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.

I posted this for Las Vegas, but never got around to doing it for all three. This is the combined results for each army type in the GT circuit this year: Average battle points, standard deviation, total players

Black Templars.: 61 9.91 9
Blood Angels....: 55.8 10.4 10
Chaos Daemons: 68.8 13.2 17
CSM.................: 62.8 10.8 40
Daemonhunters.: 65.3 17.0 4
Dark Angels......: 50.1 10.4 16
Dark Eldar........: 54.3 20.1 4
Eldar................: 57.9 16.1 29
IG....................: 51.3 12.5 22
Necrons............: 57.6 10.5 7
Orks.................: 66.7 17.1 28
Space Marines...: 50.2 12.7 33
Space Wolves....: 53.2 12.6 9
Tau..................: 52.9 12.7 14
Tyranids...........: 59.5 12.8 19
Witch Hunters...: 66.7 15.6 11

All Armies: 58.11 14.4


Space Marines (and any codex that relies on C:SM) are a combination of 4e and 5e codex results I think, so I'll try to break that out later.

To me, it looks like little has changed since I did this for Vegas. Daemons, Orks, and the Inquisition are still head and shoulders above the other armies in tournament results. Chaos and Tyranids are above average, and pretty much everything else is average or well below.

Obviously I still don't think this means much...It's still a somewhat small sample size for some of the armies. But it's interesting. Some of the higher scoring armies scores may be skewed by the generals - I won't name names since I don't know enough top players to really cover it, but I recognize enough to say "hmm". But even if that was so...only three of the 28 Ork armies scored below 50 battle points. I think that says a lot. Witch hunters - only one below 50. Daemons: only 2. Only 9 orks and 4 Daemons scored below the average of 58 battle points (1/3 and 1/4, respectively)

One thing I love about these statistics is that with Chaos Daemons, even one standard deviation below (55.6) is better than the average for most armies. Orks have a larger spread, one SD below is 49.6...but that's still comparable to Marines/IG/DA's average over three tournaments.

Does anyone know if there are scores/statistics available for any of the other large circuit events since 5th edition came out? Preferably 4 or 5 game events.

Thanks for this. I really like this kinda stuff. the metagame is a very real thing for me.

Sorry to dumb down this thread but can you explain a bit more exactly what these numbers are next to the armies. I think I get what the first number is and the last one is pretty obvious. I'm going to go search 'standard deviation' on wikipedia, maybe you could help me out while I'm doing that?

edit again: ok back from wikipedia. I think I get your numbers for the most part.

It looks like CSM are a nice solid tourney force. A big sample set with a small standard deviation, and an average battle score comfortably above the average.

demons didn't have tons of players, but those numbers are truly impressive. The list of people I have to say "told you so..." to is vast.

Witch hunters gets my vote for most surprising solid consistent performance.

space wolves get my vote for surprise under performing army. One would think with the massive buff counterattack got, large choppy space marine units with run and with good cover saves should have done better. I found hordes of bloodclaws very difficult for my ork army to crack.

and tyranids seem to be the measuring stick... very close to average battle points, very close to average standard deviation, decent population.


thanks again for this crunchiness..

thanks for this, is pretty nice to see how all the numbers pan out in an over view
alot of poor neglected armies about now :(

Standard Deviation is a measure of variability. Higher SD = more variability.

Assuming Scores are distributed normally in a Bell Curve, then you'd expect 68% of results to be within one standard deviation higher or lower than the average, and 95% to be within 2 standard deviations higher or lower.

Taking CSM as an example, their average is 62.8 and their StDEV is 10.8. So 64% of their results would be between 52 and 73.6, and 95% of them would be between 41.2 and 84.4. CSM have a pretty low variability, partly due to the larger sample size I'm sure.

Orks on the other hand are Average 66.7 and StDEV 17.1. 64% of them end up between 49.6 and 83.8. 95% of them end up between 32.5 and...100.9 (Hah). Much Larger variability, even with a large sample - largely due to a few outliers (100, 100, 98 Battle scores, the winners of all three tourneys).

Normally I'd do this and do things like drop the highest/lowest numbers, but I don't really think that makes sense given the small sample sizes and the fact that the rules prevent any really ridiculous outliers. I'm not sure the distribution is a Bell Curve though - Since they give bonus battle points for different things each battle coul be worth more than 20 total points, hence the general average of 58. Also, I think you're capped at 100 battle points? I'm not sure I've never played ina GT. Anyway the point is the numbers are slightly skewed, but still useful.

