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.
Dudeface wrote: We've shown now by this point the main reason that Marines are winning and placing proportionately is more due to the doctrine changes than free stuff. Grey Knights aren't related to SM as a faction and do not benefit from doctrine changes, they operate fuctionally differently as noted.
The premise of the thread being followed shows Space Marines are now a contender but contrary to the initial theory are not curb stomping everyone with free stuff. Indeed some flavours of Marine struggle to break even at events it seems.
Sorry, how have you shown that?
Maybe I'm adopted less of a black and white interpretation - but the premise was that Marines would run away with tournaments. Clearly "run away with" is debatable - but they do seem to be the best performing faction. Now you can argue that in a balanced system, as the most played faction, they should perform the best. Which is reasonable enough. But the question is whether the alignment is there. Marines have usually been the most played faction - even when most recognised they weren't great.
The argument that say "per list" Guard are performing better is reasonable. And I think most would say Guard are also S-tier right now.
But I'm sort of struggling with this "Marines will be good" - "the data shows Marines very clearly are good" - "we have proven this is wrong, nothing to see here, move along."
I haven't Dysartes and Daed did the heavy lifting over the last few pages repeatedly. But the point was raised they would be dominating the meta, they're not, they're good but not meta defining. As you say by many metrics they're fairly balanced or at least proportional.
So the statement of them being meta dominating or defining has been proven wrong I think at this point. The fact Semper is throwing in GK as SM to try and emphasise their point and picking on some events more than others to show data bias isn't helping.
I think the thing Tyel is questioning - and I don't disagree with their position - is your statement that the changes to doctrines had more of an impact than the changes to upgrade costs.
Nothing I've done has looked at that at all, I've merely looked to see if statements about SM dominating the meta are true, as well as trying to provide a wider view than focusing on one specific faction (and its sub-factions).
We've seen other factions are (proportionally to entry at events) outperforming both Marines and the average, but Marines end up with more players across events.
It makes for an interesting dataset, even if it isn't the most fun to pull data out of.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/26 21:48:06
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Ah yes, my mistake, painting your minis grey makes them a completely different army than regular Space Marines. I mean...its no longer a Captain leading the army its a...*Checks notes* Ah yes, Brother-Captain. And its not a Librarian its a Brother Librarian. But the troops are 100% different right? I mean, they don't even have similar names and their statlines are totally different. I mean, a Tac Marine is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A1 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades and a Bolter. While the Grey Knights "Strike Squad" is M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 2W A3 LD7 3+ save and is equipped with Frag/krak grenades, Nemesis Force Sword and a Stormbolter. Huh...weird, those are fairly similar....They don't have the same vehicles though right? Like Land Raiders and their variants? or Stormraven/Talon/Hawks? and there is no way they all use Razorbacks and Rhinos right? I mean, I can keep being sarcastic as hell but the point is that they are just Space Marines with Grey armor and a few different rules/units/Names...kind of like how Blood Angels are just Space Marines painted red(and black) with a few different rules/units/names. They also got very similar treatment as far as free wargear. So we can continue to argue but the fact remains that they are functionally just another chapter of Space Marines. I had been lumping in Custards as well since they look the same and play along the same lines but I stopped including them since they didn't get all the same benefits as SM did in this update so i'll gladly reclassify them as SPEESE MEHREENS! +1.
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that every single Grey Knight is a Psyker? That literally every unit in a Greyknight army can both cast and deny psychic powers?
I let it go the first time I saw it because I assumed that the reason you were ignoring it was because it didn't have anything to do with the free stuff premise that is your primary point. But this particular quoted passage is just so condescending, and mentions so many other things that aren't related to the free stuff premise (similarities between stat lines or vehicles in the list for example), while COMPLETELY ignoring psychic issues that I had to say something.
The difference between a Captain and a brother captain isn't the word Brother; it that one is a psychic and the other is not, and it is beyond ridiculous that you are not mentioning this.
The difference between Tacs and a strike squad isn't stats: Strikes are psychic. Like, you get that, right?
Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
Maybe it's because I don't have the 9th ed GK dex yet, but every unit in the army has been psychic in every edition of the game in which GK have existed, so I don't think that's changed. I might be wrong on the termies too, because I'm not enough of a marine player that the 9th ed equipment options for terminator squads are committed to memory, but they're certainly marketed as either CC or Ranged whereas GK are clearly both.
Seriously, I'm just confused by the entire premise of the quoted passage.
