8th Ed. The BEST close combat units in all of Warhammer.

Okay, we have the following:

• Skullcrushers of Khorne [Ensorcelled weapons]
• K'daai Destroyer
• White Lions of Chrace [Banner of the World Dragon]
• Chaos Warriors [MoN, Halberds]
• Arachnarok Spider
  
• Demigryph Knights
• Mournfang Cavalry [GW, Heavy Armour]
• Black Guard of Naggarond
• Witch Elves
• Har Ganeth Executioners
• Hell Pit Abomination
• Beasts of Nurgle
• Savage Orc Big'Uns [AHW]
• Chaos Trolls
• Soul Grinder [MoN, Daemonebone Claw]

Are we missing anyone else? Is there any selection above that somebody vehemently objects to?

 

Stil thinking.

And yes, with the the Soul Grinder with the Daemonbone claw upgrade.

 

So our final list for our little experiment is comprised of the following 15 units:

• Skullcrushers of Khorne [Ensorcelled weapons]
• K'daai Destroyer
• White Lions of Chrace [Banner of the World Dragon]
• Chaos Warriors [MoN, Halberds]
• Arachnarok Spider
  
• Demigryph Knights
• Mournfang Cavalry [GW, Heavy Armour]
• Black Guard of Naggarond
• Witch Elves
• Har Ganeth Executioners
• Hell Pit Abomination
• Beasts of Nurgle
• Savage Orc Big'Uns [AHW]
• Chaos Trolls
• Soul Grinder [MoN, Daemonebone Claw]

I have finally settled on format for our analysis. Why not let the best duke it out for themselves. Each unit will be pitted against every other unit on the list. The results will tabulated in the following table:





Procedural Rules:

• Combats will be treated as ongoing. So no charge bonuses for either side.
• Fear tests will be assumed as being passed
• Unit sizes will be adjusted to create the fairest possible balance in terms of points (obviously, single entity monster vs. monster matchups will be uneven)
• Each unit will be stuck using their overall best loadout, even if it is sub-optimal in a particular matchup. For example, Ensorcelled weapons are the best option for Skullcrushers in most situations, but not against the Banner of the World Dragon due to ensorcelled weapons being magical. While Skullcrushers would be better off not upgrading to Ensorcelled Weapons in this matchup, they will be forced to do so. This is is partially to avoid problems of counter picking, and the resultant doubling of the number of match calculations I would have to make.
• Unit formations will be optimized within the normal/typical range we find them on the battlefield. No unit will be narrower than 5 models wide and no unit will be wider than 10 models wide (horde).
• Partial wounds (for monster models... and maybe for monstrous models as well... haven't decided) will be carried forward from one round of combat to another (i.e. a Hell Pit Abomination could be sitting on 4.2 wounds going into a subsequent round of combat), for other models, 0.4 wounds will be rounded down to 0 = death.
• For the purpose of calculating combat results, partial wounds of 0.4 or lower will be rounded down and 0.5 or higher will be rounded up.

Questions remaining... PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK!

How should break tests be handled?

• ignored? We go until a unit is completely wiped out! And if so, how is this counter-balanced with crumbling?
• assumed to be passed at 50% or greater probability of success and assumed to be failed at lower than 50% probability of success? And if so, do we assume the breaking unit has lost.. i.e. wiped out (even though they might not be caught in pursuit)?
• some other idea or method?

How do we balance points cost?

• in the case of a monster vs. multi-model unit it is straight forward, the unit size of the multi-model unit must be adjusted to meet the monster's points cost
• in a monster vs. monster matchup, one side will have a slight advantage. Can't do much about it.
• the problem arises with multi-model unit vs. multi-model unit matchup. There might exist different optimal unit sizes. For example trolls work very well in a horde formation, but Demigryph knights do not.

Anything else?

• any other ideas, potential pitfalls, concerns, etc.

Once we settle on all the rules/procedures, I can begin with the matchup analysis. Obviously, they will be completed one or a few at a time and I will post the results and updated table for discussion. To keep things consistent, I'll do all the matchups myself, but I'll rely on you fine folks to check things over incase I bungle anything up!

By the end of analysis we'll have:

• completed colour-coded table of results
• a Win-Loss record for each unit: (M. Win - Win - Draw - Loss - M. Loss)
• I will calculate a single numerical score for each unit by adding their results together [massive win = 2, win =1, draw =0, loss = -1, massive loss = -2)
• using the numerical result from the step above, we'll be able to order the list from the best (of the best) to the worst (of the best)

Thoughts?

