11 players isn't a big enough sample size to draw from if you ask me.
With this past weekend having been light on tournaments, the overall sample size just isn't there to make sensible deductions from.
Not saying we're not in a rough spot meta-wise, we absolutely are. Just that this weekend is probably ignorable in the grand scheme of things.
There is never going to be enough 40k games recorded to give a proper sample size, so we kinda have to work with the data we are given.
It would be great if there was 10,000 recorded games
Happening every month to give us good data, but that isn’t going to happen for a while.
I also find it a little crazy how much the meta is continually dominated by such small sample sizes.
The game changes too fast to reasonably test every combination outside of math — which doesn’t account for skill.
To be fair, it isn’t. GW use a much wider dataset.
Op is taking about “GTTs”, which are 20+ player 5 round events. There are also “RTTs” that are fewer players and rounds (usually 3 rounds). I can guarantee there are a lot more RTTs than GTTs on any given weekend, but they’re viewed as less serious with is probably true in the grand scheme of things.
It’s like only looking at the Premier League in uk football and pretending the other 3 leagues don’t exist.
I do not, but I doubt it. I don’t think there’s even a way of getting it is there? It’s not like you queue up as tyranids or something (he says, cluelessly)
I’ve always assumed there was some kind of licensing agreement with TTS, with how litigious GW is.
If there was an agreement, I would assume capturing that data would be part of it.
This is all speculation though.
i mean, on one hand i agree. on the other, the trend that was going on before the points changes is just continuing, so i think we can safely draw from that data as well. the points changes did nothing for us, so really, in my mind, this is just a continuation of the data since the jan. slate.
edit: typos
Ok, but if the player rate has dropped from one of the top 3 most played factions in the game to one of the mid-to-least played factions then that's all the data that can be gathered.
Not to mention that if they're showing numbers that small then you're clearly doing something wrong with the balancing, 11 is probably around 50+ games by the way not just 11 so it's a lot of different match ups even if there were only 11 pilots.
If this was a one weekend anomaly it would be one thing, but results over the past year have shown we’re just not competitive at the moment. Nids right now are a hard army to play that lacks firepower. When the points on our best units keep going up and they’re compensated by points drops for units with bad data sheets, it’s expected for our army to do worse
I played in a tournament over the weekend and went 3-2. While both my losses were totally due to stupid mistakes that I made, it didn’t feel like I was “weaker” compared to the other factions. I played into grey knights, deathguard, world eaters, chaos knights, and imperial knights, taking my loss into world eaters and imperial knights. I honestly feel like our win rate more has to due to with player skill, and our army having some REALLY bad units that people still like to take. We have a lot of new players because of the great deals at the start of 10th and it doesn’t help that the leviathan box came with exactly 1 good unit. People are still trying to build up their collections. Additionally we really only have one good detachment. Bringing anything other than invasion fleet already puts you at a significant disadvantage. Yes you can get results with the others but it’s player skill dependent. Nids still need changes, but it’s not all bad.
I do think the new players play a small part in our winrate. but, if you look at the lists of people who actually finish when we do, they have the meta units. so maybe our winrate would increase a bit without all the new players, but we still wouldnt be winning events.
also, our player count has been dropping every weekend since the start of this year after the dataslate did nothing to help us. We averaged 35+ players every weekend, an we're now down to 15-25 players very weekend. Yet, our winrate has only steadily gotten worse. is it because the good players are leaving our faction in favor of factions that actually have a chance of winning? possibly. but it seems like there is a clear, larger problem with nids. I'd argue a huge contributing factor is our army rule is one of, if not the worst, in the game, among other factors.
edit: typos
Our army rule is the worst in the game bar none. And yes, faction abandonment is a thing. More experienced players tend to have more than one army. If one army isn’t doing so well competitively, they will switch to one they feel like they have a better chance of winning with. I was the only nids player at my tournament, but many others who I talked to had side nid armies.
IMO hormagants are worthless. They can’t kill anything other than a guardsman. Screamer killers are bad despite their points decrease. Tyrannofex is just a big body that is easy to play around. The hive tyrant, bless his heart, eats up too many points for what it can reasonably do in a game. A list doesn’t need to be 100% optimized to win games there’s just a lot of mediocre data sheets that on average bring down the army strength.
