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.

2020 data is available. How are things measuring up after CA and some prominent PA books? Bear in mind these results include whatever soup in assisting them.

Based on this outlook things are moving in the proper direction. Legions are seeing more play and are more successful (poor WE though). IH have slipped slightly from their hill while RG and IF consume some of that ground. Custom CW (and Eldar in general) have slipped to a more reasonable level, but Ynnari is still in the pits.

Of course all the data comes with the usual caveats that we can't measure, so this is directional, but not the whole picture.

What do you think of the results so far?


REVISING - bear with me

I think that those results really don't mean jack unless you live & play Tourney Hammer and attend the events where those stats are pulled from.
Wich most of you don't.

So a bunch of fretting about crap that doesn't reflect the reality of how/where you actually play.

ccs wrote:
I think that those results really don't mean jack unless you live & play Tourney Hammer and attend the events where those stats are pulled from.
Wich most of you don't.

So a bunch of fretting about crap that doesn't reflect the reality of how/where you actually play.

to an extent, but let me say playing some armies like my speed freeks orcs vs the space marine codex feel like i am playing a different game. they can literally often shoot everything i have off the table before I can get into combat and we play with terrain heavy tables. same when i break out the space clowns or custodes (custodes less so than clowns or orks).

note i can bring my renegade knights or space marines and really have a close game or fairly good chance of winning.

ERm, what format are we talking about daedalus?
That HAS an impact-.

Also i second G00fy Smiley, Non PA armies feel allready rather ridiculous comparatively to PA armies.
ANd supplement Marines are a level above that nonsense.

Honestly, when you play just without the mainline Marine supplement books, the game feels a lot better. I can't say 100% why though as of yet.

ccs wrote:
I think that those results really don't mean jack unless you live & play Tourney Hammer and attend the events where those stats are pulled from.
Wich most of you don't.

So a bunch of fretting about crap that doesn't reflect the reality of how/where you actually play.

Yeah, in casual clubs where nobody was playing heavy soup allies anyway and all the buffs marines got for the high price of not bringing the allies nobody was bringing in the first place, the situation is much, much worse.

We have had multiple marine players either shelve them temporarily or willingly give up supplement content because they hadn't lost a single game except against other marine players since the edition dropped.

But hey, look at those deck chairs a-rearrangin' in the competitive scene! IH down a whole couple percentage points while IF are up! Wowzers! Such meta! Very solve itself!

Also I wonder if BT jumping up to Iron Hands levels of winrate will stop people from constantly bringing them up as the example of "not all chapters".

So are these results for tournaments using ITC or CA missions? A mix? Any data on who's souping and what with? I'd personally like to know if any Night Lords detachments are sneaking into those csm lists. The stuff we got in pa certainly makes us more viable. Vox scream in particular helps against sm as most builds rely on chapter master reroll auras. (Though not ih usually. Fething super doctrine).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that those results really don't mean jack unless you live & play Tourney Hammer and attend the events where those stats are pulled from.
Wich most of you don't.

So a bunch of fretting about crap that doesn't reflect the reality of how/where you actually play.

Yeah, in casual clubs where nobody was playing heavy soup allies anyway and all the buffs marines got for the high price of not bringing the allies nobody was bringing in the first place, the situation is much, much worse.

We have had multiple marine players either shelve them temporarily or willingly give up supplement content because they hadn't lost a single game except against other marine players since the edition dropped.

But hey, look at those deck chairs a-rearrangin' in the competitive scene! IH down a whole couple percentage points while IF are up! Wowzers! Such meta! Very solve itself!

Also I wonder if BT jumping up to Iron Hands levels of winrate will stop people from constantly bringing them up as the example of "not all chapters".

Yeah the rules disparity can definitely be worse in a casual setting where everyone isn't bringing optimized non fluffy lists. As that's my preference it really makes me want to smack the gw rules writers more. (That's a joke btw).

I'd guess the bt numbers are a statistical anomaly. If this data only includes a couple bt lists and they both did well then that would throw the numbers off.

Whoa! Just noticed the disparity in number of games. Ih is at least double of any other faction. Now that's diversity right there.

ccs wrote:
I think that those results really don't mean jack unless you live & play Tourney Hammer and attend the events where those stats are pulled from.
Wich most of you don't.

