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.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
+ + +
I count 8 new events on the Goonhammer top 4 page - I'll start taking a look at them this evening. Will see if I can get through the smaller events before I start work tomorrow, then the larger two (Southampton GT & FLG Rocky Mountain Open) after that.
If only I had given the entire range of information and explained my analysis and reasons for doing so while still providing the context and information which was omitted from the 2nd number given...oh wait....I did.
On one end of the spectrum you had the first place Marine player go undefeated and 4 others only have 1 loss , on the other end of the spectrum you had the bottom 5 players pulling in a grand total of 5 wins Combine the two and you have a W/L Ratio of 54.16% (One Marine player dropped after day 1). So on paper it looks good, 54% ratio is just about perfect, but once you dive in a little bit further you realize its the newbies pulling down the W/L ratio and if you remove the bottom 5 players, 3 of which won 1 game and 1 lost all 5, the W/L ratio for Marines is 67.5%
I can never tell if people just want to be rude or just can't read a statement without trying to turn it into a "GOTCHA!" moment.
Also, I ran the number crunch on IG for that same tournament (They had 11 players, grouped them top 5 and bottom 6) they finished 4th, 28th, 30th, 36th, 41st, 44th, 48th, 54th, 59th 63rd and 67th. The top 5 players had a W/L ratio of 56%, the bottom 6 finished with 34%. Compared to the Marine top 5 at 67.5% and the bottom 5 who had a W/L ratio of 21.7%.
Tau had 4 players they finished 2nd, 31st, 52nd and 55th. The top 2 Tau had a W/L ratio of 70% The bottom 2 Tau players had a 50% W/L Ratio, combined it was 61.1%, granted its a very low turnout for them and the 55th Tau player dropped after losing his 3rd game (Ironically to the Tau player who finished 2nd)
Semper I think the point was if you simply choose to omit the bottom 5 marines because you want to, it will skew the data. There's nothing honest or surprising about showing that if you discredit the worst performing players, the rest comparatively perform better.
The point I was making is that NEWBIES are dragging down the Marine number. Which is why I even dived into players.
The top 5 Marine Players who won at Dicehammer.
1st Place: Kevin Roach, 804th place worldwide: 1st recorded GT of 2023 3rd Place Stephen Corrales: Ranked 2nd In the world. 5th Place: Mike McTyre: 228th 6th Place: Dan Reddehase: 28th 12th Place: matt Green: 419th worldwide.
Bottom 5 Marine Players:
43rd: Kevin Rockhold: 1548th worldwide 57th: Michael Price: 4631th 61st: Tim Gooding: 5029th place 71st: Juan Vasquez: 5697th Place 73rd: Michael Shalometh-Molina: 3586th Place.
With the exception of the Top Marine player, all other Marine players this wasn't their first GT of the year (for the top 5) With the exception of the worst Marine player, all other Marine player this WAS their first GT of the year (for the bottom 5). So my original comment that generally speaking its newer players pulling that number down, or just really fluffy or bad players....there it is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/13 21:14:09
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
Nope. Selectively dropping data that doesn't agree with your analysis makes the resulting analysis worthless. Not unless you do the same for all armies.
So a Top Half Win Rate for Marines (including the irrelevant Grey Knight data) is 67.5% versus overall 54.16%. Now run the same numbers, Top Half placing vs All Participating win rates, for the rest of the codexes and we will have something interesting to look at. Until then, we have a garbage statistic.
Note that I didn't say Sempers data is correct, but what I am saying is that the data being skewed because of noobish SM players is a definite possibility.
What's also true is that different armies could also have quite varying learning curves as well. It's quite possible that some armies can weather a tournament setting in poor hands better than other armies. If I were really going to analyze the results I'd be looking at a whole host of factors.
Tyran wrote: At the very least we need to see the "experience" that the average players of different factions has.
SM being noob heavy sounds likely, but I don't think I have ever seen data to actually back that hypothesis.
