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.

Played a bunch of games last week - the stand out two armies were necrons (infantry, crypteks and destroyers), and admech (cawl, dunecrawlers, triple-phos kastellans, knight, screening units).

Those two armies pretty much wrecked face.

I played Death Guard. It sucked.

So I can finally play my Eldar and Daemon armies without being TFG? Thank Ynnead

 Gunzhard wrote:

Blood Angels standing firm on that bottom tier ha. Well it is still early.

I would hardly say five Top 10 finishes and one Win outright in ten tournaments counts as bottom tier.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Blood Angels standing firm on that bottom tier ha. Well it is still early.

I would hardly say five Top 10 finishes and one Win outright in ten tournaments counts as bottom tier.

Not even in the listing he quoted were they bottom. But BA players gonna be BA players.

I'm not sure how much stock to put into any of this yet. People are still learning the game and adjusting to the new edition. I would wager many people were running their 7th ed lists in these events or testing theory.

I'm one of the 3 players who scored big with Scions. I took 2nd in a 14 player RTT.

A couple things I would note.
1) I played essentially my 7th ed list. (Minor change because I can't DS into flamer range, so I swapped a couple flamers for meltaguns, and added SB's to my Tauroxes). 7th ed lists for Scions work pretty well in 8th edition. I'd like to add a screen unit to the list, but I definitely benefited from my army still functioning in a similar way it did to the previous edition.
2) I didn't have a plasma command squad. I hear alot of talk about that as busted. I ran 2 Command squads, 1 was armed with Hot Shot Volley guns, and 1 with Meltaguns. 2 of my troop squads had 2 plasmaguns each.
3) Two of my games were extremely close, and could have gone either way depending on Dice. Grey Knights, and Craftworld + Harlies both gave me some trouble.
4) In light of the rules being so new, we played PL. Scions are extremely efficient when it comes to PL. If we had played points I would have had 1 fewer tauroxes, and several of my opponents might have had more in their army. I didn't attempt to game the PL at all, but was favored by it.

I think it is far to early to jump to conclusions based on these results. I did feel like my scions played easier vs the Field, but I also feel that Grey knigths, and Harlies also seemed to play easier.

 Purifier wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Blood Angels standing firm on that bottom tier ha. Well it is still early.

I would hardly say five Top 10 finishes and one Win outright in ten tournaments counts as bottom tier.

Not even in the listing he quoted were they bottom. But BA players gonna be BA players.

Just looking at what's provided here dude, where did you see "five Top 10 finishes"?

And in the list I quoted, sorted by points per player, they were in that bottom tier, I didn't even say they were last. Kind of a jerky response lol. Further the BA of the last two editions have been pretty weak regardless of whatever you think your opinion is.

I also agree, as I said, it's still early.

Waaaaaaaaay to small a sample size and variability to even pretend to make any kind of analysis.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Blood Angels standing firm on that bottom tier ha. Well it is still early.

I would hardly say five Top 10 finishes and one Win outright in ten tournaments counts as bottom tier.

Not even in the listing he quoted were they bottom. But BA players gonna be BA players.

Just looking at what's provided here dude, where did you see "five Top 10 finishes"?

And in the list I quoted, sorted by points per player, they were in that bottom tier, I didn't even say they were last. Kind of a jerky response lol. Further the BA of the last two editions have been pretty weak regardless of whatever you think your opinion is.

I also agree, as I said, it's still early.

I looked at the Google Doc provided by the OP to get my analysis and draw my conclusions. You can take a look for yourself if you want, but the raw data doesn't lie.

Blood Angels were amazing in 5th and very poorly served by 6th and 7th editions, but they seems to be making a very good showing in 8th so far.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Blood Angels standing firm on that bottom tier ha. Well it is still early.

And in the list I quoted, sorted by points per player, they were in that bottom tier,

This is what the bottom tier of the list you quoted looks like

32,5 Thousand Sons 1
32,5 Asuryani 1
32,5 Imperial Fists 1
31,7 Adeptus Costudes 1
31,3 Skitarii 1

It's even sorted into tiers if you look at it. If you want to start expanding tiers in order for your claim to work, that's very BA of you, and you're welcome to do so. I swear, if BA were second place, a BA player would divide the tiers into two tiers, top and bottom, where the top would be the only army doing better than BA, and then everyone else.

These forums have always had a lot of BA players that will turn any thread into "BUT WHAT ABOUT BA!"

