News | Battle Reports | Articles | Links | Downloads | Tournament

A Probably Pointless Analysis of unit types and results from the Kipper's Melee Tournament
The past weekend saw the first post lockdown KoW tournament for our neck of the woods and out of interest I built upon the Toolkit idea and compared how lists performed in the missions that were part of the tournament.

Right here I want to say (because there's always people who take what they read on the internet WAAAY too seriously) I am making zero claims that this information is:
*Of any worth whatsoever

It's just fulfilling curiosity and an exercise to fight off boredom while waiting for clash of kings 2022 to drop.

Taking a look at all the lists submitted for Kippers, each unit was assigned roles and a tally was made of these roles (see the 'What is a Toolkit Army' article). Each Mission was broken into winners and losers, and the roles present were compared to see if anything stood out.

One very obvious flaw in this method is that winning and losing is VERY player skill level dependent - assuming the fickle dice gods are looking elsewhere.

List Breakdowns

Mission 1 - Push
This is a loot token mission requiring units to carry tokens into the other half of the table to gain most points. It slows down the units carrying them so can have an impact on the game if they are being carried by faster units.

The results suggest that armies that had an advantage in shooting and maneuverable units came out on top, with shock units and divers not really contributing.

Gut feeling: Shooting played a very large part. Possibly softening up token carrying units for the maneuverable units to pick up. Shock units didn't play a big part, possibly due to being left out of position due to token placement.

Mission 2 - Dominate
Dominate requires players to push their unit strength into the center of the board.

The results suggest that cheap unit strength, fast unit strength that you can dive into the center, shooting, hammers and disrupting the enemy were advantageous. Maneuverability didn't seem to play as much of a part.

Gut feeling: Dominating the center with shooting, engaging enemy unit strength aggressively and countering enemy shooting with pests while shielding cheap unit strength and diving units may have been a winning strategy.

Mission 3 - Salt the Earth
This is an objective mission with a twist - players holding objectives can destroy them if they feel they may not be able to hold them.

The results suggest that Anvil units were the big winners here, with Flankers and Pests assisting.

Gut Feeling: Being able to hold objectives with tough units able to withstand an enemy onslaught, while outmaneuvering the defender and taking weakly held objectives with pests and flankers may be a winning strategy.

Mission 4 - Plunder
Plunder has armies racing to the center to retrieve loot tokens and bring them back safely to their own lines.

The results suggest that Shock units, shooting and being able to neutralise the opponents shock units are advantageous.

Gut feeling: Getting into your opponents face, shoring up your flanks, handing off tokens to cheap carrying units behind the battle line and picking off enemy with shooting all contribute to victory.

Mission 5: Control
This scenario is all about board control - with six sectors of the table going to whoever has the most unit strength in it.

The results suggest that cheap unit strength is key (a bit obvious right..)

Gut feeling: Husbanding deck chair and battleline units and trying to eliminate as much unit strength from your opponent's army, while using your own unit strength to outweigh the unit strength of your opponent's pest and diver units lead to victory.

Take aways:
While the sample size for this analysis was minute, the criteria isn't exactly exacting, and there is no real way to account for player skill or the dice it seems that variation in your list isn't a hindrance and that for some missions it is actually an advantage.

It seems that units that can act as deck chairs, plinkers and buffers were major contributors. Flankers, anvils, anchors and battleline units being minor contributors to victory.

None of this data can take into account how players utilised their lists and has a very limited sample size (laughibly so) and no concrete conclusions should be assumed by any of this analysis.