Topic: More meta stats revealed - from bad to worse for Empire of Man.

[Minsc]

Metastats have been updated:
https://woehammer.com/2024/04/15/old-world-win-rates/

Here's the old thread:
https://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=56659.0

From a 35% to a 34% winrate @ 2000 pts, but above else previously there where 5 armies below 43% winrate, now there's only 1 army below 43%, and that is *drumroll* us.
Skaven in second place at 43%.
Glad to see that those Skaven and Empire nerfs where justified. 

[commandant]

Do maybe people need to change the Empire armies they are taking to tournaments. It would be interesting to see what the lists are.
Without lists and elo the win rate stats are meaningless

[GamesPoet]

Even the folks that supplied the stats, and after giving the parameters used to create them, said in the site linked, "However, I would not put much weight on the results where there are less than 40 pairings on record."

[Skyros]

Even the folks that supplied the stats, and after giving the parameters used to create them, said in the site linked, "However, I would not put much weight on the results where there are less than 40 pairings on record."

It looks like Empire has more pairings than most other faction, actually. So pretty decent sample size all things considered.

[Skyros]

Do maybe people need to change the Empire armies they are taking to tournaments.

They do. They need to start bringing Bretonnian Exiles lists instead.

[Clymer]

It's a bummer. I'm still doing OK with them, but last night before a game I was doing my usual, "I think Empire is a solid middle tier army," bit when my buddy was like, "If Empire is middle tier, then who is below them?".

It was a pretty obvious question, but I hadn't thought about that comparison that way before.

I realized that I had been thinking more about relative match ups, than absolute performance. For example, I find Warriors of Chaos to be a pretty easy match up for Empire, so I had been thinking of them as worse. I think we also do pretty well against Orcs and Goblins. But that's not the same as outperforming those armies overall.

I'm still pretty happy with Empire. But I have to admit, I can't name an army that's worse than us.

[The Peacemaker]

And now that mace of helstrom is nerfed, expect those numbers to plummet. But I got a nagging suspicion most of those Empire armies in these tourneys are taking very subpar lists.

Dwarf Players stepped up. I wonder what the lists are on those.

Lizardmen only as 17 matches so meh.

HE and Warriors basically tied. I suspect after the nerfs that HE will be top since the nerf didn't really affect them.

[commandant]

Do maybe people need to change the Empire armies they are taking to tournaments.

They do. They need to start bringing Bretonnian Exiles lists instead.

I donno. How many tournament armies come with 3 level four wizards at 2000 points?

Can Bretonnian exiles do that even?

[The Peacemaker]

Do maybe people need to change the Empire armies they are taking to tournaments.

They do. They need to start bringing Bretonnian Exiles lists instead.

I donno. How many tournament armies come with 3 level four wizards at 2000 points?

Can Bretonnian exiles do that even?

But do 3 level 4 wizards win games?

[GamesPoet]

Even the folks that supplied the stats, and after giving the parameters used to create them, said in the site linked, "However, I would not put much weight on the results where there are less than 40 pairings on record."

It looks like Empire has more pairings than most other faction, actually. So pretty decent sample size all things considered.

Out of a total of "less than 40 pairings on record"?  If yes, I fail to see how that's a decent sample for any of the armies, and the author of the post on that site seems to agree with me.

Perhaps I misunderstood the parameters that were listed on their site or maybe there is a misprint.

[Minsc]

Perhaps I misunderstood the parameters that were listed on their site or maybe there is a misprint.

Where did you read this? The only mention of 40 pairings is "The results are shown above. However, I would not put much weight on the results where there are less than 40 pairings on record." - not that there where actually only 40 pairings.

[Clymer]

The number of pairings was in parentheses, right? 79 pairings for Empire.

Sure, these stats aren’t the whole story, but I’d like to hear a theory of how they could be dramatically off base. The difference between a 34% win rate and a 54% win rate is unlikely to be accounted for by statistical bias alone. So sure, deny the stats if it makes you feel better, but to most of us, it’s reasonable to conclude there’s a problem.

[GamesPoet]

Perhaps I misunderstood the parameters that were listed on their site or maybe there is a misprint.

