AOS tier list!

[Neffelo]

On 12/13/2019 at 1:36 PM, Forrix said:

According to Warhammer Weekly yes. Though I hope its not till January since then we might actually seem some MawTribes/OBR changes.

There is no way we are going to see any balance changes to those books when they haven't even been out 3 months.

 

[prochuvi]

Tier god: slanesh\bonerepeaers

Tier1: skavens,dok,fec.ironjawz,big wagg

Tier2: idoneth,khorne,fyreslayers,silvaneth,deaths armys,stormcast

Tier3: city of sigmar,kharadrons,tzenth,nurgle,goblins

Tier4: the rest

 

[Turragor]

Most of this thread doesn't give any valuable information that could be used to build an AoS tier list.

There is however plenty of anecdotal listing going on, based on:

• What people feel the relative strengths of factions are
• Their biases
• What they've read (a majority of what is available to read is anecdotal)
• Their own games played

It's like a bunch of football fans talking ****** in a pub while drunk. They may be right on a few things but it's no way to build something that, say, the bookies will use to establish odds for teams and player performance.

https://thehonestwargamer.com

Has the most accurate data available (it's not something that's "complete" but there's nothing else that compares).

Here's the latest (and this is match win % sorted, not top 10s, not 5 wins > 4 Wins):

Now that's not the whole story, but it's data. Impartial. It means more than opinion (when trying to work out tier listings).

Seems like ppl often get the top tier right but when it comes to everything else, I'm guessing the faction they collect (and lose 50% of matches with against their gaming group) is shoved to the bottom. They are fishing for faction buffs. Everyone wants faction buffs.

Case in point: Kharadron, with a 48.3% win rate they are 16 of 34 in that listing (albeit, some of the factions at the bottom shouldn't really be counted imo), 4th best Order faction. Better than CoS (which includes Tempest Eye). That's based on match win %, the other breakdowns on the honest wargamer site give a more complete picture.

I personally value match win % over top 10 finishes and 5 wins > 4 wins (by those two metrics, CoS beats Kharadron - taking Kharadron as an example again) but that's my own bias. I like that stat.

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Turragor

[Pitloze]

8 hours ago, Neffelo said:

There is no way we are going to see any balance changes to those books when they haven't even been out 3 months.

 

Probably not. But they both have some points worth looking at.

[whispersofblood]

2 hours ago, Turragor said:

Most of this thread doesn't give any valuable information that could be used to build an AoS tier list.

There is however plenty of anecdotal listing going on, based on:

• What people feel the relative strengths of factions are
• Their biases
• What they've read (a majority of what is available to read is anecdotal)
• Their own games played

It's like a bunch of football fans talking ****** in a pub while drunk. They may be right on a few things but it's no way to build something that, say, the bookies will use to establish odds for teams and player performance.

https://thehonestwargamer.com

Has the most accurate data available (it's not something that's "complete" but there's nothing else that compares).

Here's the latest (and this is match win % sorted, not top 10s, not 5 wins > 4 Wins):

Now that's not the whole story, but it's data. Impartial. It means more than opinion (when trying to work out tier listings).

Seems like ppl often get the top tier right but when it comes to everything else, I'm guessing the faction they collect (and lose 50% of matches with against their gaming group) is shoved to the bottom. They are fishing for faction buffs. Everyone wants faction buffs.

Case in point: Kharadron, with a 48.3% win rate they are 16 of 34 in that listing (albeit, some of the factions at the bottom shouldn't really be counted imo), 4th best Order faction. Better than CoS (which includes Tempest Eye). That's based on match win %, the other breakdowns on the honest wargamer site give a more complete picture.

I personally value match win % over top 10 finishes and 5 wins > 4 wins (by those two metrics, CoS beats Kharadron - taking Kharadron as an example again) but that's my own bias. I like that stat.

 

Like anything to do with stats to make them relevant you need to do some analysis or it's just a picture of what has happened. 