Agree. Importantly, Semper appears to have some data around "first GTof the year", which is pretty different than "first GT". Obviously there can be some holes there.
SemperMortis wrote: The point I was making is that NEWBIES are dragging down the Marine number. Which is why I even dived into players.
The top 5 Marine Players who won at Dicehammer.
1st Place: Kevin Roach, 804th place worldwide: 1st recorded GT of 2023
3rd Place Stephen Corrales: Ranked 2nd In the world.
5th Place: Mike McTyre: 228th
6th Place: Dan Reddehase: 28th
12th Place: matt Green: 419th worldwide.
Bottom 5 Marine Players:
43rd: Kevin Rockhold: 1548th worldwide
57th: Michael Price: 4631th
61st: Tim Gooding: 5029th place
71st: Juan Vasquez: 5697th Place
73rd: Michael Shalometh-Molina: 3586th Place.
With the exception of the Top Marine player, all other Marine players this wasn't their first GT of the year (for the top 5)
With the exception of the worst Marine player, all other Marine player this WAS their first GT of the year (for the bottom 5).
So my original comment that generally speaking its newer players pulling that number down, or just really fluffy or bad players....there it is.
This is excellent data that seems to indicate that the top players in the game are gravitating towards playing Marine and are therefore winning.
It also seems to indicate that MSM (73rd place) has no clue how to play Marines in a competitive setting to end up behind 3 higher ranked players
alextroy wrote: This is excellent data that seems to indicate that the top players in the game are gravitating towards playing Marine and are therefore winning.
It also seems to indicate that MSM (73rd place) has no clue how to play Marines in a competitive setting to end up behind 3 higher ranked players
I'm not sure it shows any of that really, it shows good players place higher and bad players place lower. The only notable number for any of the players involved is that 2nd in the world, but arguably this early in the season it counts for very little as all you need to do is hit more events than everyone else to get your total for the season higher. We're (due to LVO) largely only really in the first true month in the season after a lot of people taking a break. This dataset is selected because it conveniently has a lot of high placing marines as well. We're seeing plenty of events with no marines in the top 4 etc.
GW's going to be attempting to reinvent the wheel come June/July with 10th, so does any of this even matter now?
Largely, but never the less it's something to talk about and if we're honest, none if it ever really mattered in the first place. It is nice to know if GW has managed to create a healthy and diverse meta though, which it seems to indicate they have largely.
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...
Ideally, you should target the top X% of every tournament. So whether that is the top 10%, 15%, or 20% isn't super important as long as you are relatively consistent.
I would suggest for around Top 12.5% of the field:
Top 4: 32 or less
Top 8: 33 - 64
Top 12: 65 - 96
Top 16: 97 - 128
etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/14 13:59:00
If you are trying to remove the newbie skew, could you filter by rank? In a post above those were listed. Not sure if it would be possible to mesh the databases.
So you’d end up with something like “of tournaments played last week, this is how people ranked 2000 or better placed”. It would mess up your data if a new unranked player did well.
Just trying to think of options that treat the data pool fairly. Dropping outliers is not inherently bad, but does skew things. Look at the mean results, not average? Not sure.
Nevelon wrote: If you are trying to remove the newbie skew, could you filter by rank? In a post above those were listed. Not sure if it would be possible to mesh the databases.
So you’d end up with something like “of tournaments played last week, this is how people ranked 2000 or better placed”. It would mess up your data if a new unranked player did well.
Just trying to think of options that treat the data pool fairly. Dropping outliers is not inherently bad, but does skew things. Look at the mean results, not average? Not sure.
Or you look at the complete picture, and don't filter anyone out for any army.
Heck, even the data provided by Semper earlier doesn't prove anyone is a so-called "Newbie" - at worst, it shows some people haven't been as active in the GT scene this year. But if the ITC season reset in March (as I think someone said - might have the wrong date there) it could just be that people were keeping their powder dry for the season to reset.
