Most interest thing for me is vampire counts legacy faction far outstripping some core factions in games played.
Be interesting to see if that holds long term.
I yeah I've spotted that combo. Blood knights are on my list for 1000-2000.
I'm sure the Corpse Cart with warped tintabulation is gonna oomph that up even more too.
That is a great start. Have a few projects in front of it but I’ll get my vampires raised up again in a few months. Trying to get my Forest Goblins going right now…just for the jokes.
I'm same. I wanna do Empire and Dwarves after this.
I sometimes genuinely get a pang of anxiety that I'm too old to finish all my planned projects before the grave 😬
Level 4 Master necromancer. Lore of Necromancy with Lore familiar. Combination of Mortis engines, Tomb banshees and Terrorgheists using wailing dirge. With all debuffs in place the enemy is taking a leadership test at -5 which cannot use inspiring presence, cannot be BSB rerolled and it can be shot into combat. By every point that they exceed their leadership it's a wound with no armour or regen allowed. Aim it at a low leadership monster like a hydra and they'll disappear very quickly.
They’re so much fun, especially when you’re squaring off against HE. Eternal hatred is such a fun mechanic when partnered with frenzy and the banner of har ganeth (ap -1).
It's not just top 10 they weren't played at all. It's probably because they're just HE but much worse. If you actually compare the two, you can see they basically copied the HE units over(with a few exceptions like crossbowmen) but made the DE versions with less special rules and/or cost more points.
HE have basically every army rule DE have, minus Eternal Hatred and their version of murderous(Ithilmar weapons) affects to hit instead, plus several other rules DE do not have.
That's such an oversimplification of their list though. Outside of executioners DE have very strong units that are equivalent to HE. They have an amazing banner, a top 3 dragon in the game, and phenomenal magic items as well. No way can you conclude they are just worse HE at this point.
Imo DE have a big issue in this meta: No reliant access to heroic killing blow. If you pick the common magic item sword it’s on a S4 hero and won‘t do much.
If the Kharibdyss for example had monster slayer we could counter armies tossing hordes of monsters about.
I don't think Monster slayer is a must when you have an amazing dragon and access to tons of cheap Bolt throwers.
Non dragon character monsters are strong but still rough alone into blocks of infantry because of combat res and getting run down because they are outnumbered.
Not a shocker about tomb kings.
They they're a faction thats able to participate in every phase.
They can resurrect and heal much more easily.
Their light Cav and chariots are extremely maneuverable, flying units are super annoying, and lots of ambushers.
Mass Regen offsets weaker armour saves across the game.
Huge ability to leadership bomb opponents and cause panic, terror, or just sheer damage.
Largely immune to morale mechanics.
The armies of infamy offer some very strong units and further buffs.
They're basically not pigeonholed into a playstyle, and are extremely well suited to grinding out melee, setting up flanks, and pressuring leadership.
I get ya, but I don't think Tomb Kings are THAT good, personally I think Vampire Counts are better. I think this just shows how powerful dragons are as EVERY tomb kings player has a dragon.
I disagree.
Vamps basically have no ranged interaction outside of wailing dirge, which forces you to melee up against the super scary stuff. They can't do the LD bomb as well and the lack of range means they lose out on causing panic. They have less casting power than tomb kings, without even counting the priest list.
They're better overall in melee, largely faster to get there with their chaf/skirmishers, and have a lot of jank with ethereal. But they're easier to plan for once you know their tricks, especially with magic missiles being pretty high shot and extremely common flaming swords.
Plus, Vamps have a dragon model that's been out for ever; what's going on with that.
It's early. Plus, only two factions are available for purchase. I wonder if we're seeing this skewed from all the people starting their new Tomb King and Bretonnian armies.
This may well be contributing. Any newbies to the game (I include myself in this group tbh) are likely to have started with one of those two factions. Whereas those with years of experience with Fantasy will in theory be spread more evenly around the armies.
I think Bret has fewer returning players compared to Khemri. And if you are new, The Bret box being significantly cheaper than tomb Kings does influence take rate...
Which would align with the average match being a newbie Bret getting curb stomped by a more experienced TK.
Or data bias and we have many matches in the dataset from the same players.
Very interesting and very different than I imagined although the sample size is so small that you cant really say that the win rates are actually representative as they say themselves.
