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.

Didn't see a mention of it here yet, so I thought I'd drop a line that I've made a new take on the old placement lists I used to do. I got ahold of a data set that included secondary factions (and a wealth of other data), so I was able to put together a list of the flavors of soup that are dominating the Meta.

The list is located at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QMLDIaN6EW45bZwERoW4QsxstzQA1Ej1k-Pu1aWxp8I/edit#gid=1956883306

Hope you guys enjoy.

Wow thanks. I'm not really surprised by the faction line up. Except nids; how dominant were they for that 4 month span? Wow.

Thousand Sons OP. Please nerf.

Martel732 wrote:
Wow thanks. I'm not really surprised by the faction line up. Except nids; how dominant were they for that 4 month span? Wow.

I think we can thank spam for that period, and the rule of three for the ending of their reign of terror. I expect they will rise again when genestealer cults comes out.

I get that, but to STILL be that high? That's crazy dominant.

 Grimgold wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Wow thanks. I'm not really surprised by the faction line up. Except nids; how dominant were they for that 4 month span? Wow.

I think we can thank spam for that period, and the rule of three for the ending of their reign of terror. I expect they will rise again when genestealer cults comes out.

Still took second at socal, didn't they? And I think NN took second at Warzone Atlanta with Nids.

Nids don't suck. They just aren't killing everything with ease.

Of the monofaction (Necrons, orks, Tau, and yes I'm including tyranids) tyranids are upper middle of the pack, Tau are the best monofaction, and Necrons are arguably the worst. Tyranids still place behind the better flavors of the three soups (Imperium, chaos, and Eldar). Though that isn't really a mark against them given the soup flavors seem as broken as the big three were back in the late days of 7th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An interesting thing I noticed is that Ynnari soup wasn't all that high scoring, they did well certainly, but there were lots of soups that outscored them. This is despite being them being the top soup. Curious I decided to add the opponents victory points into the data, and it turns out that Ynarri are one of the best factions for denying your opponent victory points. So it makes me wonder, what are the best secondaries against Ynnari, because it seems like picking the correct secondaries against them could really up your chances against them.

I expected admech and knights to at least place a little bit better but no. Interesting how a guard detachment that was probably loyal 32 increased the win % by 39 for admech+knights and 50 for knights+admech.

bibotot wrote:
Thousand Sons OP. Please nerf.

Thousand Sons have a fair chance of being competitive in a soupless world, so when you give them access to a chaff unit they're not supposed to have things kinda get out of control.

Well at least we are better then renegade knights, even if it is a faction no body plays. yay, not the worst army in game.

This is great. Nice to see std dev baked into a data set up front. Thanks!

 Grimgold wrote:
Of the monofaction (Necrons, orks, Tau, and yes I'm including tyranids) tyranids are upper middle of the pack, Tau are the best monofaction, and Necrons are arguably the worst. Tyranids still place behind the better flavors of the three soups (Imperium, chaos, and Eldar). Though that isn't really a mark against them given the soup flavors seem as broken as the big three were back in the late days of 7th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An interesting thing I noticed is that Ynnari soup wasn't all that high scoring, they did well certainly, but there were lots of soups that outscored them. This is despite being them being the top soup. Curious I decided to add the opponents victory points into the data, and it turns out that Ynarri are one of the best factions for denying your opponent victory points. So it makes me wonder, what are the best secondaries against Ynnari, because it seems like picking the correct secondaries against them could really up your chances against them.

Been saying this forever. ITC is the ideal rule set for Ynnari (and in general for Aeldari factions), the secondaries were made to reward theyr specific style of play.

Spoletta wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Of the monofaction (Necrons, orks, Tau, and yes I'm including tyranids) tyranids are upper middle of the pack, Tau are the best monofaction, and Necrons are arguably the worst. Tyranids still place behind the better flavors of the three soups (Imperium, chaos, and Eldar). Though that isn't really a mark against them given the soup flavors seem as broken as the big three were back in the late days of 7th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An interesting thing I noticed is that Ynnari soup wasn't all that high scoring, they did well certainly, but there were lots of soups that outscored them. This is despite being them being the top soup. Curious I decided to add the opponents victory points into the data, and it turns out that Ynarri are one of the best factions for denying your opponent victory points. So it makes me wonder, what are the best secondaries against Ynnari, because it seems like picking the correct secondaries against them could really up your chances against them.

Been saying this forever. ITC is the ideal rule set for Ynnari (and in general for Aeldari factions), the secondaries were made to reward theyr specific style of play.

I agree with this also, i would love data on non-ITC missions, as the meta can be completely different.

I wish GW would come out with a tournament packet for themselves.

I've seen the data behind best coast pairings and can tell you that the analysis done here is

(a) with a flawed data set and
(b) not the real picture

Fun fact: if you plug nonsense data into excel you get nonsense data out. Gg

I think eldar are good at lots of mission types. Undercosted units usually are.

Marmatag wrote:I've seen the data behind best coast pairings and can tell you that the analysis done here is

(a) with a flawed data set and
(b) not the real picture

Fun fact: if you plug nonsense data into excel you get nonsense data out. Gg

What's the issue with the data set? Not pulling from a big enough pool or is it the way it looks at how the lists are written?