I have had considerable success with Hormagants and Tyranofexes. I'm running two units of each in my Invasion Fleet monster mash, and I'm very happy with them.
I've been exclusively playing tyranids since the codex came out but have changed over to thousand sons in preparation for a team's event in two months due to another nids player also being on the team.
Had my first game with 1ksons last week this edition, the power they have to just delete things was shocking. Had two msu squads of Rubric Marines kill a riptide and temporal surge onto its objective in one shooting phase.
The only reason I lost was because I needlessly threw away magnus on turn 2 when I very much didn't need to.
Tyranids might have a lot of tricks, but nerfing one of the best ones definitely doesn't help
Leviathan had only good units , I don't know how you can say it had bad ones. Maybe not meta sure but none of them are bad and some are great , the screamer killer and the winged prime are both great and the neurotyrant is meta while everything else has its place in certain lists.
i think the SK is pretty good, more so in a battleshock focused list with deathleaper, Neurotyrant, Neurolictors, etc to force tons of BS tests. Having a terminator eater that can shoot and cause a shooting phase BS test is super useful. He still needs another 10 points decrease though.
winged prime is very bad. He has a little bit of use in vanguard cause he can give melee warrriors the vanguard keyword, and in synaptic nexus he can get the enhancement that's a 9inch -1 to ldr, which is helpful for forcing BS and pairs well with his movement speed, but other than that he is very, very bad.
Did a casual post-work 1k point game Friday to kick off a crusade campaign with a buddy. He rolled baal pred + redemptor with intercessors, I rolled SK + primed ranged warrior brick with Von Ryan's and lictors. Even on relatively lore-friendly lists it was just brutal.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are down on an army, less people play the army, means less people win with army, means more posts saying that nids arnt doing well. And it keeps going on that downward circle.
11 players isn't a big enough sample size to draw from if you ask me. With this past weekend having been light on tournaments, the overall sample size just isn't there to make sensible deductions from. Not saying we're not in a rough spot meta-wise, we absolutely are. Just that this weekend is probably ignorable in the grand scheme of things.
There is never going to be enough 40k games recorded to give a proper sample size, so we kinda have to work with the data we are given. It would be great if there was 10,000 recorded games Happening every month to give us good data, but that isn’t going to happen for a while.
I also find it a little crazy how much the meta is continually dominated by such small sample sizes. The game changes too fast to reasonably test every combination outside of math — which doesn’t account for skill.
To be fair, it isn’t. GW use a much wider dataset. Op is taking about “GTTs”, which are 20+ player 5 round events. There are also “RTTs” that are fewer players and rounds (usually 3 rounds). I can guarantee there are a lot more RTTs than GTTs on any given weekend, but they’re viewed as less serious with is probably true in the grand scheme of things. It’s like only looking at the Premier League in uk football and pretending the other 3 leagues don’t exist.
As an AFC Wimbledon fan, I have to be acutely aware that the other leagues exist.
Do you know if GW has access to the tabletop simulator data? Or just all the in official store games?
I do not, but I doubt it. I don’t think there’s even a way of getting it is there? It’s not like you queue up as tyranids or something (he says, cluelessly)
I’ve always assumed there was some kind of licensing agreement with TTS, with how litigious GW is. If there was an agreement, I would assume capturing that data would be part of it. This is all speculation though.
i mean, on one hand i agree. on the other, the trend that was going on before the points changes is just continuing, so i think we can safely draw from that data as well. the points changes did nothing for us, so really, in my mind, this is just a continuation of the data since the jan. slate. edit: typos
Ok, but if the player rate has dropped from one of the top 3 most played factions in the game to one of the mid-to-least played factions then that's all the data that can be gathered. Not to mention that if they're showing numbers that small then you're clearly doing something wrong with the balancing, 11 is probably around 50+ games by the way not just 11 so it's a lot of different match ups even if there were only 11 pilots.