So a bunch of fretting about crap that doesn't reflect the reality of how/where you actually play.

This data is from a pool of over 27,000 games across 5 months.

The game does not change so significantly that these are not directional indications of the health of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:


But hey, look at those deck chairs a-rearrangin' in the competitive scene! IH down a whole couple percentage points while IF are up! Wowzers! Such meta! Very solve itself!

Marines haven't been addressed. That other factions have improved is promising.

Also unless I missed it, GSC aren't in that list.

Is that win rate or attendance rate? As others have said, what tournament rules are used for these results.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
So are these results for tournaments using ITC or CA missions? A mix? Any data on who's souping and what with? I'd personally like to know if any Night Lords detachments are sneaking into those csm lists. The stuff we got in pa certainly makes us more viable. Vox scream in particular helps against sm as most builds rely on chapter master reroll auras. (Though not ih usually. Fething super doctrine).

Here you go (Jan/Feb) - oddly enough it seems like Night Lords are very keen on just one detachment. Missions are a mix, but will lean heavy on ITC.

Is this the 40kstats data? Since they got explicitly called out, what have you got on Black Templates? Is it still sub-10 sample size like in December?

EDIT: Never mind, just saw, 23 is obviously higher than 10.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is this the 40kstats data? Since they got explicitly called out, got anything on Black Templars or is it still sub-10 sample size like in December?

Their data - my database, which gives me a bit more control. BT have a very low game count. Four players - three of them at LVO. No soup.

Black Templars
Sep/Oct: 56 Games - 32.1%
Nov/Dec: 32 Games - 31.2%
Jan/Feb: 23 Games - 65.2%

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is this the 40kstats data? Since they got explicitly called out, got anything on Black Templars or is it still sub-10 sample size like in December?

Their data - my database, which gives me a bit more control. BT have a very low game count. Four players - three of them at LVO. No soup.

Black Templars
Sep/Oct: 56 Games - 32.1%
Nov/Dec: 32 Games - 31.2%
Jan/Feb: 23 Games - 65.2%

Anyone have the list?

I wonder if it is doing the BT tricks with LRC? or their chaplain abilities?

So it's still a statistical outlier with almost no players? What was their performance like in LVO?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So it's still a statistical outlier with almost no players? What was their performance like in LVO?

83% / 66% / 66%

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So it's still a statistical outlier with almost no players? What was their performance like in LVO?

Totally an outlier. BT should have a UM/Salamander type WR. It would be interesting to know what the best BT army took.

Alternatively, BT really are that powerful and need nerfs, everyone was just too blinded by the Iron Hands hotness to notice. Needs more data.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
So are these results for tournaments using ITC or CA missions? A mix? Any data on who's souping and what with? I'd personally like to know if any Night Lords detachments are sneaking into those csm lists. The stuff we got in pa certainly makes us more viable. Vox scream in particular helps against sm as most builds rely on chapter master reroll auras. (Though not ih usually. Fething super doctrine).

Here you go (Jan/Feb) - oddly enough it seems like Night Lords are very keen on just one detachment. Missions are a mix, but will lean heavy on ITC.

Thanks Daedalus81. So I guess it isn't just the legion that doesn't play well with others but the players too. Yay! It's not just me!

Which I think puts a point to the argument that many csm players don't like playing soup like gw seems to think we should. I'll shut up about that now back to the analysis of the data.

Any info on the lists? Guessing lots of warp talons. Possibly plasma termis? They work incredibly well with "prey on the weak " for me.

No army should have to soup to be competitive. That has been a flaw in the game from the start. Rewards for playing mono codex are a good thing. Just too extreme in the case of Ironhands.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So it's still a statistical outlier with almost no players? What was their performance like in LVO?

83% / 66% / 66%

Sorry ignore this - it was Cheema and the data linked back to his old LVO. The data lacks a distinctive ID so I matched on name, tournament, and faction. Let me circle back on these numbers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
*sigh* - ok made an ID based on name, tournament, player, and date. Some changed - some did not - mostly BT and UM went down. BT just too small a set of games.