 

First off, i would like to say that i like how much effort you have put into this mini project, i really like the idea! I think it is very fair that you let every unit fight each other unit, in that way outliers (like the White Lions with the Banner of the World Dragon heavily countering Skullcrushers) do not matter that much.

On the issues you still encounter, I think to recreate situations that most commonly arise upon the tabletop, i think you want to limit the amount of turns a combat goes on to around 3. Combats that go on longer than that are rare, sides often rout before that, or other units join the fray to heavily influence the outcome.

Considering point costs, i would define normalized unit sizes for each of the unit competing in this competition. Then i would define a point value (this number does not actually matter that much), to weigh the results to. You can then compare the weighed wounds they did to each other, and then give that a point value to use in the table. As an example:

Unit X is usually taken in a unit of 20, this unit costs 250 points as a unit of 20.

Unit Y is usually taken in a unit of 6, this unit costs 400 points as a unit of 6.

Let's say we weigh to 500. Unit X does on average 10 wounds over 3 turns. Unit Y does 15 wounds over 3 turns. From your initial assessment, you could conclude that Unit Y won, but that is unfair, seeing as they cost more than Unit X. When weighing the wounds done, you would 500/250=2, 2*10= 20 weighed wounds for Unit X. Unit Y gets 500/400=1.25. 1.25*10=18,75 weighed wounds for Unit Y, meaning that considering point costs, Unit X has won this head to head with a 1.25 wound difference.

An even better way to calculate this difference would not to pit these units against each other, but against the field. To do this, you could create a number of categories in which the units could compete. These could be, for example:

- Light infantry (Imperial Halberdiers)
- Heavy infantry (Chaos Warriors)
- Light cavalry (Dark Riders)
- Heavy cavalry (Imperial Knights)
- Monsters (Stegadon)

You could check how many weighed wounds you would do for each unit against every category, you could even check how much damage you got back, and calculate a score based on that, using the method i described before.

To cut a long story short, you have 2 main choices:

1. Calculate how strong the units are against each other.
2. Calculate how strong the units are against the field.

When doing this, you would have to just set a few parameters, like the amount of turns you are fighting and how many points each unit is, but as long as you perform enough tests this should normalize and have no real impact on the results. Would be interested to hear what you would like to test, I think both are interesting options.

 

For break tests, I think it should be ignored. There are too many factors in real gaming that would affect this and our analysis is simply who are the best in CC fighting.

For the points, I think it just needs to be as close to equal as possible (like you say unavoidable in some monster match-ups).

I don't think you need to worry overmuch about other points. This is a Math-hammer exercise. Purely.

Like any other Math-hammer work-out it will end up with a percentage success on average score, which will be useful in planning armies and tactics.

All too often, the Chaos God's (also known as God's of the Die , geddit?) frown or smile upon a combat and the result is really NOT what you would expect.

Also, we know that one's generalling affects greatly the outcome of a combat match-up: have their numbers been reduced by shooting/magic? Has your unit been buffed by magic?

Part of the majesty of 8th (in my opinion), is creating army lists that synergize and become a whole greater than the sum of it's parts (which is very necessary considering not all armies have been created equally).

I'm looking forwards to the results of the Warhammer UFC!

 

Fair enough, but then we need to factor in percentages for failing Terror/Fear tests as this is part of the Pro's of monster units especially versus those with sub-par leadership (Ogres for instance).

I guess a percent chance per turn?

 

#2 was an idea that I previously considered. I called them benchmark units, but your phrasing is better. I think it is a good idea, but I do like the idea of pitting units against each other for a couple of reasons:

• I suspect that they will do quite well against the field anyways. So we won't see nearly as many losses.
• In many cases we might not get very much differentiation. I suspect quite a few of our units will simply beat all the field units we put them up against, so we won't be able to distinguish between them
• I like the idea of the best versus the best matchups
• I sort of want to use the little table I constructed

That's a good point. Across so many matchups, minor inconsistencies will be averaged out.

So am I! I am curious to see how the various units fare. Place your bets!

I do tend to overthink things. You're right though.