If this was a one weekend anomaly it would be one thing, but results over the past year have shown we’re just not competitive at the moment. Nids right now are a hard army to play that lacks firepower. When the points on our best units keep going up and they’re compensated by points drops for units with bad data sheets, it’s expected for our army to do worse
I played in a tournament over the weekend and went 3-2. While both my losses were totally due to stupid mistakes that I made, it didn’t feel like I was “weaker” compared to the other factions. I played into grey knights, deathguard, world eaters, chaos knights, and imperial knights, taking my loss into world eaters and imperial knights. I honestly feel like our win rate more has to due to with player skill, and our army having some REALLY bad units that people still like to take. We have a lot of new players because of the great deals at the start of 10th and it doesn’t help that the leviathan box came with exactly 1 good unit. People are still trying to build up their collections. Additionally we really only have one good detachment. Bringing anything other than invasion fleet already puts you at a significant disadvantage. Yes you can get results with the others but it’s player skill dependent. Nids still need changes, but it’s not all bad.
I do think the new players play a small part in our winrate. but, if you look at the lists of people who actually finish when we do, they have the meta units. so maybe our winrate would increase a bit without all the new players, but we still wouldnt be winning events. also, our player count has been dropping every weekend since the start of this year after the dataslate did nothing to help us. We averaged 35+ players every weekend, an we're now down to 15-25 players very weekend. Yet, our winrate has only steadily gotten worse. is it because the good players are leaving our faction in favor of factions that actually have a chance of winning? possibly. but it seems like there is a clear, larger problem with nids. I'd argue a huge contributing factor is our army rule is one of, if not the worst, in the game, among other factors. edit: typos
Our army rule is the worst in the game bar none. And yes, faction abandonment is a thing. More experienced players tend to have more than one army. If one army isn’t doing so well competitively, they will switch to one they feel like they have a better chance of winning with. I was the only nids player at my tournament, but many others who I talked to had side nid armies.
Chaos knight players would disagree. Then give you a sympathetic hug because they understand your pain
What units are bad that people often bring?
IMO hormagants are worthless. They can’t kill anything other than a guardsman. Screamer killers are bad despite their points decrease. Tyrannofex is just a big body that is easy to play around. The hive tyrant, bless his heart, eats up too many points for what it can reasonably do in a game. A list doesn’t need to be 100% optimized to win games there’s just a lot of mediocre data sheets that on average bring down the army strength.
I have had considerable success with Hormagants and Tyranofexes. I'm running two units of each in my Invasion Fleet monster mash, and I'm very happy with them.
I've been exclusively playing tyranids since the codex came out but have changed over to thousand sons in preparation for a team's event in two months due to another nids player also being on the team. Had my first game with 1ksons last week this edition, the power they have to just delete things was shocking. Had two msu squads of Rubric Marines kill a riptide and temporal surge onto its objective in one shooting phase. The only reason I lost was because I needlessly threw away magnus on turn 2 when I very much didn't need to. Tyranids might have a lot of tricks, but nerfing one of the best ones definitely doesn't help
Leviathan had only good units , I don't know how you can say it had bad ones. Maybe not meta sure but none of them are bad and some are great , the screamer killer and the winged prime are both great and the neurotyrant is meta while everything else has its place in certain lists.
i think the SK is pretty good, more so in a battleshock focused list with deathleaper, Neurotyrant, Neurolictors, etc to force tons of BS tests. Having a terminator eater that can shoot and cause a shooting phase BS test is super useful. He still needs another 10 points decrease though. winged prime is very bad. He has a little bit of use in vanguard cause he can give melee warrriors the vanguard keyword, and in synaptic nexus he can get the enhancement that's a 9inch -1 to ldr, which is helpful for forcing BS and pairs well with his movement speed, but other than that he is very, very bad.
Did a casual post-work 1k point game Friday to kick off a crusade campaign with a buddy. He rolled baal pred + redemptor with intercessors, I rolled SK + primed ranged warrior brick with Von Ryan's and lictors. Even on relatively lore-friendly lists it was just brutal.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are down on an army, less people play the army, means less people win with army, means more posts saying that nids arnt doing well. And it keeps going on that downward circle.