For example at less than 1% of the meta, OB's stats are absurd. So to me the first question if I'm looking at competitive stats is who has the best OB match up in their current meta-state and who has a similarly untenable match up at the moment. The same can be said with Big Waagh. 

Regardless of the power some factions can throw around and historical match win percentage that number is going to be a whole lot different in a post-OB world if OB reaches say 3%. Something that is interesting to me is that OB seem to have at least 30% top tens on 3 wins, which would say to me that OB are tabling people in some match ups. Where as say HoS the pantomime villian has less than 6%. Which to me confirms what I've always thought HoS smash or have a very close game on the competitive circuit. Personally I'd like to see more complete stat documents, namely including match up and scores. Because margin of victory is a huge factor we almost never consider.

If people are making purchase choices for the future the stats need analysis, not just description.

[Turragor]

31 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Like anything to do with stats to make them relevant you need to do some analysis or it's just a picture of what has happened. 

For example at less than 1% of the meta, OB's stats are absurd. So to me the first question if I'm looking at competitive stats is who has the best OB match up in their current meta-state and who has a similarly untenable match up at the moment. The same can be said with Big Waagh. 

Regardless of the power some factions can throw around and historical match win percentage that number is going to be a whole lot different in a post-OB world if OB reaches say 3%. Something that is interesting to me is that OB seem to have at least 30% top tens on 3 wins, which would say to me that OB are tabling people in some match ups. Where as say HoS the pantomime villian has less than 6%. Which to me confirms what I've always thought HoS smash or have a very close game on the competitive circuit. Personally I'd like to see more complete stat documents, namely including match up and scores. Because margin of victory is a huge factor we almost never consider.

If people are making purchase choices for the future the stats need analysis, not just description.

This is a very good point. This topic is about tiering and stats are King there (but analysis of those stats are important). 

However if you're buying based on stats and tiers you might end up disappointed. 

Not all your games will be tournament games against tournament lists. 

A faction with a 50% win rate where the losses are all close fought might be much better than a faction with a 55% win rate where the 45% are all being tabled. 

Is that separate from tiering though? 

[Barkanaut]

3 hours ago, Turragor said:

Most of this thread doesn't give any valuable information that could be used to build an AoS tier list.

There is however plenty of anecdotal listing going on, based on:

• What people feel the relative strengths of factions are
• Their biases
• What they've read (a majority of what is available to read is anecdotal)
• Their own games played

It's like a bunch of football fans talking ****** in a pub while drunk. They may be right on a few things but it's no way to build something that, say, the bookies will use to establish odds for teams and player performance.

https://thehonestwargamer.com

Has the most accurate data available (it's not something that's "complete" but there's nothing else that compares).

Here's the latest (and this is match win % sorted, not top 10s, not 5 wins > 4 Wins):

Now that's not the whole story, but it's data. Impartial. It means more than opinion (when trying to work out tier listings).

Seems like ppl often get the top tier right but when it comes to everything else, I'm guessing the faction they collect (and lose 50% of matches with against their gaming group) is shoved to the bottom. They are fishing for faction buffs. Everyone wants faction buffs.

Case in point: Kharadron, with a 48.3% win rate they are 16 of 34 in that listing (albeit, some of the factions at the bottom shouldn't really be counted imo), 4th best Order faction. Better than CoS (which includes Tempest Eye). That's based on match win %, the other breakdowns on the honest wargamer site give a more complete picture.

I personally value match win % over top 10 finishes and 5 wins > 4 wins (by those two metrics, CoS beats Kharadron - taking Kharadron as an example again) but that's my own bias. I like that stat.

 

That paints a grim picture for ko. Try can only barely win 2-3 games, there are fewer people recording game of them and brining this little data compared to other races, and likely the few people who do are highly skilled people. They also have one of the worst top 10 rates around. My meta is cutthroat here. I wish I could play casual games but KO are simply not good enough here.  At the same time you will find a lot of KO complaints isn’t just how bad the army it it’s the weird focus on troop spam. Are whole thing is fleets and we want those ships on the table and to be actually good. It would be like releasing a demons codex with all demons being bad and needing to take mortal spam or something. 