Martel732 wrote:I think eldar are good at lots of mission types. Undercosted units usually are.

Even if they weren't undercosted, any army that has ready access to flying units that can move over 40" a turn and hold objectives will do very well in any mission that requires taking/holding objectives. Eldar on a mechanical level will naturally excel there. It'd be like being surprised that IG did well at missions that only score points on the last turn, that's their whole bit, to grind the opponent down in a battle of attrition. If you make a mission packet designed to reward not giving the opponent points and being mobile, eldar will do well. You can up their points costs, but that doesn't change the fact that their units are still very powerful in that kind of environment.

I still feel like ITC does a better job than most. I like that they focus on damage and objectives equally and you can build an army to do one or the other. My only issue is some of their terrain rules and little things here and there but for the most part it works. You'd have to do some very weird stuff in a tournament to not benefit eldar somehow, and you'd still hurt other codexes worse.

I can't believe I'm defending eldar on here. Maybe I need to take a break

BA can field fast stuff, too. It just all sucks. If BA get better priced, will they be a problem, too?

I don’t think “rewarding objectives and damage equally” is a good thing for the game...at all. The BRB/CA missions are generally objective-based, with historically 1/6 of the missions being straight “kill the enemy”. 40K for most of the modern era has this been designed around objectives, with lethality being a means to the that end...not the end itself. In fact, the original push for alternative tournament missions came as a counter to armies that would simply blow you off the table. Under the current ITC Champions Missions, you can currently get 2/3 of the points in a game from killing stuff, and another 1/6 from sitting on a single objective...or 5/6 of the available points from sitting back and blowing your opponent off the table (or however your list likes to kill stuff). You also get max remaining points if you table...so why not simply tailor your list for maximum firepower?
Sure, you can also get 5/6 from holding objectives and killing one unit a turn, but the objectives secondaries are often more tricky to achieve and often are limited to 1 point per turn... so good luck if you get tabled by turn 3.

I like that no matter how dominant eldar soup or imperial knights are people want to nerf chaos. Good guys have to always win I guess.

 Marmatag wrote:
I've seen the data behind best coast pairings and can tell you that the analysis done here is

(a) with a flawed data set and
(b) not the real picture

Fun fact: if you plug nonsense data into excel you get nonsense data out. Gg

By "a flawed data set", do you mean any data set that disagrees with your preconceived notions of how balanced the game is?

Lemondish wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Wow thanks. I'm not really surprised by the faction line up. Except nids; how dominant were they for that 4 month span? Wow.

I think we can thank spam for that period, and the rule of three for the ending of their reign of terror. I expect they will rise again when genestealer cults comes out.

Still took second at socal, didn't they? And I think NN took second at Warzone Atlanta with Nids.

This is correct. I think they're a bit of a sleeper faction, and can certainly do some work in the post-BIG FAQ meta.

The lists look very high skill though, which is probably why you aren't seeing as much of them compared to some other lists. Played extremely well they can get to top table.

Am i correct in saying that according to this data, Tau are the best mono faction by a long shot?

Pure Dark Angels at only 9%

:(

Br0n50n wrote:
Am i correct in saying that according to this data, Tau are the best mono faction by a long shot?

Yes, but ig and eldar rarely participate as mono faction.

 Grimgold wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Wow thanks. I'm not really surprised by the faction line up. Except nids; how dominant were they for that 4 month span? Wow.

I think we can thank spam for that period, and the rule of three for the ending of their reign of terror. I expect they will rise again when genestealer cults comes out.

Nerfing the Flyrant by like 40+ points was what stopped Nids from being dominant. The rule of three is what took them from 'mediocre without flyrants' to 'What's a Tyranid?', Like it did with MOST of the armies that don't have soup options. The rule of 3 sucks and is a big part of why the top 30 armies, with 700 occurences between them, are all just slight variations on the same 4 lists.

 Marmatag wrote:
I've seen the data behind best coast pairings and can tell you that the analysis done here is

(a) with a flawed data set and
(b) not the real picture

Fun fact: if you plug nonsense data into excel you get nonsense data out. Gg

Ah marmatag have I ever had a parade you didn't want rain on? So as I said I pulled this data from 40k stats, which scrapes the data from BCP. The sql query I used to generate this data from the uploaded excel file is also in the sheet, which you can review if you like (i'm happy to explain it to you if you are not familiar with sql). So I have all my cards on the table, my source, my method, with detailed code to show you how it was generated.You've already been asked how is the data wrong, so let me politely add my voice to that request. Also if you have some special partnership with BCP as you imply, are you speaking officially on their behalf? If not, why is it you coming out here to say the data is wrong and not reecius, surely if i was incorrect about his data set he would vested interest in making sure his data set wasn't misrepresented?

Are *Pure Army Lists* for sure full mono faction armies. Seems a little wonky and I have a hard time accepting 1ksons being at the top there. Or where those two wins pre warptime nerf. I ask mainly just because the few ITC events I have been too just classified armys based on their highest points detatchment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh there were only 5 occurring 1ksons definately some scewed results there.

This looks like a single tournament. What tournament is it? That is really the flaw here. Where the gak is this data coming from?

it's not a single tournament, The date range is July 21st through October 27th.