Dysartes wrote: I think the thing Tyel is questioning - and I don't disagree with their position - is your statement that the changes to doctrines had more of an impact than the changes to upgrade costs.
Nothing I've done has looked at that at all, I've merely looked to see if statements about SM dominating the meta are true, as well as trying to provide a wider view than focusing on one specific faction (and its sub-factions).
We've seen other factions are (proportionally to entry at events) outperforming both Marines and the average, but Marines end up with more players across events.
It makes for an interesting dataset, even if it isn't the most fun to pull data out of.
That's a fair statement in and of itself, but the ability to sit in dev doctrine all game is a huge boon to ironhands in particular and conveniently the chosen chase for DA as well, which as noted are the largest represented and also generally seem to be placing at least as well. There was a breakdown on the free points for some winning lists a few pages back and the IH list in question didn't have that much free stuff and the DA even less. They're leveraging rules changes more than the points seemingly.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Yeah, because these legions all operate in completely different ways, unlike loyalists which are mostly the same deal
They really don't, and the 7th edition Legion supplement was proof that you can have them all in the same codex instead of these pretend differences where you lose half your options and gain like 3.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Yeah, because these legions all operate in completely different ways, unlike loyalists which are mostly the same deal
They really don't, and the 7th edition Legion supplement was proof that you can have them all in the same codex instead of these pretend differences where you lose half your options and gain like 3.
And what is better can you imagine that it is true for non loyalist marines too. GW litteraly wrote a DG, 1ksons and WE book too. Mindblowing.
Yeah, because these legions all operate in completely different ways, unlike loyalists which are mostly the same deal
The army I like has totally different subfactions as opposed to their mirror army which doesn't.
Chaos and Loyalist can and should easily be handled the same way. If they want to run a Codex for each subfaction, go for it. If they want to do one Codex and a bunch of supplements it works for both. Not that hard to put a blurb at the beginning of the datasheets saying Black Templars/Death Guard armies cannot take Librarians/Havocs.
PenitentJake wrote: Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
They get chain fists, cyclone missile launchers and storm bolters, pretty synonymous with nemesis Daemon hammers, storm bolters and psycannons. Grey Knights having psychic powers isn't really different from fielding an Iron Hands list with Tacs spamming free gear and taking an infiltrating Blood Angels list with the infiltrating Troops. I'd still say BA+IH one thing and GK is another in terms of looking at stats because the points and secondaries are divorced, you wouldn't want undercosted Nemesis Dreadknights infiltrating the SM data or overcosted SMHQs infiltrating the GK data or anything of the sort. While we might see similar things in terms of removal of pts costs for options, we're seeing that across non-MEQ armies as well so it's not fair to use that as a point of comparison to lump the two factions in together. Grey Knights transports aren't psykers sadly, I think they should be again, their Rhinos and Flyers are pretty boring, you're playing GK because you want to play the psychic Daemon hunter faction. The moment you include units that don't play into a faction's theme you risk them getting too good and being spammed, thereby ruining the theme you're trying to create for the faction.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/27 04:49:24
PenitentJake wrote: Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
They get chain fists, cyclone missile launchers and storm bolters, pretty synonymous with nemesis Daemon hammers, storm bolters and psycannons. Grey Knights having psychic powers isn't really different from fielding an Iron Hands list with Tacs spamming free gear and taking an infiltrating Blood Angels list with the infiltrating Troops. I'd still say BA+IH one thing and GK is another in terms of looking at stats because the points and secondaries are divorced, you wouldn't want undercosted Nemesis Dreadknights infiltrating the SM data or overcosted SMHQs infiltrating the GK data or anything of the sort. While we might see similar things in terms of removal of pts costs for options, we're seeing that across non-MEQ armies as well so it's not fair to use that as a point of comparison to lump the two factions in together. Grey Knights transports aren't psykers sadly, I think they should be again, their Rhinos and Flyers are pretty boring, you're playing GK because you want to play the psychic Daemon hunter faction. The moment you include units that don't play
into a faction's theme you risk them getting too good and being spammed, thereby ruining the theme you're trying to create for the faction.