For reference, I play Skitarii. See the name at the faaaaaaaaar bottom of the list? That one. And yet I wouldn't whine about a list like this because 1) it's far too early for anyone to have found "the right build" 2) the sample size is far too small and 3) I'm not a BA player.
It's an interesting list to see a sort of starting point, but to instantly start the whine requires a BA.

MaxT wrote:
Waaaaaaaaay to small a sample size and variability to even pretend to make any kind of analysis.

Exalted. We will have a much better understanding of the state of the game once the BAO data has been made available.

gungo wrote:
My guess is the mt nerf will be something like +1pt for plasmagun and +1pt per command squad. Not sure if 2ppm would stop the spam but it would alleviate the super efficiency of deep striking scion command plasma spam. 18ppm would still be really good efficiency for all but horde armies.

The most obvious fix is to limit this selection to 1 per detachment. It is a command squad.

I still think it's entertaining how this list compared with the "Tier Levels" thread that came out on the 15th.

As others have said, the sample size is still small, but the impressions and data seem to be diverging.

 Hollow wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Grey knights are wrecking face, maybe it's smite spam, I'll have to check. Whatever it is it's really working.

Draigo's re-roll bubble from hell.

Yes - and a ton of strike squads dropping 40 bolter shots turn 1 on whatever they please.

Are....are people taking this thread seriously? There's no major data here to work with. This is just local events with a good turnout. I think there's a 1k Point ITC event on Saturday in my Meta, I would draw zero conclusions from it and I'm not even attending because 1k Points isn't competitive. We won't have anything close to a big picture for months.

 Purifier wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Blood Angels standing firm on that bottom tier ha. Well it is still early.

And in the list I quoted, sorted by points per player, they were in that bottom tier,

This is what the bottom tier of the list you quoted looks like

32,5 Thousand Sons 1
32,5 Asuryani 1
32,5 Imperial Fists 1
31,7 Adeptus Costudes 1
31,3 Skitarii 1

It's even sorted into tiers if you look at it. If you want to start expanding tiers in order for your claim to work, that's very BA of you, and you're welcome to do so. I swear, if BA were second place, a BA player would divide the tiers into two tiers, top and bottom, where the top would be the only army doing better than BA, and then everyone else.

These forums have always had a lot of BA players that will turn any thread into "BUT WHAT ABOUT BA!"

For reference, I play Skitarii. See the name at the faaaaaaaaar bottom of the list? That one. And yet I wouldn't whine about a list like this because 1) it's far too early for anyone to have found "the right build" 2) the sample size is far too small and 3) I'm not a BA player.
It's an interesting list to see a sort of starting point, but to instantly start the whine requires a BA.

Huh wow, ok I see far less BA whining than most other armies - and that's going back to 2nd edition, but my opinion, like yours is just anecdotal. Still doesn't mean you aren't being TFG. I also said in the first post - it IS still early. Weird that you missed all of other 'whines' in the early thread. Just look in this forum - you have to go back 4 pages just to find one "but what about BA!" thread, among all of the rest of the whine posts.

And that list isn't even "sorted into tiers", it's just spaced out by number groupings 30's, 40's, 50's etc.

Even saying "5 in the top 10" is misleading given that some of those tournaments had like 12-14 people, and most were under 20... but again, I agree it's still early.

Metas are not defined over one weekend. The min/max tools and tiers will be more established come December or so.

I just wish we had lists to see what was actually winning or not. There is a big difference between "Tyranids are decent now!" and "Tyranids using only Dakkafexs with warriors is good!"

A skilled wargammer can figure a game out just by reading all the index and playing a few games to see rules in action. The meta is already defined by what is good and what is not good.

These results show that.

MSU Deep Strike
Hordes

That's that meta.

 labmouse42 wrote:
As others have said, the sample size is still small, but the impressions and data seem to be diverging.

Of course they are diverging. These results (although small and far from able to be conclusive) are based in reality. Opinions from that thread are butt-hurt moanings and groanings from a lot of people who haven't even played a game yet.

 Xenomancers wrote:
A skilled wargammer can figure a game out just by reading all the index and playing a few games to see rules in action. The meta is already defined by what is good and what is not good.

These results show that.

MSU Deep Strike
Hordes

That's that meta.

I disagree with your premise that a skilled wargamer can determine the meta by simply reading and playing a few games. IT assumes that there are not effective counter strategies to the above that will force the meta to evolve. Listening to the playtesters, it sounds like this was very much where they started as well, and then figured out how to counter these lists and that forced them to evolve.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I just wish we had lists to see what was actually winning or not. There is a big difference between "Tyranids are decent now!" and "Tyranids using only Dakkafexs with warriors is good!"

