Nice number crunching for the KoM, so thanks for that.
Few things do come to mind:
Militia are irregular, unlike similarly rubbish zombie, rabble, scarecrows. While virtually no-one in the game has ever run out of troop slots(!), it is the main downside for these guys (and i painted 8 regiments worth earlier this year, with at least 4 more to come 
)
Giants - stats has to assume that the unit being attacked was subject to rampage but not slayer, as otherwise the results should be identical? Personally I’d always give giants slayer. I don’t think they have the attacks to real hurt big infantry units and often the high cs is wasted - but against bigger stuff it’s less of an issue.
Bowmen/Crossbows/rifles - being able to move and shoot in the game is key. These can’t, so 6+ on the move even without cover/stealthy means they are really hamstrung in lots of objective scenarios.
Looks like it factors just killing stuff - fact that flying beast cavalry can get there quicker than anything else in army is something you just have to figure out yourself!
Matchups are determined using a mix of random and Elo-based selection. Early in the simulation, units are paired mostly at random to explore a wide range of matchups. As the simulation progresses, the algorithm increases the probability of matching units with similar Elo ratings by adjusting the match ratio, so units are more likely to face opponents of comparable strength. In other words, it’s a balance between stronger units are generally better slayer targets, but more units in general are rampage targets, so they tend to come close to a wash.
Correct. I lay out the methodology in an older post, but there’s a big caveat that this is looking only at unit vs unit fighting. There’s some randomness in determining which is the starting unit, but if a unit has 24" range against a speed 10 flyer, it’s going to get 1-2 shots in before they reach melee. If a ranged unit can back out of its opponent’s range and still shoot, it will, but otherwise they tend to stay and shoot to avoid negative penalties. If they’re outranged, they’ll seek to close the distance ASAP.
Cheers, that makes a lot of sense.
Re: your key takeaways, it seems to me that the Salamander lists that do the best in tournaments I’m at or hear about are those that go harder on shooting. This used to involve more Scorchwings (for obvious reasons) but now is more Corsairs-based, with a lot of diverse shooting beyond those two units, thanks to so many Salamander units being able to shoot. I tend to think of the faction as one of King’s combined arms factions more than anything (an archetype that typically doesn’t do super great but is IMO still the platonic ideal).
Also re: Tyrants, I agree on the hordes not actually being good. I’m quite hot to mess with regiments myself, fearless + wild charge makes them attractive assault chaff that won’t get in your own way but will go hammer faces or hunt for flanks if left alone.
(Spoilers: I was going to head (back) to Sallies for my next army, until I shifted to RFO because I like the Mantic models better and really need to make a Mantic army at this point :X)
That’s fair. I think Salamanders are in a good place with multiple builds, but with more and more def6 dwarf and abyssal dwarf builds in the meta (at least that I’m seeing in the data), they’re going to struggle to take those off via shooting as opposed to melee. I’m curious to see how command orders impact their builds and if we see more or less shooting as a result.
As an experiment, I gave myself a couple of minutes to crash together what I would call a competitive Sallies list:
Salamander Ceremonial Guard (Heavy Infantry) Horde [270]
– Chalice of Wrath [15]
Salamander Corsairs (Heavy Infantry) Regiment [170]
Salamander Corsairs (Heavy Infantry) Regiment [170]
Salamander Corsairs (Heavy Infantry) Regiment [170]
Salamander Corsairs (Heavy Infantry) Regiment [170]
Scorchwings* (Large Cavalry) Horde [215]
Scorchwings* (Large Cavalry) Horde [215]
Rhinosaur Cavalry (Large Cavalry) Horde [270]
– Effigy of Fire [5]
– Sir Jesse’s Boots of Striding [15]
Phoenix (Titan) 1 [145]
– Heal (5) [0]
Phoenix (Titan) 1 [145]
– Heal (5) [0]
Firebrand [1] (Hero (Heavy Infantry)) 1 [120]
Ghekkotah Skylord on Scorchwing (Hero (Large Cavalry)) 1 [120]
Ghekkotah Skylord on Scorchwing (Hero (Large Cavalry)) 1 [120]
2300 // 13 (27)
109 mobile or very mobile shots (53 of them P1), loads of scoring, a dedicated anvil, a dedicated hammer and a bunch of ‘free’ healing. Seems pretty legit to me!
That’s a fun list. Almost makes me want to start building out the army…
Updating the army cost-effectiveness rankings for Clash of Kings 2025 and looking for feedback on the methodology. My original analysis on Data and Dice (linked here) used unit Elo ratings to rank armies based on cost-effectiveness. It focused on the top 3 regiments, top 2 hordes, and the top 2 combined units from other categories (troops, monsters, war engines, titans, and legions).
While the approach works well for unit-on-unit performance, it historically underweights synergy-heavy and individual-heavy armies, like halflings and ratkin, where interactions matter more. I’d appreciate suggestions on how to better reflect those aspects or any other ideas to improve the rankings.
I had a bit of time over break, so I re-ran the cost-effectiveness calculations for CoK 2025:
Thanks for the analysis.
It’s worth noting that dwarfs and undead give up movement for cost efficiency, probably part of their original army design.
I’ve been slow in updating things! Work has a way of getting in the way of hobbies . . .
3 of the 4 lists you reference won round 1 - with only the OotGL losing.
Live scores if anyone wants to keep up to date
There is a dicussion (both here on on Fanatics) relating to Bane Chant and tge prevalence of the Lute. I’d flagged up the stats you pulled from Clash and got the following response.
Is this something you’d be able to pull out, as I agree it would be quite interesting?
LIfe has been unbelievably busy (new job), but a quick army review:
Yep, let me see what I can pull together. What is the right way to look at this? See % of players with lute by the quartile they finished in?
Yeah, that sort of thing. Would be interesting to see spending on artifacts generally across the tiers/artifacts most taken by top performers etc if possible.
Perfect. Let me dig into this. Hopefully I have something I can post tomorrow.
Took a quick stab at this. Short version: lute doesn’t appear to matter. J-boots do.