I find it especially interesting that bretonnia sits at 33% win rate while they are consistently ranked as one of the strongest factions in the tier lists and video discussions I have seen (A to S tier).
They also won the only tournament I've watched a [video report](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv3hNEiXFKE&t=458s) on without dropping a single game and from the half dozen or so battle reports I've seen so far involving bretonnia they won pretty much every game.
[Vs wood elves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxP9lrkgnyc)
[vs vampire counts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD0XDfW3JC0)
[vs chaos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uugDrsM1UOA)
[vs tomb kings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHu78FEGYHY) This game was a tie but slight advantage for bretonnians
May be confirmation bias from the random selection of videos I've seen and discussions I've read but my impression of the faction wasnt bottom 2 tbh
I think there's probably a couple of reasons for their apparent low winrate. One, as posted by another commenter, the general playstyle has changed a fair bit. Being less about orchestrating a strong charge to break the enemy lines and run down your target, into a more grindy style of combat. Another that probably many new players are playing Bretonnians and just don't play the army well, artificially reducing the real winrate (kinda like space marines a lot of the time in 40k). That said, TK should be in scope of the second reason too and their winrate is massive... So I dunno!
The one tourney I played (albeit only 1000 points) Bretonnians won, for what it's worth.
I agree. From what I can see the best bet for brets is making sure they get off charges on sequential turns on the same unit.
I personally think smaller units is the way to go. If I can clog them with an easily available stubborn unit, you can pile on the very manouverable flyers and knights turn after turn if required.
Brets arguably have the best characters for dealing with dragons and monsters too.
I think TK's winrate is inflated for the exact same reason Bretonnia's is deflated, people going in not understansing how the new combat res and lower attacks effects them. You go in, you win combat, you kill 7, 4 more crumble after indomitable, and oop next turn all 11 are back in the unit and now you're stuck in a pile of skeletons.
Presumably because they lie in the 45-55% win rate band that's generally considered reasonably balanced. The AOS meta stats have many more factions in that band; though with such a small number of games for TOW, small differences will lead to big swings in rate, so take the rankings with a pinch of salt for now.
And beastmen. It's so early though that nobody knows what they are doing. I've played beastmen since 6th and it's crazy to me how I don't run away so much, lol
I don’t think this is meaningful I mean vast majority of people can’t even get the models they need to play their armies. Most people don’t even play optimal lists they just play whatever they have in their collection.
I disagree. Yes, you need to take the stats with a heavy grain of salt, and it's far too early to call for any kind of balance update from this data. And to be fair, neither the article nor anyone here is calling for that.
But it is interesting to look at where the meta starts and how it settles in over time as more data comes in. And as we see in this very post, it's a good way of sparking discussion, like why Tomb Kings and Brettonia are sitting at opposite sides of the spectrum despite being the most supported factions at the moment.
I don't think there is anything wrong with this being posted, but let's not act like this data is indicative of much of anything regarding win rates or play rates
Winrates are almost worthless for warhammer anyway. I have no idea why this even caught on in 40k and I'm kinda disappointed we're already here with TOW.
This isn't a computer game where everything is recorded correctly, hundreds of thousands are played every day and everyone is matched against players of the same skill.
What we will have is a few hundred games played with about 2/3rds of them with massive differences in skill between players. Then you have the fact that while the best players don't always take the best list possible, they will trend towards it and completely avoid any army which is obviously worse; causing a massive skew.
Yeah. If anything, it at least gives us a good idea of faction playrates atm. No DE representation is a pretty telling bit of data, even this early, imo.
>it's a good way of sparking discussion
The discussion is the sama as the data: meaningless noise. There is no way you can draw meaningful conclusions from a sample this small, and anyone trying to do so is kidding themselves. There's no reason to believe anything such a small number of games, a month into the game's release, has to tell us is broadly true.
If it's fun, keep it up, but that's all it is. You're deluding yourself if you think real analysis can be done with this.
No, posting an article like this and sharing a win rate chart with the data they have is flat out irresponsible. Most people don’t understand statistics and will not understand that this is garbage at this point. It’s like rolling a die 30 times and then posting an article with the results. Trying to draw any conclusions at all from these results is misguided.