As for whether any of the players are actual "newbies", I'll note that even Semper didn't try to claim that these were new players, or even new to the tournament scene - just that they hadn't been that active in 2023.
As previously noted, Semper should be in politics.
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...
GW's going to be attempting to reinvent the wheel come June/July with 10th, so does any of this even matter now?
Maybe. That's what gets me most. I tend to stop playing as much when there might be big changes on the horizon.
At this point some marines are probably a bit too good, which means it isn't upgrades that are the problem. As with GSC secondaries are helping some people do well. Despite all the chaos we're seeing lots of different armies place and lots of representation, which all things considered is an ok place to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/14 18:19:24
Nevelon wrote: If you are trying to remove the newbie skew, could you filter by rank? In a post above those were listed. Not sure if it would be possible to mesh the databases.
So you’d end up with something like “of tournaments played last week, this is how people ranked 2000 or better placed”. It would mess up your data if a new unranked player did well.
Just trying to think of options that treat the data pool fairly. Dropping outliers is not inherently bad, but does skew things. Look at the mean results, not average? Not sure.
Mean is a criminally underused statistic. You would need to track tournament results at a player level Win/Loss Ratio, but then you could find the Mean Win/Loss percentage to see just how good the "average" player of the faction is doing without the outliers messing up the number.
Daedalus81 wrote: Maybe. That's what gets me most. I tend to stop playing as much when there might be big changes on the horizon.
I'm still happy to play - but its certainly put me off buying new stuff.
There's quite a lot of factions where I'd be interested in starting or expanding a force - but having no idea if they'll interest me in a few months is an issue.
ccs wrote: That's terrible. You cant do anything about those changes. So play games in the here & now and worry about what's to come when it gets here.
I don't quite know what the term for it is. It's certainly this weird mental compulsion. I just wind up doing more painting in the meantime usually.
Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds
Looking at top 16 for events with over 129 players The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
Participation % (by Codex) (197 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.54%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.11%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.03%
Aeldari - 3.05%
Chaos Daemons - 7.11%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.05%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.08%
Dark Eldar - 3.55%
Death Guard - 0.51%
Genestealer Cult - 3.05%
Grey Knights - 1.02%
Harlequins - 0.51%
Imperial Guard - 6.60%
Imperial Knights - 3.05%
Knights Renegades - 3.55%
Leagues of Votann - 4.57%
Necrons - 1.02%
Orks - 4.06%
Space Marines - 23.35%
Tau Empire - 7.11%
Thousand Sons - 1.52%
Tyranids - 1.02%
Tzeentch - 0.51%
World Eaters - 3.05%
Ynnari - 1.02%
No faction - 1.02%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Craftworld Eldar x1
Imperial Guard x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
FLG Rocky Mountain Open 2023 - Brighton, Colorado, USA - (144, 6 rounds)
Participation % (by Codex) (144 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 4.86%
Adeptus Custodes - 4.86%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.78%
Aeldari - 0.69%
Chaos - 0.69%
Chaos Daemons - 0.69%
Chaos Space Marines - 8.33%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.08%
Dark Eldar - 2.08%
Death Guard - 4.86%
Genestealer Cult - 2.78%
Grey Knights - 0.69%
Imperial Guard - 8.33%
Imperial Knights - 5.56%
Knights Renegades - 4.86%
Leagues of Votann - 7.64%
Necrons - 2.08%
Orks - 6.94%
Space Marines - 19.44%
Tau Empire - 4.17%
Thousand Sons - 0.69%
Tyranids - 2.78%
Tzeentch - 0.69%
World Eaters - 1.39%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x2
Tau Empire x1
Tzeentch x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Mechanicus x1
Chaos Space Marines x1
Death Guard x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
If we look at this event in terms of a top 8, I don't think Space Marines are overperforming - 19.4% is over the tipping point between 1 and 2 top 8 slots, by a hair. I do wonder where Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard & Leagues of Votann are in the top 8, though.