Some more stats: Max/Min Battle points per Army

Black Templars.: 73/43
Blood Angels....: 72/41
Chaos Daemons: 89/44
CSM.................: 81/27 (big outlier - next is 40)
Daemonhunters.: 77/40 (another outlier)
Dark Angels......: 71/36
Dark Eldar........: 82/34 (Dark eldar are all over)
Eldar................: 87/20
IG....................: 71/33
Necrons............: 73/45
Orks.................: 100/32
Space Marines...: 71/15 (Lowest score I found)
Space Wolves....: 71/31
Tau..................: 75/29
Tyranids...........: 81/40
Witch Hunters...: 83/31 (52 is next lowest for WH)

The only army to have any scores over 90 is orks, who did it 4 times (100, 98, 94, 92)

I'd love to see some graphics.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'd love to see some graphics.

G

I'd be happy to oblige.

If only I had my ingrams reburished.

G

my 78 battle points from Baltimore look good now If only I didn't lose to Moz there... I could have finished in the 90s...


Mass-radius relation for neutron stars... Olympia you surprise me. I didn't know you liked Physics

whats the z = 0.35? mean? I'm not sure I understand the significance of this in your graphic

this is much easier to understand ;p

frgsinwntr wrote: my 78 battle points from Baltimore look good now If only I didn't lose to Moz there... I could have finished in the 90s...


Mass-radius relation for neutron stars... Olympia you surprise me. I didn't know you liked Physics

whats the z = 0.35? mean? I'm not sure I understand the significance of this in your graphic

this is much easier to understand ;p

z = 0.35 illustrates the mass-radius constrain from the XMM-Newton measurement of redshifted absorption lines in the neutron star.

I assume the green line is expected ork wins, and the other lines are expected other codexes wins as the amount of Nobz on bikes with different weapons approaches 20.

lambadomy wrote:I assume the green line is expected ork wins, and the other lines are expected other codexes wins as the amount of Nobz on bikes with different weapons approaches 20.

well done sir!

As for real graphics, I assumed that request was a troll, but I can put together some charts if I had any idea what kind of information to put on them. A bar graph of average scores+two standard deviations? I'd love it if the battle scores came with actual game records so I could put together expected win %s for each army, though I guess I could figure that out just from battle points.

lambadomy wrote:I assume the green line is expected ork wins, and the other lines are expected other codexes wins as the amount of Nobz on bikes with different weapons approaches 20.

That got a chuckle out of me.

I think Daemonhunters is a definite outlier - since there's only 4 players total, we can likely assume that they're good players to have average scores that high. That's also assuming that there's no duplication in the players between tournaments. It's more likely that only capable players will actually use Daemonhunters in a GT setting.

I'm not surprised about Orks and Daemons scoring high, people still haven't figured out how best to play against these codexes that are above-average in strength. WH, especially mech sisters, got a boost in about every way with 5ed. The rest of the pack are doing average, but some armies get dragged down by their popularity among average to poor players.

I think the Tau being low is a combination of popularity (at least around here, they seem to have a lot of players), and the fact that most of their stuff got significantly downgraded/'nerfed' by 5th Edition.

And yeah, did you allow for the same players playing the same armies at multiple events for these numbers? Someone like Deadshane's Daemonhunters could skew the results for that army.

Shep wrote:space wolves get my vote for surprise under performing army. One would think with the massive buff counterattack got, large choppy space marine units with run and with good cover saves should have done better. I found hordes of bloodclaws very difficult for my ork army to crack.

I think a lot of people are still playing 4th edition space wolf lists. Also, they suffer in being more expensive per model than codex space marines. There's some good fifth edition builds, but I think it generally involves LR-spam with BCs or Terminators. Drop pods work, but I don't like them as much in fifth as I did in Fourth.

As for real graphics, I assumed that request was a troll, but I can put together some charts if I had any idea what kind of information to put on them.

Histogram for each army would be the most informative for the math layman I would think. I did something similar for GT season 05 (or 6, hazy now lol).

Kind of a dead thread but didn't think this warranted making a fresh one. I did start making a histogram -- I may post one up as well but for giggles I wanted to see where each army ended up as far as competitive scores. The average and SD doesn't really give that picture as well.

So for giggles, below is some stats from the 3 GTs of 08. I won't call this definitive and the data is certainly skewed a bit (eg. the know top players knowingly gravitated to orks and chaos this year, many top players go to several events, actual lists used is unknown).

I've broken this down based on a Battle score of greater then 70. Not an arbitray score -- top 10% overall in each Tournament ranged between 71 and 100. 16% of the 331 'players' fell into this bracket. I also don't count this as any way to really rank lists, just an indicator of potential. Some of the armies lack a decent sample size but I think we still get some usefull info from this exercise (it was interesting to me anyways).

Anyways for your amusement.