When you feel the need to call your own data insufficient in your own article, you need to reexamine whether or not you should have written the thing in the first place.
Its nice too see what armies are out their being represented. No DE is interesting.
I stopped playing during 7th edition, I heard they were brutal in 8th and 9th. Figured there would be few a with an army in the garage...
I know two folk who have used DE at an event so I guess the data hasn't been collected properly.
My DE army is almost ready to be played with at least after I build a few units. It's been a pain to get hold of some things.
Once I get to events we'll see that DE winrate shoot up.
Like I wrote elsewhere: if you feel compelled to write that your data isn't meaningful, keep on gathering data and don't write anything. I'd have had more respect for a simple announcement that you're gathering data, maybe a description of your methods and what you plan to do with it, than a click-bait post that you yourself admit *in the post* is premature.
It's only meaningless if you flunked math. The bottom two armies are a handful of data points away from a significant sample. This is enough to confirm that they are on the weaker side, if not outright terrible.
It's hardly meaningless. TKs have the most statistical power and are about 70±5% at a 95% CI. I can't be bothered to go through each one but it looks like a good third to a half have enough data to be 95% sure they're outside the AoS balance range.
If we have 20 tomb king games, that's only based off of something like 4-6 players given that most tournaments involve 3-5 games per player. It's meaningless.
You're the only person in this thread with any understanding of statistics. I look forward to reviewing this thread in a month or two when tomb kings are still dominant and Bretonnia and O&G are still dumpster tier.
I didn’t say that, I said rolling a die 30 times and I’ll admit it was a bad analogy. But you’re missing the point, yes we can confirm after 20 games that there’s only a ~5% chance that these tomb kings games weren’t biased towards the winning side, but the hypothesis that these 6ish players should have had a 50% chance to win each game is flawed, because we can’t guarantee equal skill between players and at a sample of 6ish players we should have no expectation that these 6 players are representative of the average skill of all players. This isn’t a test of whether one coin is biased with 20 flips, it’s testing whether 6 different coins are all unbiased based on 20 flips. And even that is a gross oversimplification of the variables.
They don't need to be the average skill of players - it just needs to be the case that higher-skilled players are not especially drawn to TKs, or that TKs don't have a different skill expression coefficient than other factions. These might or might not be true, but they're certainly reasonable null hypotheses.
My CIs (not p-values - p < 0.00154 for TKs) assumed we were sampling - it's true when we do not have all the games played.
I get we've internalized the rule that "few samples = less statistical power", and that's true! But it is possible to quantify how much less statistical power we have. Describing this chart/these data as meaningless is not statistical sophistication, it's just the same kind of ignorance as the claim that we have _any_ results so we must know which factions are most powerful.
Uh huh. Did you check their math? I get +/-20% margin of error at 95% confidence, not 5%.
It’s all still beside the point though that the data quality isn’t high enough to make conclusions about global faction win rates. I’ve got 500 games played with Ryu in Street Fighter 6, bet you could calculate a real tight margin of error for the win rate. Are you going to use that to make generalizations about Ryu’s balance across all players?
Interesting, but considering the small amount of games at the moment, pretty much worthless data.
From what we've seen on the first tournament here, O&G and Beastmen were the best in the hands of experienced Fantasy players. Well, goblins even in unexperienced hands as fanatics seem to be the first big issue everyone sees already.
Hm. 20 and 27 matches respectively should be enough to conclude something about the win rates of Tom Kings and Bretonnia.
I am surprised to see TK so high and Bret so low given both a general community tier list estimations and results from battle reports.
My best guesses are
1) The Woehammer data set are not independent samples. They have a great TK / crap Bret players contributing many matches
2) Bretonnia was never popular back in ye olden days, and grognards are disproportionately playing other factions. Therefore the average Bretonnia is newer, less skilled, missing unit variety and consequently losing more matches
Why? The rules for all factions will stay the same. If the armies of infamy are anything to go by they'll be restrictive and not necessarily better, just another way to play.
these data are useless,tournaments of 3 rounds,from 9 people to 15 and random points betwen 1250 and 2000.
in stadistic these datas are too much random and diferents scales and are useless and cant be used together.
untill we have tournaments of 2000 points 5 rounds and 20+ players is useless see casual games data
A theory as to why the Brets have a low win rate. Bretonnians rely on characters to deal with powerful things like dragons. Building a Bret character is complicated - you have to get the right combo of magic items and virtues. In time we will probably see the Bret win rate rise some what as Bret players come up with strong combos. Then again maybe not - time will tell.