Custom CW
Sep/Oct: 18 Games - 38.9%
Nov/Dec: 290 Games - 62.4%
Jan/Feb: 469 Games - 53.3%

BT
Sep/Oct: 56 Games - 32.1%
Nov/Dec: 32 Games - 31.2%
Jan/Feb: 11 Games - 54.5%

UM
Sep/Oct: 666 Games - 50.5%
Nov/Dec: 334 Games - 48.8%
Jan/Feb: 200 Games - 45.0%

IH
Sep/Oct: 686 Games - 67.3%
Nov/Dec: 752 Games - 65.7%
Jan/Feb: 842 Games - 63.3%

RG
Sep/Oct: 320 Games - 53.4%
Nov/Dec: 452 Games - 54.9%
Jan/Feb: 368 Games - 58.4%

IF
Sep/Oct: 141 Games - 58.9%
Nov/Dec: 327 Games - 54.1%
Jan/Feb: 332 Games - 57.2%

============================

AL
Sep/Oct: 123 Games - 41.5%
Nov/Dec: 75 Games - 49.3%
Jan/Feb: 333 Games - 48.9%

NL
Sep/Oct: 11 Games - 9.1%
Nov/Dec: 15 Games - 60.0%
Jan/Feb: 130 Games - 46.2%

IW
Sep/Oct: 20 Games - 40.0%
Nov/Dec: 27 Games - 29.6%
Jan/Feb: 146 Games - 52.1%

WE
Sep/Oct: 99 Games - 39.4%
Nov/Dec: 55 Games - 40.0%
Jan/Feb: 39 Games - 28.2%

WB
Sep/Oct: 5 Games - 20.0%
Nov/Dec: 10 Games - 10.0%
Jan/Feb: 97 Games - 53.6%

BA
Sep/Oct: 195 Games - 40.5%
Nov/Dec: 136 Games - 39.0%
Jan/Feb: 180 Games - 48.9%

 Xenomancers wrote:
No army should have to soup to be competitive. That has been a flaw in the game from the start. Rewards for playing mono codex are a good thing. Just too extreme in the case of Ironhands.

I would love some armies to be more fleshed out. Codex Custodes should have been talons of the emperor with sisters of Silence and possibly inquisitors. Unfortunately in the current form Custodes, sisters of silence, sisters of battle, knights, harliquins, Ynarri, and to an extent mechanicus seem to have been factions designed around soup and allies.

Honestly I woudl liek to see some things added to books even where multiple entries might exist for the same units depending on where they are assigned Like a Guardsman in a custodes army might lose orders but gain better equipment or just different rules.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Thanks Daedalus81. So I guess it isn't just the legion that doesn't play well with others but the players too. Yay! It's not just me!

Which I think puts a point to the argument that many csm players don't like playing soup like gw seems to think we should. I'll shut up about that now back to the analysis of the data.

Any info on the lists? Guessing lots of warp talons. Possibly plasma termis? They work incredibly well with "prey on the weak " for me.

Hang tight - fixing. There is soup. My bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No army should have to soup to be competitive. That has been a flaw in the game from the start. Rewards for playing mono codex are a good thing. Just too extreme in the case of Ironhands.

That's something we can definitely agree on Xeno.

So these revised numbers seem to show that nl are right there with the "superior " al. And without souping. Still I wonder if the reliance on one detachment is a factor. Would love to see those top three nl lists. Anybody know a link? All I can find for LVO lists is aos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Thanks Daedalus81. So I guess it isn't just the legion that doesn't play well with others but the players too. Yay! It's not just me!

Which I think puts a point to the argument that many csm players don't like playing soup like gw seems to think we should. I'll shut up about that now back to the analysis of the data.

Any info on the lists? Guessing lots of warp talons. Possibly plasma termis? They work incredibly well with "prey on the weak " for me.

Hang tight - fixing. There is soup. My bad.

Well damn.

There goes my party.

the_scotsman wrote:
But hey, look at those deck chairs a-rearrangin' in the competitive scene! IH down a whole couple percentage points while IF are up! Wowzers! Such meta! Very solve itself!

Also I wonder if BT jumping up to Iron Hands levels of winrate will stop people from constantly bringing them up as the example of "not all chapters".