I'll just try to come up with unit sizes that I think are fair and representative of what might be fielded. Infantry 20-40 models, depending on points cost and the matchup. Monstrous infantry 2 ranks, 6-10 models. Monstrous Cavalry (being optimized at a single rank) will have to conform to the others.

I was initially leaning the other way, but you've sold me on the idea. Using this method we automatically incorporate the value of rank bonuses, stubborn/steadfast (as they will be above 50% chance of passing), unbreakable + unstable and hopefully helps us arrive at a truer sense of actual battlefield effectiveness.

Awesome! It shall be so!

THANKS FOR ALL THE HELPFUL FEEDBACK @airjamy , @Lizards of Renown , @Killer Angel


Where is @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl ? I am surprised he has not yet contributed to the topic.


Anyways, with all that, I think we are set. No promises that I do the matchups in order. My mind is fickle!

 

Just for interest sake, of our 15 contestants, the troop type breaks down as follows:

• Infantry ➤ 6
• Monster ➤ 4
• Monstrous Cavalry ➤ 3
• Monstrous Beast ➤ 1
• Monstrous Infantry ➤ 1

It makes no difference for our analysis, but it is fun to note. It also says something about the state of regular (non-monstrous) cavalry in 8th edition.

 

Yeah, it's true... Maybe Dark Elf Cold One Riders? I didn't even think of empire cavalry to be honest... They just seem too mediocre to have a chance at being the best CC unit...

 

I am here, I just haven't had much time of late to contribute to forum posts.

I agree with most units on here, though I'm sceptical about Witch Elves and Demigryph Knights, the former because they have terrible armour and apart from any hit rolls of 6 they will be wounding most of the other units in the list on 5s, the latter because the riders suffer from human-level Weapon Skill. Strength and Initiative. I'm certainly surprised Bloodcrushers are not on the list and Demigryphs are, as I would say Bloodcrushers are better due to the superior profile of a Bloodletter alongside the Juggernaut.

As for my own personal choices, I want to pick Hammerers because I want to see a Dwarf unit in there and Hammerers got a buff in 8th Edition, but their 5+ armour save is a real problem for them along with Always Strikes Last. Still, if you give them Master Rune of Groth One-Eye on their Banner they're pretty much guaranteed to stay and fight, and with their Strength 6 Attacks they'd take down a good few of the enemy before dying.

Also I find the Banner of the World Dragon overrated mainly because I'm a Dwarf player and I can just blow a unit of T3 White Lions away with non-magical missiles from Thunderers and Organ Guns.

 

I agree that the Witch Elves are very much a glasshammer. However, they do have a few things going for them. For one, they put out a lot of poison attacks and typically get to re-roll their misses to hit (which really boosts the number of poisoned attacks going through). Next, at only 11 points per model, they (alongside the savage Orc Big'uns) are the cheapest models on the list. So while they will absorb more wounds than other units, they will have more bodies to soak up those wounds and more bodies to keep them steadfast. Without having had the opportunity to put them through their paces, I would posit that they will do very well against lowly armoured units and get their face caved in against the highly armoured units of the list. I'm not predicting that they will win our little experiment (I have my two guesses on who will win it all), but I am very much doubtful that they will come in last either (and I await the numbers to confirm or disprove my hypothesis). I will say this, they are one of the few units that match up favourably against one of my two top contenders! In any event, I think they are a worthy addition to the list, and if nothing else, they provide a different type of bench mark for the other units to test themselves against. I might turn out to be wrong.

As for the Demigryphs and Bloodcrushers, I believe you are mistaken. Demigryphs are often considered to be a top tier unit, while Bloodcrushers are not. Sure the Bloodletter has an advantage over the Inner Circle Knight in terms of WS and Initiative (they are both S4), but the riders actually account for very little in this matchup as compared to their mounts (due to attacks and strength). The Jugger has a WS advantage over the Demigryph but the Demigryph has the Initiative advantage over the Jugger. Most importantly, I believe you are overlooking the Demigryph's greatest advantage, its 1+ armour save. A 1+ armour save is better than a 4+ armour save and 5+ ward combined, unless you are dealing with very high strengths (they break even at S7, and the armour + ward combo prevails at strengths 8, 9 & 10).

In any event, I want to avoid my own bias from skewing the experiment (as much as I can help it), so I've set the two up against one another in a battle to determine which unit makes it onto the list of contestants.


