are offensive....

    As for sisters witch elves you don’t realize how huge weapons strength is in this game for how units play. Inclusive of poison I think the difference in units was equivalent.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,308
    Eumaies, I don't know if Analog knows it, but he's trolling you. I am pretty sure he doesn't, but I wouldn't keep this conversation going regardless.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    Bastilean said:

    Eumaies, I don't know if Analog knows it, but he's trolling you. I am pretty sure he doesn't, but I wouldn't keep this conversation going regardless.

    I think he means well. Yeah we’ve said just about everything though.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:

    No one would take silverin at 900 gold either. And that’s 100 gold nerf relative to a unit that at launch was spammed in most matchups. Hammerers at 1100 obviously we’re never spammed like that and can’t come close to absorbing a 100 gold nerf.

    As for slayers they have exactly the same stats ratios as hammerers. You think their offensive because they lack armour and are fast I guess. But chaos inf are armoured and slow and more defense oriented than hammerers were and yet somehow are offensive....

    As for sisters witch elves you don’t realize how huge weapons strength is in this game for how units play. Inclusive of poison I think the difference in units was equivalent.

    If you think the difference between SoS and Witch elves is the same as the difference between Hammerers and LBGW i don't know what to say, that seems absurd to me.

    Ill cede to let it be and encourage you hit the showers as you have done some fantastic work in soundly dodging my point.
    You have consistently made assumptions about my arguments or stances
    Ignored some of my explanations for my stance(Including one bit that was in the same goddam sentence)
    And some of what you say now is the twisted inverse of your points against rangers and silvren back in that nightmare time. Rules for me but not for thee?
    Perhaps i should have know better than to waste both our time.

    Never intended to be trolling, if i am it is wholly unintentional. But, differing opinions is not trolling.
    I hold no ill will,
    Have a blessed day y'all


  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    edited July 2021
    I have no idea what point I’ve dodged. I’ve responded point by point every time. I actually don’t even know what you’re arguing any more. Unless it’s silverin viable at 900 and hammerers viable at 1200 which... they imo aren’t.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    And in the great ranger silverin debates of yore you convinced me rangers were ok if you recall since he deserved strong infantry faction.

    Silverin of course were irredeemably OP and now are nicely balanced and still taken a lot.

    But I don’t know what exactly you’re referring to.

  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,308
    I would have given Silverin some mid-tier CB and still would.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:

    I have no idea what point I’ve dodged. I’ve responded point by point every time. I actually don’t even know what you’re arguing any more. Unless it’s silverin viable at 900 and hammerers viable at 1200 which... they imo aren’t.

    Ok, aware that I may be unconsciously trolling at this stage, I will try try once more and the last with feeling,

    From the very start, my point was that I didn't think hammerers were much good before the change, i still don't think that they are much good after the change, but I can appreciate CA is trying to make the kind of change(Even if this specific change isn't perfect) That I feel the unit needs.

    I have used examples in the likes of chaos,
    Who have a similar progression of Generic great weapon infantry, that i note is more varied in its 3 options than the 3 dwarf three options as an example of how hammerers don't bring much to the table relative to a faction that has a very similar cost and tier progression of the unit type.

    I have mentioned the reduced value I feel they have have given the nature of the roster.
    That in a defensively orientated roster, the extra gold going into offensive stats is of reduced(But not zero) value.

    I will happily latch on to the likes of Witch elves to Sisters as an example of this sort of 'tiering' is done well, in that these units do not overtly resemble each other they have different tools for different roles and are not clear Upgrades or downgrades of each other as i feel is the case with LBGW and Hammerers.


    Now in discussing it, i feel theres a few thaings you have taken the wrong message from or just kinda of responded to an arguement i wasnt even making, to sumerise some of the highlights

    "Hammerers have (had) massive MA difference and 55(!) ws and buffed charge bonus for 350 gold relative to longbeards gw. You could not more clearly go any further from anvil to hammer type unit in any conceivable way at that price difference. The difference in unit strengths is massive and immediately apparent (or should be)."
    Missing my point that there is very little movement "From Anvil" at all and that on the defensive roster of a very much powerful ranged faction the dwarves are i don't see the value of a Melee "Hammer" in its current form. Yes they are stronger offensively but i find that that's rarely something I'm looking for.


    "You separately seem to think the only dwarf build that is viable is a ranged heavy build and only the ranged units are for dealing AP damage. If this were the case any enemy build that is optimized to tie up ranged would always win. One build option is not viable for any faction competitively. The threat to instead bully the enemy Melee swarm with superior Melee units instead is a very important option."
    Assuming my stance instead of just asking, and I never mentioned AP damage. Also missing that i mentioned in a post earlier than this one i disavowed the idea that there was only one strategy or play that can work. Anything can be made to work with eh right skill and matchup. But factions do have focuses and tools they prefer.

    "If you doubt the efficacy of elite infantry you could just see how stuff like white lions and chaos warriors GW and chosen and swordmasters trade vs lower tier dwarf infantry. Unless you wanted to give up value on the front line and hope to recoup it elsewhere, getting value by overtopping them with better infantry made good sense."
    Never once questioned the efficiency of elite infantry, this is a response to an argument i never made.