I hate when they keep decreasing our points values and making us a horde army too. These models are hard to transport and I would instead like them to be worth their points instead. 

[Turragor]

4 minutes ago, Barkanaut said:

At the same time you will find a lot of KO complaints isn’t just how bad the army it it’s the weird focus on troop spam

This is also 100% valid when buying an army. Stats show tournament lists. Some fun lists get taken there but they may draw down the average win rates only. 

Again though, when tiering should we discount the fun factor? 

[Barkanaut]

2 minutes ago, Turragor said:

This is also 100% valid when buying an army. Stats show tournament lists. Some fun lists get taken there but they may draw down the average win rates only. 

Again though, when tiering should we discount the fun factor? 

Honestly yes I think so. Tiering is about sorting out the best. I feel "fun" is too relative a word and thing to be tiered. Some people don’t care if they never win in their lives and have fun. Other people like tabling noobs. Others like being good sportsmanship. 

[StokieRich]

One thing I've not seen mentioned anywhere is that I would think that anyone who has actually painted and taken OBR to an event so far is pretty serious about AOS.

You've pretty much removed any casual players from the stats by the fact that they've only very recently come out. We are likely to see those win rates drop considerably once more casual players start getting their armies fully painted and taking them to tourneys.

I definitely think their powerful (specifically PE) but we can't make judgements on their current win rate as all of those players are very likely to be serious tournament players.

[Zanzou]

20 minutes ago, StokieRich said:

One thing I've not seen mentioned anywhere is that I would think that anyone who has actually painted and taken OBR to an event so far is pretty serious about AOS.

You've pretty much removed any casual players from the stats by the fact that they've only very recently come out. We are likely to see those win rates drop considerably once more casual players start getting their armies fully painted and taking them to tourneys.

I definitely think their powerful (specifically PE) but we can't make judgements on their current win rate as all of those players are very likely to be serious tournament players.

See where you're coming from but also greatly disagree:

-If they're likely to be "serious tournament players" as you say, that means that serious tournament players judged this faction to be strong  enough to pickup very early, and are succeeding heavily against other serious tournament players as well.

-These people have also had the least practice with this new faction yet are still dominating.  Sure you could say the opponents have also not had a chance to practice against them, but their opponents are at least experts with their own faction vs noobs with a new faction.

-The reason this high win rate pattern of new factions is a thing is actually because of the general power creep of GW's releases.  It is pretty self-evident, even if some releases are not quite as OP as others.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Zanzou

[Dead Scribe]

Its hit or miss really.  Some new releases are largely not very competitive at all.  Others are just grossly over powered so why would you never take them to a tournament?  

[prochuvi]

1 hour ago, StokieRich said:

One thing I've not seen mentioned anywhere is that I would think that anyone who has actually painted and taken OBR to an event so far is pretty serious about AOS.

You've pretty much removed any casual players from the stats by the fact that they've only very recently come out. We are likely to see those win rates drop considerably once more casual players start getting their armies fully painted and taking them to tourneys.

I definitely think their powerful (specifically PE) but we can't make judgements on their current win rate as all of those players are very likely to be serious tournament players.

Then what happen with citys of sigmar? They have 45% win rate and they are new.

 

By your logic then they gonna decrease more with the time?

[dekay]

8 minutes ago, prochuvi said:

Then what happen with citys of sigmar? They have 45% win rate and they are new.

 

By your logic then they gonna decrease more with the time?

Not necessarily.

From what I see, CoS are pretty unique in that respect if we consider a few factors:

1. Many CoS players had their armies already, from WFB times, and could basically immediately switch to the new faction. So there was never a state when only hardcore tournament players were playing it.

2. CoS may, realistically speaking, have fewer new players than other factions. Models are old and mostly direct only, so more expensive than buying a typical box from an independent retailer, so it may forever have lower percentage of players just starting to learn how to play it than any other faction.