If we pivot to the top 16, I still question where the Imperial Guard, Leagues of Votann and Imperial Knights are. However, Space Marines do now reach the point of overperforming - their participation % would put them at ~3 top 16 places, not 5. Orks are also overperforming at top 16, with 12.5% top 16 vs. 6.94% participation.
Anyone else find it amusing that the one Night Lords player ran away before the end of the event? Not to mention an Emperor's Children player ending up at 138, given that's 2x69.
For events between 33 and 128 players, looking at the top 8 Ordo Fanaticus Presents: Rosehammer - Portland, Oregon, USA - (95, 6 rounds)
Spoiler:
95 entrants, 0 show no results, 14 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - ||| (5, 20, 89*)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| | (4, 23, 38, 42, 51, 53)
Aeldari - || (56*, 79*)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (17, 25, 30)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - || (18, 90*)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - || (8, 24)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (87*)
Craftworld Eldar - | (83)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (76)
Dark Eldar - ||| (47, 62, 80)
Death Guard - | (48)
Genestealer Cult - ||| (3, 13, 93)
Grey Knights - ||||| (34, 39, 46, 65, 82)
Imperial Guard - ||||| ||| (7, 10, 16, 19, 28, 33, 69, 77*)
Imperial Knights - |||| (11, 45, 72*, 92*)
Knights Renegades - ||||| || (31, 58, 66, 71, 81, 86*, 95*)
Leagues of Votann - ||| (29, 32, 70)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (49)
Necrons - || (85, 94)
Orks - || (26, 35)
Orks (Deathskulls) - | (64)
Orks (Goffs) - || (1, 75*)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - |||| (44, 61, 73, 88*)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - ||| (15, 63, 67)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (57)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Ravenwing)) - | (44)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (43, 91*)
Space Marines (Minotaurs) - | (52)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - ||| (9, 22, 55)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - || (2, 37)
Tau Empire - |||| (14, 55, 68, 78*)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - || (27, 74)
World Eaters - ||||| ||| (6, 12, 36, 40, 41, 50, 60, 84)
Ynnari - | (21)
Participation % (by Codex) (95 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 3.16%
Adeptus Custodes - 6.32%
Aeldari - 2.11%
Chaos Daemons - 5.26%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.16%
Craftworld Eldar - 2.11%
Dark Eldar - 3.16%
Death Guard - 1.05%
Genestealer Cult - 3.16%
Grey Knights - 5.26%
Imperial Guard - 8.42%
Imperial Knights - 4.21%
Knights Renegades - 7.37%
Leagues of Votann - 4.21%
Necrons - 2.11%
Orks - 5.26%
Space Marines - 17.89%
Tau Empire - 6.32%
World Eaters - 8.42%
Ynnari - 1.05%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adepta Sororitas x1
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Space Marines x1
Genestealer Cult x1
Imperial Guard x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x1
World Eaters x1
Given the proportion of entrants, there's an argument to be made that Knights Renegades and Tau Empire underperformed here. With a wide spread of slots in the top 8, Idon't think anyone really overperformed.
Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play Event - Nottingham, ENG - (81, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
81 entrants, 0 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - |||| (20, 22, 48, 49)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| | (6, 8, 23, 25, 26, 65*)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (78)
Aeldari - ||| (33, 37, 74)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (17, 32, 50)
Chaos Daemons (Khorne) - | (55)
Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh) - | (57)
Chaos Space Marines - || (21, 27)
Chaos Space Marines (Black Legion) - || (28, 45)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - || (15, 71)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (77)
Craftworld Eldar - | (69)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - || (35, 59)
Dark Eldar - || (13, 80)
Death Guard - ||| (40, 44, 68)
Genestealer Cult - ||||| (4, 18, 30, 54, 72)
Grey Knights - || (31, 48)
Harlequins - || (1, 67)
Imperial Guard - || (39, 58)
Imperial Knights - ||||| (41, 53, 56, 73, 75)
Knights Renegades - ||||| (10, 24, 29, 51, 61)
Leagues of Votann (Greater Thurian League) - | (52)
Orks - | (19)
Orks (Goffs) - || (3, 14)
Space Marines - |||| (2, 7, 9, 66)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (63)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - || (47, 60)
Space Marines (Crimson Fists) - | (36)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (11)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - | (43)
Space Marines (Imperial Fists) - | (64)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (16, 42)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (5)
Space Marines (Ultramarines) - | (70)
Tau Empire - | (76)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - || (38, 62)
Tau Empire (Tau Sept) - | (34)
Thousand Sons - | (79)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (81)
World Eaters - | (12)
Participation % (by Codex) (81 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 4.94%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.40%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 1.23%
Aeldari - 3.70%
Chaos Daemons - 6.17%
Chaos Space Marines - 8.64%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.70%
Dark Eldar - 2.47%
Death Guard - 3.70%
Genestealer Cult - 6.17%
Grey Knights - 2.47%
Harlequins - 2.47%
Imperial Guard - 2.47%
Imperial Knights - 6.17%
Knights Renegades - 6.17%
Leagues of Votann - 1.23%
Orks - 3.70%
Space Marines - 16.04%
Tau Empire - 4.94%
Thousand Sons - 1.23%
Tyranids - 1.23%
World Eaters - 1.23%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Genestealer Cult x1
Harlequins x1
Orks x1
Space Marines x3
With three of the top 8 placces, Space Marines definitely overperformed relative to their participation % (16.04% vs. 37.5%). Adeptus Custodes also heavily overperformed (7.4% vs. 25%), arguably by a greater degree. Chaos Space Marines are probably the Codex which was closest to being able to be described as underperforming at this event.
Also (1/81)*100 is a fun calculation to do.
Mighty Meeple 40kGT #2 - Concord, North Carolina, USA - (35, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
41 entrants, 6 show no results, 7 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - || (14, 32*)
Adeptus Custodes - |||| (4, 7, 23, 34*)
Aeldari - | (15)
Chaos Daemons - || (1, 25*)
Chaos Daemons (Tzeentch) - | (11)
Chaos Space Marines - | (31*)
Craftworld Eldar - | (26*)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (20)
Dark Eldar - || (16, 19)
Imperial Guard - || (2, 3)
Imperial Knights - | (18)
Khorne - | (10)
Knights Renegades - | (5)
Leagues of Votann - | (13)
Necrons - | (9)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (28)
Orks (Goffs) - | (17)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (24*, 29)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - || (8, 27)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (21)
Tau Empire - | (35*)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (30)
Thousand Sons - | (33)
Tyranids - | (22)
World Eaters - | (6)
Ynnari - | (12)
Participation % (by Codex) (35 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 5.71%
Adeptus Custodes - 11.43%
Aeldari - 2.86%
Chaos Daemons - 8.57%
Chaos Space Marines - 2.86%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.71%
Dark Eldar - 5.71%
Imperial Guard - 5.71%
Imperial Knights - 2.86%
Khorne - 2.86%
Knights Renegades - 2.86%
Leagues of Votann - 2.86%
Necrons - 5.71%
Orks - 2.86%
Space Marines - 14.28%
Tau Empire - 5.71%
Thousand Sons - 2.86%
Tyranids - 2.86%
World Eaters - 2.86%
Ynnari - 2.86%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Chaos Daemons x1
Imperial Guard x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
World Eaters x1
Both Adeptus Custodes and Imperial Guard substantially overperformed compared to their participation percentages (25% of the top 8 each, compared to 11.43% and 5.71% of the field, respectively). Space Marines slightly underperformed, but it is close enough that I'd call it a wash in that regard.