    "You also are wrong about dwarf warriors gw which relative to dwarf warriors are much less anvil. Again it’s the ws and cb that make the difference and if you are not getting good (and idealy, repeated) charges with these guys you are failing to get any value from them."
    I never made a comparison with DWGW and DW, i used DWGW and LBGW as examples of a defensively focused faction as despite their loadout of GW usually giving more MA than MD, They have more MD than MA. Which I do believe is unique in the game though could be wrong.

    "None of this suggests that the unit variation within a roster isn’t important to allow you to play differently.And if you didn’t have those options and had only one infantry per roster you’d be far easier to counterpick with no variety in builds. For now they’ve made one elite dwarf infantry non viable so ironbreakers will have to fill the role (imperfectly) for both. If both became nonviable it would have serious problems for faction viability.
    "

    My whole opinion is that their isn't enough variance, not that there should be less.

    You cited the low MD of bestigors, but not the high melee defense of chaos warriors GW and chosen GW. In addition to the lack of spread between MA and MD. Basically, there's no consistent argument for saying Hammerers are a defensive oriented unit. They are not bonus vs inf which is what gives executioners more punch vs inf, but you can have aggressive infantry that are generalists.
    I also sited primal fury as making the unit decisively offensive and in the chase of chaos (and similar for beastmen) i cite the factions overall not being supportive of defensive play. But this seems to have been ignored in favour of focusing on the stats of the units and MA/MD split which was something I never talked about and not at all the point of the comparisons I made(See above).

    "You’re getting super arbitrary in your comparison of the upgrade to sisters Vs the upgrade to hammerers. +31md is a big shift in unit; but so is +16ma and +21(!) ws and -3mD. In both cases you have same style of unit but with very different situations where it trades well for the increased cost."
    Missing the forest for the tree in ignoring Bvi, shields, poison and madness of khaine at least. You are also the one that made this comparison initially as well so it does feel a little worse.

    As for the rangers thing going back to those days of yore, I recall having a debate about your feeling that they added to much to the roster and made the HE a bit unbalanced I disagreed and cited the build diversity that they allowed the HE.
    And now, on the discussions of hammerers, you lament the build diversity that has been lost and i watch a similar rhetoric play out in reverse. I guess I just find it super ironic and a bit sad cause im not even really "against you here.
    Double points because we were talking about it Literally a whole full year ago, Happy "getting-into-the-weeds-of-it"aversery!

    I think otherwise though, I think I'm done trying to discuss it in the forum, if you'd like to continue in messages or better still in an audio format (Discord? better to avoid misunderstanding and faster) it would be my pleasure to get into it with you, but i dont think ive really got the patience to carry on with someone who doesn't seem to either read what i have to say fully or just isn't interested in engaging with the actual points I'm making,

    So in your words from 1 near exact year ago,
    "But anyway. You seem worked up and to not be reading. I'm sorry I got into the details of a finer point."
    Goodnight good peoples! hit me up if you wanna carry on over discord or something Eumaies
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    That’s right the consistent point you’ve argued is hammerers change was a step in the right direction. Which I totally disagree with since dwarfs other elite infantry is already a chaff cleaner so it reduced their differentiation rather than increasing it.

    You don’t remember you convinced me about rangers deserving to be top tier given the roster? That’s a shame.

    That aside, makes sense. Thanks for posting!
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 325
    eumaies said:

    That’s right the consistent point you’ve argued is hammerers change was a step in the right direction. Which I totally disagree with since dwarfs other elite infantry is already a chaff cleaner so it reduced their differentiation rather than increasing it.

    You don’t remember you convinced me about rangers deserving to be top tier given the roster? That’s a shame.

    That aside, makes sense. Thanks for posting!

    I don't remember directly convincing you, but if you say i did, then i must have

    Thanks for reading!
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,215
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    Green0 said:

    can we leave it at "Hammerers are a fine unit" and agree that now they got a new niche? It might not be what people wanted them to do in actual games, but it's a new niche nonetheless where their performance (even gold-wise) is superior to last patch.

    And your evidence for this is....?
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    edited July 2021
    Green0 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    Green0 said:

    can we leave it at "Hammerers are a fine unit" and agree that now they got a new niche? It might not be what people wanted them to do in actual games, but it's a new niche nonetheless where their performance (even gold-wise) is superior to last patch.

    And your evidence for this is....?
    2 splash targets > 1 pretty much. More splash is all you need vs units like Skaven slaves when you already have a monstrous 55 WS
    Because I'm bringing hammerers to fight skavenslaves....?

    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    Green0 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    Green0 said:

    can we leave it at "Hammerers are a fine unit" and agree that now they got a new niche? It might not be what people wanted them to do in actual games, but it's a new niche nonetheless where their performance (even gold-wise) is superior to last patch.

    And your evidence for this is....?
    2 splash targets > 1 pretty much. More splash is all you need vs units like Skaven slaves when you already have a monstrous 55 WS
    yes...but not if pay 10% for it....they are worse vs chaff now, a lot worse. they lose vs an equal value of marauders where they used to comfortably beat them. its a garbage unit now-
Sign In or Register to comment.