# Warhammer Army Balance (part 2)



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

As a follow on from this thread on the results from the first heat of the GT (Availiable Here), I did a bit of analysis on them to see how the different armies did. This thread is part two by the way because of this thread from the beginning of the year, where we discussed the same thing.

So, for those looking at the stats:










DE's pipped DoC for first spot on the averages, but only just. the top few are pretty expected, except for the suprising showing of Beasts of Chaos. A couple of decent players, and no uncompetitive players probably helped to get their scores up, but still, not bad at all. I suppose it takes real dedication to play Beasts, so maybe it's not so surprising they'd do well on average, but weather they'd get into the top 10 with the right player is more difficult to discern.

And here's the players break down:









75% of players took one of the "big 5" armies. If you look through the raw results, it's like a game spotting any other armies, as they're so few and far between.

What are peoples thoughts on the results? Any more stats you'd like me to post up?


----------



## Darkangeldentist (Oct 31, 2007)

Well if you're offering to do more stats...

Could you post up the range and median scores for top ten armies by popularity please. I'd be interested to see how widely spaced the players for each army were. 

Also the win/draw/loss ratios for the various armies would be worth looking at.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Here's the full list, though you can't read too much into the scores for the less popular armies - fewer data points make for less accuracy you know.










You'll notice an interesting little thing with this too, if you look at the top scores you could get (going by Gaming Total), the power lists become more obvious than looking at the averages. DoC and DE get closest to the top, WoC and VC close behind, then every other army manages to get at least one player into the 120 mark, except for Bretonnians, O&G, skaven and OK, all of which had far too few people to really count.

If we get more GT results, I can start compiling some more data, which might give more accurate results.


----------



## Darkangeldentist (Oct 31, 2007)

Thanks very much. I understand the small sample size for several armies invalidates any conclusions you might draw from them. Hence I asked for just the top ten by popularity.

It is very unteresting to see that spread for the more popular armies. It gives an impression on how difficult the army is to use as well as how powerful it can be.

I agree that the more tournament results we have the better and more useful the stats will be. Bring on heat 2 and 3 I say. (I'll post the results for heat 2 since I'll be there.)

Thanks again.k:


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Its just a shame that there are only the top 5 armies getting into the top 20 and its only the 23rd player who is playing with one of the uncommon lists.
Would be nice seeing the most recent graph done with the 'otheres' grouped as 1 (from dwarves on down) to see how they compare as a group to the top armies.


----------



## bob_the_grea (Jul 27, 2009)

unforutnaly your results arent right, two of the people i know went to that heat, and there armies are wrote down wrong.

rich webb - they said he used warriors of chaos, he actually used daemons, he finish about 18th i believe.

just a note, id wait for the official posting. but its an interesting subject none the less


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

bob_the_grea said:


> unforutnaly your results arent right, two of the people i know went to that heat, and there armies are wrote down wrong.
> 
> rich webb - they said he used warriors of chaos, he actually used daemons, he finish about 18th i believe.
> 
> just a note, id wait for the official posting. but its an interesting subject none the less


really? how odd... Maybe someone got their wires crossed somewhere. Thanks for mentioning it though!

If anyone knows where to get the "official" results, post a link to them, could be handy.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

i came 18th so he must have been somewhere else.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I would love them to redo daemons and weaken them just to see how many players cry or from now on make every army book better and capabale of wiping the floor with daemons just to see the fade out slowly


----------



## bob_the_grea (Jul 27, 2009)

sorry i ment 28th =D my bad


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

jigplums said:


> i came 18th so he must have been somewhere else.


Congrats, thats pretty good considering the number of armies there. Dark elves was it? what sort of a set up do you use?



Blue Liger said:


> I would love them to redo daemons and weaken them just to see how many players cry or from now on make every army book better and capabale of wiping the floor with daemons just to see the fade out slowly


All armies seem to be getting significantly stronger with each incarnation, just remember, before DoC it was all about VCs. DEs seem to have leveled with Daemons, but still, it would be far better if they just fully tested new books (with the most beardy tourney players they could find), just so they could keep most armies on par.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I fully expect the new skaven to be able to kick the collective arses of daemons into next week.
I just hope that they cant do that to everyone else or its just replacing 1 top army with another... Im a great believer in a round robin of 1 army having the advantage over some and disadvantage of another- then you have to decide to counter your weaknesses or exploit the enemies, rather then simply adding beard to more bards until your get a daemon dwarf army.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Tim/Steve said:


> I fully expect the new skaven to be able to kick the collective arses of daemons into next week.
> I just hope that they cant do that to everyone else or its just replacing 1 top army with another... Im a great believer in a round robin of 1 army having the advantage over some and disadvantage of another- then you have to decide to counter your weaknesses or exploit the enemies, rather then simply adding beard to more bards until your get a daemon dwarf army.


It'll be interesting to see what the new competitive builds of skaven are like. Me and my skaven playing friend had a game on sunday, using all the new rules and points prices. He wasn't taking a power list, and was somewhat tougher as a list, and had more units thanks to the lower points costs, but the rats still went down in combat, as ever they did. Maybe it will change somewhat when he learns to use all the new fancy things, but I just can't see them being on par with Daemons. Maybe more WoC sort of level.


----------