In line with last time, for events with 32 or fewer entrants I'll look at top 4, rather than top 8 WH40k Level Up Grimdark Grand Tournament - Pensacola, Florida, USA - (32, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
34 entrants, 2 show no results, 2 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - | (15)
Adeptus Mechanicus - | (26)
Chaos Daemons - | (8)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (28*)
Grey Knights - || (11, 27)
Harlequins - | (30)
Imperial Guard - |||| (4, 6, 7, 24*)
Imperial Guard (Catachan Jungle Fighters) - | (14)
Imperial Guard (Militarum Tempestus) - | (32)
Leagues of Votann - || (10, 22)
Necrons - | (16)
Orks - || (20, 29)
Orks (Goffs) - | (17)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (3)
Space Marines (Charcharodons) - | (23)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (2)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - | (18)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (21)
Tau Empire - | (31*)
Thousand Sons - | (19)
Tyranids (Behemoth) - | (13)
Tyranids (Gorgon) - | (1)
Tyranids (Leviathan) - | (9)
World Eaters - ||| (5, 12, 25)
Participation % (by Codex) (32 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 3.125%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 3.125%
Chaos Daemons - 3.125%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.125%
Grey Knights - 6.25%
Harlequins - 3.125%
Imperial Guard - 18.75%
Leagues of Votann - 6.25%
Necrons - 3.125%
Orks - 9.375%
Space Marines - 15.625%
Tau Empire - 3.125%
Thousand Sons - 3.125%
Tyranids - 9.375%
World Eaters - 9.375%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Imperial Guard x1
Space Marines x2
Tyranids x1
Compared to participation, Space Marines definitely overperformed here. Can't really say any of the factions underperformed compared to their participation, though.
BFS - 2 Day Competitive Warhammer 40000 Tournament - Colchester, ENG - (30, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
30 entrants, 0 show no results, 0 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adepta Sororitas - | (20)
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| ||| (4, 8, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, 29)
Aeldari - | (18)
Chaos Daemons - ||| (2, 9, 26)
Chaos Space Marines (Emperor's Children) - | (14)
Chaos Space Marines (Iron Warriors) - | (19)
Craftworld Eldar (Ulthwe) - | (23)
Dark Eldar - | (28)
Death Guard - | (17)
Genestealer Cult - | (1)
Grey Knights - || (16, 21)
Imperial Guard - | (7)
Imperial Knights - | (30)
Leagues of Votann - | (5)
Necrons - | (11)
Orks - | (6)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - | (10)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (27)
World Eaters - | (3)
Ynnari - | (13)
Participation % (by Codex) (30 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 3.33%
Adeptus Custodes - 26.67%
Aeldari - 3.33%
Chaos Daemons - 10%
Chaos Space Marines - 6.67%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.33%
Dark Eldar - 3.33%
Death Guard - 3.33%
Genestealer Cult - 3.33%
Grey Knights - 6.67%
Imperial Guard - 3.33%
Imperial Knights - 3.33%
Leagues of Votann - 3.33%
Necrons - 3.33%
Orks - 3.33%
Space Marines - 6.67%
World Eaters - 3.33%
Ynnari - 3.33%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Genestealer Cult x1
World Eaters x1
Don't think anyone can really be said to have overperformed or underperformed here. I'm am surprised by the Adeptus Custodes and Space Marine participation rates, though.