I have to wonder how long Grey Knights will be a stand-alone faction. I think they're trying to go away from the Preferred-Enemy type stuff. They've reshuffled the Legion vs Legion/Chapter stuff in recent fluff (Bobby G was the only Loyalist around, but instead of Word Bearers we saw TSons, and DG. When Nids struck it was at Baal not Ultramar. We didn't see UM get a Necron Hunters Elite unit. Crimson Fists no longer hate Orks quite as much. DTTFE may be the last hold out there. It may also be one of the few Codex last written before that stuff started moving to Strats where they fit better. Deathwatch may get a little more slack with a half dozen or so XENOS compared to two CHAOS - and with their special sauce not being specifically XENOS but Pick a Datasheet Category stuff. Maybe GK get a more generic ruleset to go with their more specific fluff, or maybe they become Agents of the Imperium where all the red headed stepchildren go when there isn't a narrative preset going on.
PenitentJake wrote: Non-GK termies don't get BOTH a Storm Bolter and a close combat option, right? Like you take assault termies OR ranged termies and not both?
They get chain fists, cyclone missile launchers and storm bolters, pretty synonymous with nemesis Daemon hammers, storm bolters and psycannons. Grey Knights having psychic powers isn't really different from fielding an Iron Hands list with Tacs spamming free gear and taking an infiltrating Blood Angels list with the infiltrating Troops. I'd still say BA+IH one thing and GK is another in terms of looking at stats because the points and secondaries are divorced, you wouldn't want undercosted Nemesis Dreadknights infiltrating the SM data or overcosted SMHQs infiltrating the GK data or anything of the sort. While we might see similar things in terms of removal of pts costs for options, we're seeing that across non-MEQ armies as well so it's not fair to use that as a point of comparison to lump the two factions in together. Grey Knights transports aren't psykers sadly, I think they should be again, their Rhinos and Flyers are pretty boring, you're playing GK because you want to play the psychic Daemon hunter faction. The moment you include units that don't play into a faction's theme you risk them getting too good and being spammed, thereby ruining the theme you're trying to create for the faction.
I have to wonder how long Grey Knights will be a stand-alone faction. I think they're trying to go away from the Preferred-Enemy type stuff. They've reshuffled the Legion vs Legion/Chapter stuff in recent fluff (Bobby G was the only Loyalist around, but instead of Word Bearers we saw TSons, and DG. When Nids struck it was at Baal not Ultramar. We didn't see UM get a Necron Hunters Elite unit. Crimson Fists no longer hate Orks quite as much. DTTFE may be the last hold out there. It may also be one of the few Codex last written before that stuff started moving to Strats where they fit better. Deathwatch may get a little more slack with a half dozen or so XENOS compared to two CHAOS - and with their special sauce not being specifically XENOS but Pick a Datasheet Category stuff. Maybe GK get a more generic ruleset to go with their more specific fluff, or maybe they become Agents of the Imperium where all the red headed stepchildren go when there isn't a narrative preset going on.
Until the game stops being made, there is too little overlap between the units available. SM cannot take Strike Squads, GK don't get Primaris. I think there needs to be a balance between "my faction re-rolls 1s to hit and to wound against my preferred enemy" and "it's not fun to have rules or options that aren't great against everything and everyone". Strats are a very uncomplicated and safe way to add thematic rules and have a tiny impact on matchup balance.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/02/27 05:18:03
Until the game stops being made, there is too little overlap between the units available. SM cannot take Strike Squads, GK don't get Primaris. I think there needs to be a balance between "my faction re-rolls 1s to hit and to wound against my preferred enemy" and "it's not fun to have rules or options that aren't great against everything and everyone". Strats are a very uncomplicated and safe way to add thematic rules and have a tiny impact on matchup balance.
Yeah I don't think GK get moved into the SM Codex. When I said I'm not sure they stick around as a Stand Alone, I meant they move to an Imperial Agents Codex with NAVIS, INQUISITORS and such designed more for Narrative than Pickup/Competitive. We didn't even see them on Baal or Vigilus.
Until the game stops being made, there is too little overlap between the units available. SM cannot take Strike Squads, GK don't get Primaris. I think there needs to be a balance between "my faction re-rolls 1s to hit and to wound against my preferred enemy" and "it's not fun to have rules or options that aren't great against everything and everyone". Strats are a very uncomplicated and safe way to add thematic rules and have a tiny impact on matchup balance.
Yeah I don't think GK get moved into the SM Codex. When I said I'm not sure they stick around as a Stand Alone, I meant they move to an Imperial Agents Codex with NAVIS, INQUISITORS and such designed more for Narrative than Pickup/Competitive. We didn't even see them on Baal or Vigilus.
