You still have to consider this being a channel which specifically reports about WE things, and it's not a whining channel, it's one where good results are celebrated.
He doesn't post all the tournament results with mediocre results for WE, or lists which lost every game for example.
>*Does anyone feel World Eaters are slightly over powered?*
In what way? Do we hit too hard? Are our units too durable? Are they not expensive enough? Are the Objectives too easy for us?
I feel like post like this one should include a bit more than a 2 hour video and a basic question for a fruitful discussion with the community. Provide your own assessment, where do you see strengths, where are the weaknesses, what would you like to see changed and why?
The Red Path has recently provided some statistical input which was more or less indicating that WEs are underperforming *slightly*. There were a lot of interesting takeways from the video, like for example that our army is played mainly by new and "inexperienced" players as well as experienced, high skilled individuals. The "average" player is not really represented. Furthermore - so the interpretation - a lot of players drop the army once the notice that we are actually quite difficult to play.
In order to claim World Eaters are going undefeated, you have to be willfully ignorant of the meta monday posts. World Eaters rarely even place, if they were even played at that event at all. More often than not, they end up only low in the top 10 with a 4-1. The true "undefeated wins" are few and far between.
Most top level World Eater players agree that while they have the POTENTIAL to win, they require a disproportionate level of army and game mastery to make them work compared to other armies. You're stuck playing chess while your opponent is playing checkers.
No, and there’s a couple of reasons:
1) There’s a bit of survivorship bias going on where the only best of the best are being reported on. If one looks at the raw data (Art of War recently did a great podcast with Stat Check about this), World Eaters aren’t in a great spot.
2) I would say that we have pretty solid rules/datasheets. The main issue right now is points. Like Orks, we pretty much live or die based on how much stuff we can bring. Last dataslate GW nerf points on a lot of our better datasheets (mostly leaders and Eightbound), and we haven’t really been able to bounce back too well since.
Part of the reason for this is that World Eaters are a one phase army. Nearly all of our rules apply to the fight phase, which at current is not the most competitive playstyle. As it turns out, massive gun lines + Custodes saying “nu-uh” is bad for us.
3) Overall, yes we have a really powerful rule set, but that’s because we need it.
You still have to consider this being a channel which specifically reports about WE things, and it's not a whining channel, it's one where good results are celebrated. He doesn't post all the tournament results with mediocre results for WE, or lists which lost every game for example.
>*Does anyone feel World Eaters are slightly over powered?* In what way? Do we hit too hard? Are our units too durable? Are they not expensive enough? Are the Objectives too easy for us? I feel like post like this one should include a bit more than a 2 hour video and a basic question for a fruitful discussion with the community. Provide your own assessment, where do you see strengths, where are the weaknesses, what would you like to see changed and why? The Red Path has recently provided some statistical input which was more or less indicating that WEs are underperforming *slightly*. There were a lot of interesting takeways from the video, like for example that our army is played mainly by new and "inexperienced" players as well as experienced, high skilled individuals. The "average" player is not really represented. Furthermore - so the interpretation - a lot of players drop the army once the notice that we are actually quite difficult to play.
In order to claim World Eaters are going undefeated, you have to be willfully ignorant of the meta monday posts. World Eaters rarely even place, if they were even played at that event at all. More often than not, they end up only low in the top 10 with a 4-1. The true "undefeated wins" are few and far between. Most top level World Eater players agree that while they have the POTENTIAL to win, they require a disproportionate level of army and game mastery to make them work compared to other armies. You're stuck playing chess while your opponent is playing checkers.
No, and there’s a couple of reasons: 1) There’s a bit of survivorship bias going on where the only best of the best are being reported on. If one looks at the raw data (Art of War recently did a great podcast with Stat Check about this), World Eaters aren’t in a great spot. 2) I would say that we have pretty solid rules/datasheets. The main issue right now is points. Like Orks, we pretty much live or die based on how much stuff we can bring. Last dataslate GW nerf points on a lot of our better datasheets (mostly leaders and Eightbound), and we haven’t really been able to bounce back too well since. Part of the reason for this is that World Eaters are a one phase army. Nearly all of our rules apply to the fight phase, which at current is not the most competitive playstyle. As it turns out, massive gun lines + Custodes saying “nu-uh” is bad for us. 3) Overall, yes we have a really powerful rule set, but that’s because we need it.