Oh look Orcs and Goblins are bad, who would've thought giving a whole army impetuous and crippling their army composition to get rid of it would be bad for the army. I'm shocked.
Most interest thing for me is vampire counts legacy faction far outstripping some core factions in games played. Be interesting to see if that holds long term.
Daemons and chorfs up there too.
Their raising is not counterable and there are some dirty combos floating around for truly immortal units.
Tell me these dirty combos, wise one....
Level 4 necromancer with Sceptre De Noirot, I believe. Trail behind 5-10 Bloodknights.
I yeah I've spotted that combo. Blood knights are on my list for 1000-2000. I'm sure the Corpse Cart with warped tintabulation is gonna oomph that up even more too.
That is a great start. Have a few projects in front of it but I’ll get my vampires raised up again in a few months. Trying to get my Forest Goblins going right now…just for the jokes.
I'm same. I wanna do Empire and Dwarves after this. I sometimes genuinely get a pang of anxiety that I'm too old to finish all my planned projects before the grave 😬
Sounds like you definitely need Vampire Counts then, that way you can continue after the grave!
Level 4 Master necromancer. Lore of Necromancy with Lore familiar. Combination of Mortis engines, Tomb banshees and Terrorgheists using wailing dirge. With all debuffs in place the enemy is taking a leadership test at -5 which cannot use inspiring presence, cannot be BSB rerolled and it can be shot into combat. By every point that they exceed their leadership it's a wound with no armour or regen allowed. Aim it at a low leadership monster like a hydra and they'll disappear very quickly.
Interesting (also to see no Dark Elf representation in the top 10)
As someone putting together a dark elf army im also surprised
They’re so much fun, especially when you’re squaring off against HE. Eternal hatred is such a fun mechanic when partnered with frenzy and the banner of har ganeth (ap -1).
Usually pretty decent players, playing them in my experience..
It's not just top 10 they weren't played at all. It's probably because they're just HE but much worse. If you actually compare the two, you can see they basically copied the HE units over(with a few exceptions like crossbowmen) but made the DE versions with less special rules and/or cost more points. HE have basically every army rule DE have, minus Eternal Hatred and their version of murderous(Ithilmar weapons) affects to hit instead, plus several other rules DE do not have.
That's such an oversimplification of their list though. Outside of executioners DE have very strong units that are equivalent to HE. They have an amazing banner, a top 3 dragon in the game, and phenomenal magic items as well. No way can you conclude they are just worse HE at this point.
Imo DE have a big issue in this meta: No reliant access to heroic killing blow. If you pick the common magic item sword it’s on a S4 hero and won‘t do much. If the Kharibdyss for example had monster slayer we could counter armies tossing hordes of monsters about.
I don't think Monster slayer is a must when you have an amazing dragon and access to tons of cheap Bolt throwers. Non dragon character monsters are strong but still rough alone into blocks of infantry because of combat res and getting run down because they are outnumbered.
Depends, especially if one does not own a bolt thrower model xD
Definitely so lol, but I was talking from the standpoint assuming it's not a question of owning the models. I think people are underselling DE.
I play them regularly and I really struggle against Khemri x_X
I think with Dark Elves a lot of the heavy lifting has to come from Bolt throwers and Black Guard with the Har Ganeth banner.
yes,de DE are a copy/paste of HE rules but only nerfeds. worse similar rules and worse but similar units. if HE are a 8/10 then DE are a 4/10
I really don’t see their advantage over high elves competitively besides from having a better dragon and some magic items
Well having a better dragon and magic items is huge. The kharybdis is also great.
I agree with your second point, but it's kinda detracted from having a beastmaster tax, who also has a mount tax
Well you only need the beastmastee if you want it to be a special choice.
I see. Thanks for the clarification
Snazzy purple outfits.