Gotta be quick, heading out to work, you can use best coast pairings app to look at army lists, I'll explain if necessary when i get home, but download the app go to current tournaments, and there are photos of each army list.

Also, yes small sample size, so some things are very likely to change, it's also why I didn't order by PPP, since many of the top armies had less than 5 fights so the potential for outliers is high.

Finally, speculating on motive could get me into trouble so I'll just stick with the facts, this kind of half fast analysis is necessary because of FLGs decision to keep 7th ed points for factions, which means there won't be a clear meta from their data until next year. I found Reece's explanation for such a decision less than satisfying so I went and hand scrapped the standings from the BCP site. It's a royal pain so if people want to help I would be much obliged, as I'm more of a DB and data guy than a web guy.

Breng77 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A skilled wargammer can figure a game out just by reading all the index and playing a few games to see rules in action. The meta is already defined by what is good and what is not good.

These results show that.

MSU Deep Strike
Hordes

That's that meta.

I disagree with your premise that a skilled wargamer can determine the meta by simply reading and playing a few games. IT assumes that there are not effective counter strategies to the above that will force the meta to evolve. Listening to the playtesters, it sounds like this was very much where they started as well, and then figured out how to counter these lists and that forced them to evolve.

There aren't effective counter strategies - that's why they are the go to armies that are winning. Anti infantry weaponry is super weak and striking first is always effective.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A skilled wargammer can figure a game out just by reading all the index and playing a few games to see rules in action. The meta is already defined by what is good and what is not good.

These results show that.

MSU Deep Strike
Hordes

That's that meta.

I disagree with your premise that a skilled wargamer can determine the meta by simply reading and playing a few games. IT assumes that there are not effective counter strategies to the above that will force the meta to evolve. Listening to the playtesters, it sounds like this was very much where they started as well, and then figured out how to counter these lists and that forced them to evolve.

There aren't effective counter strategies - that's why they are the go to armies that are winning. Anti infantry weaponry is super weak and striking first is always effective.

I disagree, the results remain to be seen. Due to restrictions on deepstrike it is somewhat trivial to only allow your opponent to target what you want them to, further playing the mission matters so the effectiveness of weapons is not always the most important factor. That said hordes are killable, and can be mitigated through some other tactics. Your reply is exactly what I mean we don't know how things will evolve, but counters do infact exist.

Sadly, I'm not surprised by these results.

Breng77 wrote:
further playing the mission matters

ITC uses only Eternal War missions, so they don't matter.

The only mission is kill more than you lose.

Every victory comes from tabling the loser or killing them down to not enough units to contest. The biggest place 8th has dropped the ball is not updating the standard missions.

I'm a little worried though even with this reassurance my actual friends in our local meta have reported getting tabled hard by ultramarines list with Big bobby G and the new primaris marine plasma rifles were countering crisis suits like crazy. I'm trying to get more info out of him, but it sounds like he went heavy crisis and large suits which would be a disaster in the current meta.

The variety happens every new edition.

Depending on how well GW does balancing we will see if this trend continues or not.

I think a ton of people are still learning how to use close combat in this edition and it's giving the shooting armies a pretty large advantage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

gungo wrote:
My guess is the mt nerf will be something like +1pt for plasmagun and +1pt per command squad. Not sure if 2ppm would stop the spam but it would alleviate the super efficiency of deep striking scion command plasma spam. 18ppm would still be really good efficiency for all but horde armies.

The most obvious fix is to limit this selection to 1 per detachment. It is a command squad.

A lot of armies have a command squad and none of them are limited. I wouldn't mind that rule however it's just not how they are trying to balance he game right now. Big issue will be scion command squads are just more efficient than scion squads since every model can be armed with a cheap plasma which deepstrike a right into rapid fire range.
Now cheap plasma is not just the only issue with scions. They could raise the cost of scion command models and plasmagun by 1pt each and scions will still be viable just maybe not spammed in most competitive imperial lists.

I'm not sold on conscripts being broken. They compare well to other horde shooty units like horrors and termagaunts. Scions however are just bad right now and I'm not sure how people can claim players just need to adjust. Even bubblewrapping gets hit hard by cheap accurate msu plasma. But as far as playtester rumours go scions are known and being adjusted.

Yeah, if the scions are a problem, it's because they are under cost, just increase their base cost per model. No need to modify plasma costs, since all units share that value.