Where did you read this? The only mention of 40 pairings is "The results are shown above. However, I would not put much weight on the results where there are less than 40 pairings on record." - not that there where actually only 40 pairings.

From the same spot that you and both quoted.

[Sir Falo]

To be fair, we had a 75% winrate in Warhalls square baesed torny in 1500pts, second best. So its still quite switchy. Fun fact/bragging: I got a 100% win rate with my Empire but din not go on to the last round anyway. So I will be at 100% in that torny 

[madeinitaly1]

https://woehammer.com/2024/04/16/old-world-forces-of-fantasy-unit-performance/?fbclid=IwAR2gdnKiV1pfVE4hglkZf-FcGW4BcvVovDi0p1cn1kzzQZuXpX3n4KghVN0&amp=1

Here's some more statistics

[commandant]

State troops have a higher win rate than steam tanks. That is interesting

[madeinitaly1]

State troops have a higher win rate than steam tanks. That is interesting

Also the steam tank has one of the lowest and mortar one of the highest

[Clymer]

The mortar was a head scratcher. Not too surprised about the steam tank… they are hard to use and don’t dish out the damage like they ought to. D3+1 stomp attacks is all they get for combat? Kinda weak for a 265 point unit.

Some of them though, like the cannon, are so common that their % is going to pretty closely mirror the overall poor average army win rate. I think somewhat ironically, the more often something is included, the harder it will be to tease out what it’s performance is.

[madeinitaly1]

The mortar was a head scratcher.

The head scratcher is why 33% of the lists included it

[Clymer]

The mortar was a head scratcher.

The head scratcher is why 33% of the lists included it

  They clearly know something we don’t know!

I just came back to weigh in on the Steam Tank again… I was just working on an Ogre list and comparing it to the Iron Blaster. The iron blaster’s cannon is much better, it has much better movement without the steam damage liability, and its attacks are not as strong, but more reliable. Better charge range and First Charge. The steam tank is tougher, with better wounds, one better armor save, is unbreakable and causes terror. All good things, but it cost almost 100 points more. I still say the Steam Tank is not bad… but it ain’t good either and it is difficult to play, and easy for opponents to avoid.

[Sir Falo]

The mortar is way underrated. Its not good at anything but ok at everything. It can do multi wounds vs monsters. Its having a excellent AP so it can hurt knights and infantry. Its just not a doomsday weapon.

[Skyros]

Even the folks that supplied the stats, and after giving the parameters used to create them, said in the site linked, "However, I would not put much weight on the results where there are less than 40 pairings on record."

It looks like Empire has more pairings than most other faction, actually. So pretty decent sample size all things considered.

Out of a total of "less than 40 pairings on record"?  If yes, I fail to see how that's a decent sample for any of the armies, and the author of the post on that site seems to agree with me.

Perhaps I misunderstood the parameters that were listed on their site or maybe there is a misprint.

You are definitely misunderstanding.

How many pairings do you think the chart shows for empire?

[Grendel083]

The mortar was a head scratcher.

The head scratcher is why 33% of the lists included it

  They clearly know something we don’t know!

Or maybe the reason we're at the bottom of the tournament stats is because they're all taking mortars 

[Skyros]

The mortar and steam tank surprised me, but on reflection, I imagine in most games the steam tank doesn't come near to earning its points back. It's slow, can't charge far, may not get to move at all, and doesn't do much damage. It's an incredibly expesnive tarpit that basically is itself a tarpit target.

Things that aren't surprising at all:

All warrior priests being terrible, with sigmar being the absolute worst
Veteran state troops being worse than state troops (the upgrade is very overcosted)
Inner circle knights being worse than knights (again, the upgrade is overcosted)
Demigryphs, griffins, and archers all being good and reliable. I wish we could put a GM on a griffin!

I'm not surprised to see greatswords so low (they have historically been a very poor option) though I am a little disappointed.
I was hoping with their access to drilled and great weapons they might be a valid contender. But they are just too expensive. Compare them to black orcs (around the same cost) and it isn't even funny.

[Skyros]

Id also like to see more granularity in that chart (and where are the pistoliers??)

Break out the different types of state troops, include 'detachments' in the list, etc.