Despite going into the contest with a 35 point disadvantage, the Demigryph Knights easily beat the Bloodcrushers. The Bloodcrushers then have to roll for their Daemonic Instability test on their rather mediocre/poor leadership of 7-2 = 5... likely losing even more wounds in the process.

Done! I shall add the Hammerers to the list with the Master Rune of Groth One-Eye as you suggested. I was betting on you adding a Dwarf unit into the mix, and who better than you, a Dwarf specialist, to chose the best Dwarven unit for us!

Everything in the game has a weakness. Imagine for a second that you were a Daemons of Chaos player facing that banner. For a mere 50 points, the unit carrying the banner has a 2+ ward save against every single thing in your army. Even among regular armies though, 50 points for a 2+ ward against spells, magic weapons and magical attacks (plus its secondary effect) is a complete steal!

 

With @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl 's last minute addition, our final list is comprised of the following 16 units:

• Skullcrushers of Khorne [Ensorcelled weapons]
• K'daai Destroyer
• White Lions of Chrace [Banner of the World Dragon]
• Chaos Warriors [MoN, Halberds]
• Arachnarok Spider
  
• Demigryph Knights
• Mournfang Cavalry [GW, Heavy Armour]
• Black Guard of Naggarond
• Witch Elves
• Har Ganeth Executioners
• Hell Pit Abomination
• Beasts of Nurgle
• Savage Orc Big'Uns [AHW]
• Chaos Trolls
• Soul Grinder [MoN, Daemonbone Claw]
• Hammers

The troop types breakdown as follows:

• Infantry ➤ 7
• Monster ➤ 4
• Monstrous Cavalry ➤ 3
• Monstrous Beast ➤ 1
• Monstrous Infantry ➤ 1

The unit categories breakdown as follows:

• Special ➤ 8
• Rare ➤ 5
• Core ➤ 3

The number of units per army breaks down as follows:

• Dark Elves ➤ 3
• Warriors of Chaos ➤ 3
• Daemons of Chaos ➤ 2
• Orcs & Goblins ➤ 2
• Chaos Dwarfs ➤ 1
• Dwarfs ➤ 1
• Empire ➤ 1
• High Elves ➤ 1
• Ogre Kingdoms ➤ 1
• Skaven ➤ 1
• Beastmen ➤ 0
• Bretonnia ➤ 0
• Lizardmen ➤ 0
• Tomb Kings ➤ 0
• Vampire Counts ➤ 0
• Wood Elves ➤ 0

Also, updates to the guidelines I will be following:

• abilities that are in effect for the first round of combat, but not charge dependent (i.e hatred, Choppas, etc.) will be incorporated into the calculations for the first round.
• units losing combat and requiring a break test (or Daemonic Instability test), will be assumed to roll a "7". Meaning that if they required a roll of 6 or lower to pass, they will be assumed to have broken from combat and lose the contest right there and then. Units requiring a roll of 7, 8, 9 or 10 will be assumed to have passed their break test and the combat will move onto the next round.

 

It is very sad indeed that the Tomb Kings have no contenders, but I genuinely don't know any that would make it in reality.

I like your idea on the combat resolution. It's a good Math-hammer call as it will average out nicely.

 

Necroknights would be the closest thing I could think of, but they'd get out classed by the other Monstrous Cavalry on the list. It just goes to show the difference between a 3+ armour save versus a 1+ armour save.

Thank you but I can't take credit for that one, it was @Killer Angel that sold the idea!

 

I was just about to start working on my first matchup and found a discrepancy in your suggested load out. You recommended that we give the Hammers the Master Rune of Gorth One-Eye which confers the Stubborn special rule to the bearer's unit + all friendly Dwarfs within 12". The problem is, when looking at the Hammer's special rule, I noticed that they already have the Stubborn special rule. Is there another standard you have in mind or would you like me to run them without a runic standard?

 

And here we go! Matchup #1 is in the books. 27 Har Ganeth Executioners versus 10 Chaos Trolls



And we update our table...







Thoughts? Concerns? Discussion!!!

 

That went how I would expect. The Regen save is brutal in that match-up and the executioners get no armour saves against attacks or stomps.

Did you do anything with the puke attack? Or just left it?

 

Well, I'm surprised that I never noticed that - obviously the main reason the Master Rune is taken is to buff other allied units on either side of the Hammerers who don't have stubborn

In that case please run them without the standard, as that'll give them some extra models to help them survive the enemy's opening attacks.