This comment is so on the money it might as well be a bank.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No army should have to soup to be competitive. That has been a flaw in the game from the start. Rewards for playing mono codex are a good thing. Just too extreme in the case of Ironhands.

I would love some armies to be more fleshed out. Codex Custodes should have been talons of the emperor with sisters of Silence and possibly inquisitors. Unfortunately in the current form Custodes, sisters of silence, sisters of battle, knights, harliquins, Ynarri, and to an extent mechanicus seem to have been factions designed around soup and allies.

Honestly I woudl liek to see some things added to books even where multiple entries might exist for the same units depending on where they are assigned Like a Guardsman in a custodes army might lose orders but gain better equipment or just different rules.

My mate has hope that Custodians will get an update in PA as well. Custodians basically suffer from the fact they don't have an army trait. The +1 to invune save is baked into their cost.

I think I get the jist of what you are saying. Custodians should never have been a stand alone army. They should be a special detachment.

Ugg. It's a messy format for data.

Bobkov was a NL possessed bomb, 60 cultists, Epitome, couple oblits, contemptor spread over those detachments among other things.
Morosoli was PBs, TS Supreme, and then a DP, jump lord, and 8 termies as NL.
Huebscher is the guy with 3 KLoS with a NL Smash Cap and Heldrake.
Christensson was Host Raptorial, 2 Smash, 30 Cultists, 19 Talons, CP Battery, Havocs, 2 Scorpius, and 3 Oblits

You do good work, Daedalus

While this is pretty cool, it still looks like a dataset where you have 1 faction out of 20 both massively overrepresented in player count and still performing in terms of winrate.

Sure, UM and Salamanders appear to be pulling poor winrates, but what you don't see is the substandard chapter tactics for any other faction, because they aren't some ludicrous fraction of the player pool like SM are.

In a non-SM faction, you see what happens when people choose theme over in-game power.

World Eaters: 20% winrate.

Those numbers for Drukhari, Necrons, Sisters...you can safely substitute those names for whatever the "Iron Hands" equivalent subfaction is for those factions. That's the best they can bring, and for most of them you need to look at the player pool that willingly picked the fourth or fifth best chapter of Space Marines to see equivalent winrates.

All the people who are power players, who always bring the best subfaction and have their marines painted purple? They're not playing UM, they're all playing IH, IF, RG, whatever they think will win them games.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ugg. It's a messy format for data.

Bobkov was a NL possessed bomb, 60 cultists, Epitome, couple oblits, contemptor spread over those detachments among other things.
Morosoli was PBs, TS Supreme, and then a DP, jump lord, and 8 termies as NL.
Huebscher is the guy with 3 KLoS with a NL Smash Cap and Heldrake.
Christensson was Host Raptorial, 2 Smash, 30 Cultists, 19 Talons, CP Battery, Havocs, 2 Scorpius, and 3 Oblits

Awesome work Daedalus81. Thanks again.

This just goes to show chaos only works as soup. Meanwhile marines can go pure and dominate. That's why marines ruin casual metas right now. If everyone goes for thematic fluffy lists marines start off on third base.

the_scotsman wrote:
While this is pretty cool, it still looks like a dataset where you have 1 faction out of 20 both massively overrepresented in player count and still performing in terms of winrate.

Sure, UM and Salamanders appear to be pulling poor winrates, but what you don't see is the substandard chapter tactics for any other faction, because they aren't some ludicrous fraction of the player pool like SM are.

In a non-SM faction, you see what happens when people choose theme over in-game power.

World Eaters: 20% winrate.

Those numbers for Drukhari, Necrons, Sisters...you can safely substitute those names for whatever the "Iron Hands" equivalent subfaction is for those factions. That's the best they can bring, and for most of them you need to look at the player pool that willingly picked the fourth or fifth best chapter of Space Marines to see equivalent winrates.

All the people who are power players, who always bring the best subfaction and have their marines painted purple? They're not playing UM, they're all playing IH, IF, RG, whatever they think will win them games.

Yea it is still a sour meta. I'm just happy that people are able to make some progress after their PA pops out. It seems to me that no matter how many PAs come out IH (and to a slightly lesser extent RG & IF) will dominate until they get smacked.

I don't know if GW can get it perfect in March, but all I know is they must try.