3. Most important one: For now, from what I see, many CoS players aren't playing CoS at all. They are playing Wood Elves. Dwarfs. Empire. Whatever. Not CoS, with CoS optimised synergies and compositions, they are trying to make thair old army work and failing, because that army doesn't exist anymore. I'd assume that as soon as they either give up or learn to use the combined arms style the book is built for, winrate for CoS might jump up a bit.

[StokieRich]

1 hour ago, dekay said:

Not necessarily.

From what I see, CoS are pretty unique in that respect if we consider a few factors:

1. Many CoS players had their armies already, from WFB times, and could basically immediately switch to the new faction. So there was never a state when only hardcore tournament players were playing it.

2. CoS may, realistically speaking, have fewer new players than other factions. Models are old and mostly direct only, so more expensive than buying a typical box from an independent retailer, so it may forever have lower percentage of players just starting to learn how to play it than any other faction.

3. Most important one: For now, from what I see, many CoS players aren't playing CoS at all. They are playing Wood Elves. Dwarfs. Empire. Whatever. Not CoS, with CoS optimised synergies and compositions, they are trying to make thair old army work and failing, because that army doesn't exist anymore. I'd assume that as soon as they either give up or learn to use the combined arms style the book is built for, winrate for CoS might jump up a bit.

Yes this, the OBR players are all players who've smashed that army out to take it to tournaments. There are no casual players at all and I think it's a fair assumption they'llall pretty much be taking what they feel are highly competitive lists. 

Other armies such as ogres and cities will have a lot of hobby players who are happy to be getting their toys back on the table, therefore will likely be much lower as a result. 

To be clear I'm absolutely not saying that the OBR aren't great, but let's give it some time before saying these figures are representative of a good selection of the player base

[StokieRich]

2 hours ago, Zanzou said:

See where you're coming from but also greatly disagree:

-If they're likely to be "serious tournament players" as you say, that means that serious tournament players judged this faction to be strong  enough to pickup very early, and are succeeding heavily against other serious tournament players as well.

-These people have also had the least practice with this new faction yet are still dominating.  Sure you could say the opponents have also not had a chance to practice against them, but their opponents are at least experts with their own faction vs noobs with a new faction.

-The reason this high win rate pattern of new factions is a thing is actually because of the general power creep of GW's releases.  It is pretty self-evident, even if some releases are not quite as OP as others.

Disagree due to reasons in my above post. Yes they're playing other serious tournament players but they're also playing non serious players, I'm not sure I get your point (not trying to be rude maybe I'm missing something here?) 

I don't think there really is any "new to this faction" - there may be some nuances but we can see what's good and why. 

 

[Kadeton]

The problem with taking a data-driven (statistical) approach to this is that you have to pay attention to the significance of your samples... and where you don't have a large enough sample size, you can't support any conclusion with confidence.

In the Honest Wargamer stats, for instance, he hasn't provided any measure of statistical error. The small sample sizes for some of the factions means it's impossible to draw any statistical conclusions. To illustrate the problem, this can be taken to the extreme: In the data, a single tournament had a single player fielding Tamurkhan's Horde. They happened to get 2 wins, and thus the entire Tamurkhan's Horde faction is listed with a 40% win rate. If they'd managed to pick up a third win, Tamurkhan's Horde would instead have a 60% win rate, among the highest in the game. Would that make it one of the strongest armies available? Clearly, it isn't "fair" to draw conclusions about the relative power of that army based on a single tournament's results - we need a certain amount of data.

So how much data do we need? There's some complicated statistical analysis that goes into this question, and I don't want to get too deep into it here. But essentially, we want to generate a p-value against a null hypothesis of "This faction wins 50% of its games." If a faction wins significantly more (or less) than that, it would be fair to say that it's stronger (or weaker) than factions which don't.

Given the data set we have, and taking a fairly typical confidence threshold of 0.05, we actually can't draw too many conclusions. Most factions simply don't have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis with confidence. There are a few standouts where we can reject the null hypothesis with confidence: Hedonites and Daughters definitely win more often than you'd expect from balanced forces, and Stormcast Eternals are garbage. There are also some factions which come close to the threshold, which in statistical terms is a "maybe, but we can't be sure".