Hmmm.....this presupposes a level of understanding of what a specific faction is supposed to do that I don't think the current 40k rules team considers. Maybe, start considering how the faction performs in "tournament play", instead? That does seem to be what they worry about, nowadays.
The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/27 05:41:34
PenitentJake wrote: The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense, having SoB and Grey Knights together does not. I think the way we have it currently is imperfect but as good as we can get it.
PenitentJake wrote: The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense, having SoB and Grey Knights together does not. I think the way we have it currently is imperfect but as good as we can get it.
Yeah, I certainly don't mind Deathwatch being a Supplement rather than a stand-alone dex. I like the addition of Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams, and I think they did a good job of making DW feel different than regular marines. It would be cool to have a few other unique Deathwatch units though, rather than relying so heavily on the Kill Team structure to provide the unique character of the faction. Not saying it's strictly necessary, just that it could be cool.
Another factor:
Sometime during the run of 10th, we're due for another 40k themed Warhammer Quest game, and if they gave it an Inquisition focus, the models could really round out the Retinue options for each of the <Ordos>. I foresee a common pool of 10 types of hench which any <Ordo> can take, and then one or two unique ones for each <Ordo>. This could also be done via Kill Team.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/27 06:15:46
PenitentJake wrote: The thing about Chambers Militant is that if you have even one of them, it doesn't make sense not to have all three. This is why even though I loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books, I feel the potential to get it right is far stronger and the picture is more complete with what we've got now.
A good Agents dex with a Chamber Militant rule that allows Ordos to ally with their respective Chambers is the best solution.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense, having SoB and Grey Knights together does not. I think the way we have it currently is imperfect but as good as we can get it.
Having Deathwatch with SM makes sense. Having Deathwatch with Ordo Xenos (pointing to Codex Space Marines) makes sense. Either would work. Having DW, GK, SOB, and all three Ordos in one Agents of the Imperium Codex capable of adding an Agent Unit, or running an all Agent Stand Alone with their Chamber also makes sense.
Dudeface wrote: That's a fair statement in and of itself, but the ability to sit in dev doctrine all game is a huge boon to ironhands in particular and conveniently the chosen chase for DA as well, which as noted are the largest represented and also generally seem to be placing at least as well. There was a breakdown on the free points for some winning lists a few pages back and the IH list in question didn't have that much free stuff and the DA even less. They're leveraging rules changes more than the points seemingly.
I'm not really sure how you separate them out.
I mean even say the DA lists can be down by quite a significant number of points.
The nearest I think to Semper's concept would be Brad Chester's Salamanders - who were second at Melee At Shiloh the weekend before last.
Eradicator Squad [14 PL, 270pts]: Melta rifle
. 3x Eradicator: 3x Bolt pistol
. Eradicator Sgt
. Eradicator with MM . Eradicator with MM
++ Total: [110 PL, 4CP, 2,000pts] ++
I don't want to be accused like Daed of misleading by making a mistake on the points - but as far as I can tell (and its not all that easy these days to check), that's quite a dramatic saving over the old points. 60 point saving Infiltrators. 60 points on Aggressors. 90 points on attack bikes. 45 on Land Speeders. 130 on the Devs. 20 on the Eradicators. 10 points on Vanguard Vets. 10 points on Vulkan. 15 on the Apothecary. 30 on Captain.
So in total: 470 point saving versus the previous seasons points. Not really surprising its a lot more effective.
I feel safe in saying 50 point MM attack bikes are ludicrous, and a lot of lists seem to be throwing in 6-9 of them.
Tyel wrote: The nearest I think to Semper's concept would be Brad Chester's Salamanders - who were second at Melee At Shiloh the weekend before last.
In his games he scored 100 / 93 / 73 / 100 / 100.
He lost to Daemons who also went 5-0, but scored 100 / 100 / 97 / 100 / 92.
Brad's weakest scoring game was against GSC. That GSC list was all infantry and bikes, which makes it harder to score this:
Score 2VP for each enemy unit that was destroyed as the result of an attack made with a Heavy or Grenade weapon by an ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit from your army while the Devastator Doctrine was active for your army.
Those Devs are 115 and 4(5) LC shots.
In the original codex that unit was 155 and a QLas Pred was 170. Neither saw play.
Then in 2021 they went to 155 and 155 respectively. The predator still saw no use and devs are too squishy at that cost, right? Certainly no one would take Devs in this scenario.