'Ere We Go Again Ladz 40k Store Championship - Oviedo, Florida, USA - (28, 5 rounds)
Spoiler:
28 entrants, 0 show no results, 3 dropped during the event
Listed factions (including sub-factions) * indicates a drop during the event Adeptus Custodes - |||| (2, 4, 9, 16)
Aeldari - | (11)
Chaos Daemons - | (8)
Craftworld Eldar - | (17)
Grey Knights - | (28*)
Leagues of Votann - | (1)
Leagues of Votann (Ymyr Conglomerate) - | (26*)
Necrons - | (24)
Necrons (Nihilakh) - | (25)
Nurgle - | (3)
Space Marines (Black Templars) - | (23)
Space Marines (Blood Angels) - | (18)
Space Marines (Dark Angels) - || (14, 21)
Space Marines (Dark Angels (Deathwing)) - || (7, 20)
Space Marines (Iron Hands) - ||| (6, 13, 22)
Space Marines (Salamanders) - | (27*)
Space Marines (Space Wolves) - | (15)
Tau Empire (Farsight Enclaves) - | (5)
Tyranids - | (12)
World Eaters - | (19)
Ynnari - | (10)
Participation % (by Codex) (28 entrants) Adeptus Custodes - 14.29%
Aeldari - 3.57%
Chaos Daemons - 3.57%
Craftworld Eldar - 3.57%
Grey Knights - 3.57%
Leagues of Votann - 7.14%
Necrons - 7.14%
Nurgle - 3.57%
Space Marines - 39.29%
Tau Empire - 3.57%
Tyranids - 3.57%
World Eaters - 3.57%
Ynnari - 3.57%
Top 4 slots (25% each) Adeptus Custodes x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Nurgle x1
Safe to say that Space Marines underperformed at this event - nearly 40% of the field, and no-one in the top 4? In contrast, Adeptus Custodes heavily overperformed walking away with 50% of the top 4 slots while only making up 14.29% of the field.
Top 16 slots (32 available)
Adeptus Custodes - || - 6.25% - On target
Adeptus Mechanicus - | - 3.125% - On target
Chaos - | - 3.125% - Overperformed
Chaos Daemons - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Chaos Space Marines - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Craftworld Eldar - ||| - 9.375% - Overperformed
Dark Eldar - | - 3.125% - On target
Death Guard - | - 3.125% - On target
Genestealer Cult - || - 6.25% - Overperformed
Imperial Guard - || - 6.25% - Underperformed
Knights Renegades - | - 3.125% - On target
Leagues of Votann - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Orks - || - 6.25% - On target
Space Marines - ||||| |||| - 28.125% - Overperformed
Tau Empire - | - 3.125% - Underperformed
Tzeentch - | - 3.125% - Overperformed
World Eaters - || - 6.25% - Overperformed
The above ratings are based on whether factions were within one percentile point either way of their participation %. As you can see, a number of factions overperformed here, including Space Marines (who probably had two too many top 16 spots). Largest overperformer here was probably Chaos, given there was only one person using that "Codex", so 0.29% participation vs. 3.125% of the top 16 - that's over ten times as well as expected.
Participation vs. top 8 slots for the 3 events with 33 to 128 entrants
Top 8 slots (3 events, so 24 in total - 4.17% each)
Adepta Sororitas - | - 4.17%
Adeptus Custodes - ||||| - 20.83%
Chaos Daemons - | - 4.17%
Chaos Space Marines - | - 4.17%
Genestealer Cult - || - 8.33%
Harlequins - | - 4.17%
Imperial Guard - ||| - 12.5%
Knights Renegades - | - 4.17%
Orks - || - 8.33%
Space Marines - ||||| - 20.83%
World Eaters - || - 8.33%
Comparing participation to top 8 slots, I'd say Adeptus Custodes are heavily over-performing (should have ~2 top 8 slots), Space Marines are overperforming (should be on ~4 top 8 slots), Imperial Guard are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot), Genestealer Cult are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot), Orks are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot), and World Eaters are heavily overperforming (should be on ~1 top 8 slot).
It doesn't look like anyone who made the top 8 is underperforming, however. Of those who didn't net a top 8 slot, Imperial Knights and Tau Empire are underperforming.
Participation vs. top 4 slots for the 3 events with 32 or fewer entrants
Looking at these numbers, I'd say Adeptus Custodes overperformed at these events, Space Marines were about on track, and after that it is hard to offer an opinion on whether any of the other factions did anything other than... perform.