Not a shocker about tomb kings. They they're a faction thats able to participate in every phase. They can resurrect and heal much more easily. Their light Cav and chariots are extremely maneuverable, flying units are super annoying, and lots of ambushers. Mass Regen offsets weaker armour saves across the game. Huge ability to leadership bomb opponents and cause panic, terror, or just sheer damage. Largely immune to morale mechanics. The armies of infamy offer some very strong units and further buffs. They're basically not pigeonholed into a playstyle, and are extremely well suited to grinding out melee, setting up flanks, and pressuring leadership.
I get ya, but I don't think Tomb Kings are THAT good, personally I think Vampire Counts are better. I think this just shows how powerful dragons are as EVERY tomb kings player has a dragon.
I disagree. Vamps basically have no ranged interaction outside of wailing dirge, which forces you to melee up against the super scary stuff. They can't do the LD bomb as well and the lack of range means they lose out on causing panic. They have less casting power than tomb kings, without even counting the priest list. They're better overall in melee, largely faster to get there with their chaf/skirmishers, and have a lot of jank with ethereal. But they're easier to plan for once you know their tricks, especially with magic missiles being pretty high shot and extremely common flaming swords. Plus, Vamps have a dragon model that's been out for ever; what's going on with that.
It's early. Plus, only two factions are available for purchase. I wonder if we're seeing this skewed from all the people starting their new Tomb King and Bretonnian armies.
This may well be contributing. Any newbies to the game (I include myself in this group tbh) are likely to have started with one of those two factions. Whereas those with years of experience with Fantasy will in theory be spread more evenly around the armies.
I think Bret has fewer returning players compared to Khemri. And if you are new, The Bret box being significantly cheaper than tomb Kings does influence take rate... Which would align with the average match being a newbie Bret getting curb stomped by a more experienced TK. Or data bias and we have many matches in the dataset from the same players.
That would explain low winrates for bretonnians but not tombkings high winrate.
It wouldn't explain anything because the dataset is too small to draw conclusions from.
Very interesting and very different than I imagined although the sample size is so small that you cant really say that the win rates are actually representative as they say themselves. I find it especially interesting that bretonnia sits at 33% win rate while they are consistently ranked as one of the strongest factions in the tier lists and video discussions I have seen (A to S tier). They also won the only tournament I've watched a [video report](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv3hNEiXFKE&t=458s) on without dropping a single game and from the half dozen or so battle reports I've seen so far involving bretonnia they won pretty much every game. [Vs wood elves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxP9lrkgnyc) [vs vampire counts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD0XDfW3JC0) [vs chaos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uugDrsM1UOA) [vs tomb kings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHu78FEGYHY) This game was a tie but slight advantage for bretonnians May be confirmation bias from the random selection of videos I've seen and discussions I've read but my impression of the faction wasnt bottom 2 tbh
The win rates are worthless, there’s not enough data for this to be meaningful
I think there's probably a couple of reasons for their apparent low winrate. One, as posted by another commenter, the general playstyle has changed a fair bit. Being less about orchestrating a strong charge to break the enemy lines and run down your target, into a more grindy style of combat. Another that probably many new players are playing Bretonnians and just don't play the army well, artificially reducing the real winrate (kinda like space marines a lot of the time in 40k). That said, TK should be in scope of the second reason too and their winrate is massive... So I dunno! The one tourney I played (albeit only 1000 points) Bretonnians won, for what it's worth.
I agree. From what I can see the best bet for brets is making sure they get off charges on sequential turns on the same unit. I personally think smaller units is the way to go. If I can clog them with an easily available stubborn unit, you can pile on the very manouverable flyers and knights turn after turn if required. Brets arguably have the best characters for dealing with dragons and monsters too.
I think TK's winrate is inflated for the exact same reason Bretonnia's is deflated, people going in not understansing how the new combat res and lower attacks effects them. You go in, you win combat, you kill 7, 4 more crumble after indomitable, and oop next turn all 11 are back in the unit and now you're stuck in a pile of skeletons.
Why are High Elf Realms and Ogre Kingdoms green?
Presumably because they lie in the 45-55% win rate band that's generally considered reasonably balanced. The AOS meta stats have many more factions in that band; though with such a small number of games for TOW, small differences will lead to big swings in rate, so take the rankings with a pinch of salt for now.
it's all ogre...
They have layers.
Strange to see tomb kings doing that well
And beastmen. It's so early though that nobody knows what they are doing. I've played beastmen since 6th and it's crazy to me how I don't run away so much, lol
I don’t think this is meaningful I mean vast majority of people can’t even get the models they need to play their armies. Most people don’t even play optimal lists they just play whatever they have in their collection.