Fast forward to now. The predator who saw no play is now 135 - a modest 20 point discount. You can't make devastators 135, because they will again be too squishy for a comparable cost. Instead they sit at 115, which is a more fair cost.
An attack bike is very close to two lascannon shots except when within 12", but with shorter range overall. The extra AP is mostly negligible under dev doctrine. So when we have devastators firing 5 shots with some at BS2 for 115 and two bikes firing four shots at BS3 for 15 points less and no ablative models the cost also seems relatively fair.
In my opinion the real problem is the secondary that incentivizes taking heavy weapons over all others. People are only spamming these units, because it gets them points.
Unfortunately all these discounts can trigger the race to the bottom that we saw at the end of 8th. GW should keep the current parity, but raise points proportionally and take units off the table giving more space for units and less damage in general.
1st Place: Dark Angels (DeathWing)
2nd Place: Space Furries
3rd Place: Iron Hands
7th Place: Dark Angels
10th Place: Iron Hands.
Cherokee GT, 250+ players, massive event for competitive players. Marines swept the Podium. I don't have a subscription to Best Coast Pairing so if anyone wants to grab the lists I would appreciate it
1st Place: Dark Angels (DeathWing)
2nd Place: Space Furries
3rd Place: Iron Hands
7th Place: Dark Angels
10th Place: Iron Hands.
Cherokee GT, 250+ players, massive event for competitive players. Marines swept the Podium. I don't have a subscription to Best Coast Pairing so if anyone wants to grab the lists I would appreciate it
Across 4 50-100 player events, 4 top 5 places to marines, including 1 first place. Worth noting that 3 of those including the 1 win were at a US event. Maybe the entire marine situation is a US problem?
Daedalus81 wrote: In the original codex that unit was 155 and a QLas Pred was 170. Neither saw play.
Then in 2021 they went to 155 and 155 respectively. The predator still saw no use and devs are too squishy at that cost, right? Certainly no one would take Devs in this scenario.
Fast forward to now. The predator who saw no play is now 135 - a modest 20 point discount. You can't make devastators 135, because they will again be too squishy for a comparable cost. Instead they sit at 115, which is a more fair cost.
An attack bike is very close to two lascannon shots except when within 12", but with shorter range overall. The extra AP is mostly negligible under dev doctrine. So when we have devastators firing 5 shots with some at BS2 for 115 and two bikes firing four shots at BS3 for 15 points less and no ablative models the cost also seems relatively fair.
In my opinion the real problem is the secondary that incentivizes taking heavy weapons over all others. People are only spamming these units, because it gets them points.
I agree there are a number of issues with scoring that definitely favour certain factions, and certain builds. I've not really kept up with the 10th edition rumours, but I'd be surprised if faction secondaries survive any large scale purge. Its just too many moving parts.
But to sort of go on the Devs - I think 115 is fairly cheap for that package generally compared with similar units across other factions. I realise though comparing them to units people just do not run is a bit pointless.
But vs the attack bikes - I think there are some issues. For example, okay, Iron Hands don't care about jogging around to take a shot (and I guess situationally things like Ultramarines etc) - but other subfactions do. There are some terrain negatives on being a bike vs infantry - but M14" is more likely to let you move up the board and get LOS on something you want to shoot than M6". After turn 1 I feel you really shouldn't struggle to be in 12" if you want to be.
The thing about points comparisons is always rests on there being a sort of "par value". There was a moment when Ad Mech Las-Chickens were some of the best units in the game. Now an MM attack bike is 60%~ of the points? Same for a double bright lance war walker. Those units are quite a bit tougher than the bike - but I don't think that justifies this level of gap.
Yea there's certainly considerations to be made across an extremely wide array of variables, which is probably why everything seems like such a crap shoot so often.
It also depends on the opponent. I love facing attack bikes, because I can put anti-tank into them. Devastators in cover become more difficult depending on what anti-MEQ I have, if it can be in range, and if it can get through the cover bonus easily enough.
e.g. Demolisher can kill 1-2 bikes depending on luck and removing 2 to 4 shots from the table, but putting that into Devs I might kill one and it would be the sarge thereby removing no shots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/27 21:58:20
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Dysartes wrote: I'm just going to reiterate that top 10 is a silly metric for a tournament - depending on the size of the event, go with top 8 or top 16.
Go with top 8 then so instead of 5 of 10 including 1st-3rd its 4 of 8 including 1st-3rd
Point being that they did rather well for themselves at this event.