Hence, I'd say the data-driven tier list actually looks like this at the moment:

S-tier:
Hedonites of Slaanesh

Definitely strong:
Daughters of Khaine

Probably stronger than average:
Skaven
Flesh-Eater Courts
Ossiarch Bonereapers

Probably weaker than average:
Nighthaunt
Sylvaneth
Beasts of Chaos
Seraphon

Definitely weak:
Maggotkin of Nurgle
Stormcast Eternals

Middle tier:
Every other current faction

[Beastmaster]

Yeah, statistical significance. Whenever I read some post about this or that faction being horribly over- or underpowered, I get the impression that it’s nigh- impossible to win against/with this faction. Should the differences in power level between even the most under- or overpowered factions really be so small that it takes substantial sample sizes to even DETECT them, as you suggest, I’d say the game as a whole is in a pretty good spot after all... 😎 
 

From a practical standpoint, I would favor a best practice approach: Look at the players who went really well, 4 or 5 wins, with your chosen army (those seem to exist for every army). What did they do right, or different to those who went not so well with your army? Discuss. 😉

Edited December 17, 2019 by Beastmaster

[Zappgrot]

Really Slaanesh is a bit of a problem . That win rate at a reasonable meta % is just broken 

[Dolomyte]

17 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Really Slaanesh is a bit of a problem . That win rate at a reasonable meta % is just broken 

Well they just got a big nerf. So we will see how they play out over the next few weeks

[Dead Scribe]

I don't think they got a big nerf at all, I'm happy!  I was afraid I'd have to sell my models, but all they did was enforce taking three keepers to get the most out of the army, which I was already doing.  

[tripchimeras]

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think they got a big nerf at all, I'm happy!  I was afraid I'd have to sell my models, but all they did was enforce taking three keepers to get the most out of the army, which I was already doing.  

While I agree that it enforced taking three keepers, I think it is going to do more damage then you allude to here.  First of all Locus was a pretty big deal, at least in some match-ups, and just got destroyed.  Secondly, the biggest deal for me isn't so much that it reduces the number of keepers you will be able to summon in general, its that it is going to potentially push back the turn you start summoning them, and will make it easier for me to delay when you get your reinforcements.  To me there is a big difference in you getting new keepers on T2 vs T3 or whatever, thats one more turn of objectives locked in for me etc. 

That being said, obviously it isn't big enough that the army is going in the competitive trash bins.  They are still strong, but I do think it turns some of the really bad matchups into winable affairs, and makes some of Slaaneshes bad matchups even worse.  Personally I think it was a good debuff competitively.  Bet it drops them from 65% to 55% win-rate (that is my wishful thinking at least).  As far as internal balance is concerned?  Agree with you; not so great.  But as I don't play Slaanesh, and they have been terrible for the competitive meta I am really only concerned about the former atm haha.

Edited December 17, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Dead Scribe]

I would say that there is no way it drops from 65 to 55% based on that change alone.  If it did it wouldn't really be competitive anymore and would be trash bin change.

[Overread]

Surely anything in the 50%+ is already proving to be competitively viable. Besides in theory if GW keeps adjusting the game balance those viable percentages should steadily start to get closer and closer together and even out closer toward 50%. 

I don't think the changes to Slaanesh will push it down that far, but I think they will push it down a bit. Though in truth I think depravity still needs work (both externally against other armies but also internally too).

 

Slaanesh, heck no army, should be an "I win easier/easy" button in a game if you're going for the competitive end

 

 

Heck based on that alone I figure that Petrifax for Ossiarch Reapers really should get some attention too. Perhaps change that +1 save to a reroll failed or somesuch. 

[Zanzou]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I would say that there is no way it drops from 65 to 55% based on that change alone.  

Why wouldn't it? Even if you stack leaders as normal, doesn't that significantly hamper your early objective control?  DP on the things that mattered looked like it went up a lot.  Also locus from 3+ to 5+ is game-changing