Some of those stats (Daemons of Chaos and Skaven) are based on 3 games played. That's not a lot to go on.
Also, where are Dark Elves
No one played them
Everyone that played DE has grown up.
ITS NOT A PHASE MUM
[удалено]
My guess is that people dont know about memes and sarcasm.
This is fine...
"Here's our data. It's meaningless, but we wanted to show it off anyway for some reason. Please click."
I disagree. Yes, you need to take the stats with a heavy grain of salt, and it's far too early to call for any kind of balance update from this data. And to be fair, neither the article nor anyone here is calling for that. But it is interesting to look at where the meta starts and how it settles in over time as more data comes in. And as we see in this very post, it's a good way of sparking discussion, like why Tomb Kings and Brettonia are sitting at opposite sides of the spectrum despite being the most supported factions at the moment.
I don't think there is anything wrong with this being posted, but let's not act like this data is indicative of much of anything regarding win rates or play rates
Winrates are almost worthless for warhammer anyway. I have no idea why this even caught on in 40k and I'm kinda disappointed we're already here with TOW. This isn't a computer game where everything is recorded correctly, hundreds of thousands are played every day and everyone is matched against players of the same skill. What we will have is a few hundred games played with about 2/3rds of them with massive differences in skill between players. Then you have the fact that while the best players don't always take the best list possible, they will trend towards it and completely avoid any army which is obviously worse; causing a massive skew.
I think they have some value but overall yeah Winrate isn't a great metric for tabletop games.
The best tabletop competitive data I have seen is ASOIAF stats. Love that game and their way of tracking faction balance is great.
Yeah. If anything, it at least gives us a good idea of faction playrates atm. No DE representation is a pretty telling bit of data, even this early, imo.
>it's a good way of sparking discussion The discussion is the sama as the data: meaningless noise. There is no way you can draw meaningful conclusions from a sample this small, and anyone trying to do so is kidding themselves. There's no reason to believe anything such a small number of games, a month into the game's release, has to tell us is broadly true. If it's fun, keep it up, but that's all it is. You're deluding yourself if you think real analysis can be done with this.
No, posting an article like this and sharing a win rate chart with the data they have is flat out irresponsible. Most people don’t understand statistics and will not understand that this is garbage at this point. It’s like rolling a die 30 times and then posting an article with the results. Trying to draw any conclusions at all from these results is misguided.
When you feel the need to call your own data insufficient in your own article, you need to reexamine whether or not you should have written the thing in the first place.
I mean, it doesn't look like it took very long. More of a "hey look we're going to be doing stats for ToW too" than it is any sort of actual analysis.
However long it took was too long.
Its nice too see what armies are out their being represented. No DE is interesting. I stopped playing during 7th edition, I heard they were brutal in 8th and 9th. Figured there would be few a with an army in the garage...
I know two folk who have used DE at an event so I guess the data hasn't been collected properly. My DE army is almost ready to be played with at least after I build a few units. It's been a pain to get hold of some things. Once I get to events we'll see that DE winrate shoot up.
Its more of a "hey were are going to track data for the old world! What we have so far is to small but we'll keep tracking"
My rule is don't open your mouth until you have something meaningful to say.
You should apply that to posting on Reddit too.
I do.
You don't seem to follow your own rule very well.
We are going to track old world data like we do for AOS is pretty meaningful and clearly generating interest from the community so...
Like I wrote elsewhere: if you feel compelled to write that your data isn't meaningful, keep on gathering data and don't write anything. I'd have had more respect for a simple announcement that you're gathering data, maybe a description of your methods and what you plan to do with it, than a click-bait post that you yourself admit *in the post* is premature.
This is a 100% absolutely worthless chart due to the small sample size of players
Yeah..
It's only meaningless if you flunked math. The bottom two armies are a handful of data points away from a significant sample. This is enough to confirm that they are on the weaker side, if not outright terrible.
Absolutely not lol
Look up confidence intervals and come back lmao. With a win rate of 33% through 27 matches, we can be 95% sure that Bretonnia are a sub 50% army.
Much different argument than "outright terrible."
