Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We had our 550th playtest game submitted so I thought I'd show the overall win percentages of each force so far.

Vampire Counts: 62.35%
Stormcast: 61.48%
Ogres: 58.63%
Tomb Kings: 56.99%
Skaven: 55.53%
High Elves: 54.14%
Empire: 53.90%
Dark Elves: 52.16%
Lizardmen: 50.42%
Daemons: 50.37%
Warriors of Chaos: 48.01%
Dwarves: 47.69%
Orcs and Goblins: 47.15%
Wood Elves: 45.82%
Beastmen: 45.65%
Bloodbound: 43.02%
Bretonnia: 39.49%

Congratulations - those are amazingly balanced considering the enormity of balancing the system from scratch! Makes me even more confident in the system than I already was.

Really awesome. Did you guys take different lists each time an army played? What was your wound/army builds?

This is a collection of results from our pool of playtesters plus our current campaign results since July.

The game sizes range from 10 - 50 points though primarily seem to rest in the 20 or 30 point ratio.

The biggest issue we're dealing with now is the undead banner menace where they get to respawn their guys. I don't think that the +1 pt for the banner is enough.

The stormcast I see win a lot because people I think don't really know how to deal with them yet, based on what I've seen and read.

Any chance of seeing how an army fared against each army rather than how they fared overall?

Sadly that will require a greater deal amount of work to accomplish and mine so it will depend on my freetime to undertake that project.

I should have set up my database to do that already but I had it set up primarily to just record wins and losses and look for highly skewed scores.

No rush, but it might be interesting to see if an army has a high number of wins or loses against a particular opponent.

 Ghaz wrote:
No rush, but it might be interesting to see if an army has a high number of wins or loses against a particular opponent.

Agreed, especially because certain abilities seem to do well against other races (lots of Rending versus low armor saves).

Tomb kings / Vampire Counts / Death armies are great for three reasons.

1. Many of their characters are also wizards who can summon or unbind (not to mention they can hold their own in a fight).
2. They can resurrect many units with banners or other means
3. Units are more easily summoned

The units I have used are not as powerful as most other armies' units, and usually take their beatings in melee. However, using banner bearers, etc, I see 2-3 characters stand back up every turn. This counters their weakness and makes them almost more useful!

And those blood knights.... wow.

I am not surprised they are near the top of the list. I am a bit surprised with the stormcast eternals, as they are usually outnumbered and die quickly. However, with all the releases, it is easy to find quick synergy to make units work more efficiently.

Very interesting! I will certainly be continuing to use Azyr, and it looks like I will not regret that choice! Congrats!

I get the most complaints about Stormcast being too expensive in points and being largely outnumbered, but yeah - I also see them win quite a bit.

When I watch uncomped games I take note of the forces and typically people are going by just wounds as a comp mechanism and the stormccast player will typically have 20 or so points more than his opponent if he's going off of Azyr.

Interesting data. If the stats stay the same for a longer time period to you plan to adjust point costs of the armies that do weaker. 50/50 is the natural state, and a lot of armies are clost to it, but bretonians seem to be laging behind everyone.

First have to figure out why it is what it is, how is it being played, was it due to points or mistakes, etc...

Bretonnia is 11 points from center so definitely want to review what it is about them.

Then we have the undead, ogres, and stormcast which are pretty high above the center.

Another way to moderate this would be to apply a handicap to each army based on its distance from the median.

Honest question. If you are going to use a point system, why not just stick with WHFB? Does AoS offer something WHFB doesnt? Im interested.

WHFB and AoS are totally different from a wargame perspective; they do not function or play at all similarly. I think people who wanted WHFB-style mostly went to Kings of War, while people who like the style of AoS are seeking an appropriate way to balance it.

Anyways, good work on the stats, that's pretty solid for initial ratings. Along a similar line to the above, does anyone have win % stats for WHFB 8th? Would be interesting to see how they line up with Azyr in terms of spread.

"If you are going to use a point system, why not just stick with WHFB?"

Because WHFB is now 'dead' and no one wants to play it. I have a choice between AoS or Kings of War.

Kings of War bores the **** out of me. That leaves AoS which I like 75% of... but would never play out of the box.

Hence: Azyr

I'm liking the Azyr comp system so far, really interesting that the variance really isn't that large. It could easily get smaller with more games too.

Does it factor % of armies sampled? I mean if VC and Stormcast are slightly ahead could that be because more people are playing those armies and they have the same average of wins?

Either way, that differential is insignificant and it seems like the armies have good external balance.

Speaking from a Skaven players stand point they have good internal balance as well. Very few units I would not play.

It is just a pool of win percentages by our testers using the armies.

Some armies are definitely more used than others (stormcast eternals have the greatest sampling)

The goal is to get it where there are no glaring obvious holes and so long as the games are basically competitive in that one side isn't going to roll the other by virtue of just showing up I will be happy

OK yeah, I think we're already seeing that, really not a massive spread at all and this isn't factoring every possible combination of forces within each army and also not factoring allies between different armies (which would be basically impossible to calculate).

You should make my HPA cheaper though, I mean not like he's too expensive, but I want a distinct advantage over everyone

oh the HPA and how many point nightmares that one gave me lol

I can imagine, how did you factor the regeneration and 33.3% chance to come back to life with D6 wounds?

Do you have the core data available in something like an Excel doc (or compatible)? If you have fields for army 1, army 2 and outcome, I could easily put together a rundown on how each army fared against each other army individually. I.e., High Elves are 54% overall, but 68% vs. Dark Elves and 23% vs. Dwarves sort of thing.

If you're interested in help, PM me. One of my roles at work is data analysis.

What was the sample size for each army? Both number of testers per army and number of games played per army? 550 is awesome and I'd be interested to know if some of the higher and lower ranking armies might simply have a smaller sample size and therefore a wider standard deviation.

I think it's funny that Bloodbound has a lower win percentage than WoC. OG Chaos for life!

Obviously not the most skilled general playing with Dwarfs. I've been smashing every opponent I've faced, as usual. Most of this list depends on skill. I'm >80% win ratio. Doesn't matter what army I use. Write me a list and I'll smash you with it.

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
Obviously not the most skilled general playing with Dwarfs. I've been smashing every opponent I've faced, as usual. Most of this list depends on skill. I'm >80% win ratio. Doesn't matter what army I use. Write me a list and I'll smash you with it.

Gnoblars. Nothing but Gnoblars.

Not that I doubt you, I just want to see it. Because it will be amazing.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think it's funny that Bloodbound has a lower win percentage than WoC. OG Chaos for life!

Smaller model pool to pick from. In eternal vs Bloodbound games, Eternals win every time, because they have monsters and more infantry units, including powerful range units.


I wonder how the mediana for each army looks looks like. Avarge % can be screwed a lot by a single very high or very low data entry.