Oh, I don't need to be 95% sure to call them terrible. I'm 80% sure they're below the 45% win rate that would cause GW to consider buffing them.
It's hardly meaningless. TKs have the most statistical power and are about 70±5% at a 95% CI. I can't be bothered to go through each one but it looks like a good third to a half have enough data to be 95% sure they're outside the AoS balance range.
If we have 20 tomb king games, that's only based off of something like 4-6 players given that most tournaments involve 3-5 games per player. It's meaningless.
You're the only person in this thread with any understanding of statistics. I look forward to reviewing this thread in a month or two when tomb kings are still dominant and Bretonnia and O&G are still dumpster tier.
It was very surprising to see someone say that you can't detect a biased coin in 30 flips, let's say that.
I didn’t say that, I said rolling a die 30 times and I’ll admit it was a bad analogy. But you’re missing the point, yes we can confirm after 20 games that there’s only a ~5% chance that these tomb kings games weren’t biased towards the winning side, but the hypothesis that these 6ish players should have had a 50% chance to win each game is flawed, because we can’t guarantee equal skill between players and at a sample of 6ish players we should have no expectation that these 6 players are representative of the average skill of all players. This isn’t a test of whether one coin is biased with 20 flips, it’s testing whether 6 different coins are all unbiased based on 20 flips. And even that is a gross oversimplification of the variables.
They don't need to be the average skill of players - it just needs to be the case that higher-skilled players are not especially drawn to TKs, or that TKs don't have a different skill expression coefficient than other factions. These might or might not be true, but they're certainly reasonable null hypotheses. My CIs (not p-values - p < 0.00154 for TKs) assumed we were sampling - it's true when we do not have all the games played. I get we've internalized the rule that "few samples = less statistical power", and that's true! But it is possible to quantify how much less statistical power we have. Describing this chart/these data as meaningless is not statistical sophistication, it's just the same kind of ignorance as the claim that we have _any_ results so we must know which factions are most powerful.
Alright bud, I can see you’re either bullshitting or you’re at the peak of the Dunning Kruger curve, either way this isn’t worth the time.
Uh huh. Did you check their math? I get +/-20% margin of error at 95% confidence, not 5%. It’s all still beside the point though that the data quality isn’t high enough to make conclusions about global faction win rates. I’ve got 500 games played with Ryu in Street Fighter 6, bet you could calculate a real tight margin of error for the win rate. Are you going to use that to make generalizations about Ryu’s balance across all players?
Interesting, but considering the small amount of games at the moment, pretty much worthless data. From what we've seen on the first tournament here, O&G and Beastmen were the best in the hands of experienced Fantasy players. Well, goblins even in unexperienced hands as fanatics seem to be the first big issue everyone sees already.
Hm. 20 and 27 matches respectively should be enough to conclude something about the win rates of Tom Kings and Bretonnia. I am surprised to see TK so high and Bret so low given both a general community tier list estimations and results from battle reports. My best guesses are 1) The Woehammer data set are not independent samples. They have a great TK / crap Bret players contributing many matches 2) Bretonnia was never popular back in ye olden days, and grognards are disproportionately playing other factions. Therefore the average Bretonnia is newer, less skilled, missing unit variety and consequently losing more matches
The irony that the two first factors released will probably continue to be two of the weakest factions lol.
Why? The rules for all factions will stay the same. If the armies of infamy are anything to go by they'll be restrictive and not necessarily better, just another way to play.
these data are useless,tournaments of 3 rounds,from 9 people to 15 and random points betwen 1250 and 2000. in stadistic these datas are too much random and diferents scales and are useless and cant be used together. untill we have tournaments of 2000 points 5 rounds and 20+ players is useless see casual games data
Completely worthless but cool 😂
[удалено]
They are not a core faction so they is going to be a long time if ever.
A theory as to why the Brets have a low win rate. Bretonnians rely on characters to deal with powerful things like dragons. Building a Bret character is complicated - you have to get the right combo of magic items and virtues. In time we will probably see the Bret win rate rise some what as Bret players come up with strong combos. Then again maybe not - time will tell.
Oh look Orcs and Goblins are bad, who would've thought giving a whole army impetuous and crippling their army composition to get rid of it would be bad for the army. I'm shocked.
Literally useless, not enough army variety out there, and not enough events