SM Win Records
Spoiler:
SM Win Records (6 Swiss Rounds, W/L/Blue) (2 events) 6-0-0 - ||
5-1-0 - ||||
4-1-1 - |
4-2-0 - ||||| |||
3-3-0 - ||||| ||||| |
2-3-1 - |
2-4-0 - ||||| |||||
1-4-1 - |
1-2-0 - |
1-3-0 - |
1-5-0 - |||
0-6-0 - |
Total games played - 259
Total games won - 127
% of games won during events with 6 Swiss rounds - 127/259 = 49.03%
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...
That's a lot of data crunching.
I guess it just comes down to this argument of what data you would expect to see in a balanced game.
On paper mapping participation to "placings" (however defined) seems reasonable. If 20% of the field play Space Marines, you'd expect them to get 20% of the top-4 spots. But equally - you'd sort of expect players to gravitate towards the more powerful factions. So even if this aligned, it wouldn't necesarilly mean the game was balanced. What is a "fair" breakdown of all the factions? Arguably you could say the fact Marines are only at 20% is a good sign. We know when they've been the most busted faction, tournament participation has risen to 30%, even 40% in some outliers.
Arguably a balanced game is one where a "top player" can take any faction, and consistently place in a tournament. As opposed to say an imbalanced game, where really your odds drop off dramatically if you aren't running 1-3 factions regardless of skill level. (Odd lists inevitably got through from time to time even in the most horrendously broken metas, but if its not reliably repeated, it was probably just good luck in those games.)
So for example, the data shouts to me that Necrons and Thousand Sons are currently underpowered and need help. This is not only due to the poor win% - but also the clear fact players are abandoning these factions. But as said - its the question. What percentage of the field should be Necron or Thousand Son - as opposed to Marine, Custodes, Guard etc.
GW's going to be attempting to reinvent the wheel come June/July with 10th, so does any of this even matter now?
Allegedly reinventing the wheel. Rumors are not always accurate, and GW rarely does any reinventing the wheel anyway- mostly the slap a new coat of paint, rarely they put a new rim inside the tire, but its always more or less the same wheel.
Tyel wrote: So for example, the data shouts to me that Necrons and Thousand Sons are currently underpowered and need help. This is not only due to the poor win% - but also the clear fact players are abandoning these factions. But as said - its the question. What percentage of the field should be Necron or Thousand Son - as opposed to Marine, Custodes, Guard etc.
I'd argue there are probably four, maybe five "core Codex" factions that need looking at, based on participation:
Grey Knights end up being the "maybe" book there, as they got OK participation numbers in the Top 8 and Top 4 events, but were nowhere to be seen in the two big Top 16 events. It's also worth noting that these five factions scored a grand total of one Top n place across eight events.
In the case of Ynnari, as has been said since their introduction, GW need to figure out what they're doing with the faction, as they're more of an appendix at the moment than a proper force.
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...
I feel Ynnari are just CWE with a few extra bits - I don't think we should expect them to represented as their own thing. If they are a good way to run Eldar they appear. If they aren't, they won't. (This is my same feeling on why we don't need to concern ourselves with "Imperial Fist" representation if IH/DA/whoever are stomping on everyone.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/15 14:20:30
The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
And Marines controlled 37.5% of the top 8 spots.
Dysartes wrote: FLG Rocky Mountain Open 2023 - Brighton, Colorado, USA - (144, 6 rounds)
151 entrants, 7 show no results, 12 dropped during the event
If we look at this event in terms of a top 8, I don't think Space Marines are overperforming - 19.4% is over the tipping point between 1 and 2 top 8 slots, by a hair. I do wonder where Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard & Leagues of Votann are in the top 8, though.
If we pivot to the top 16, I still question where the Imperial Guard, Leagues of Votann and Imperial Knights are. However, Space Marines do now reach the point of overperforming - their participation % would put them at ~3 top 16 places, not 5. Orks are also overperforming at top 16, with 12.5% top 16 vs. 6.94% participation.
Anyone else find it amusing that the one Night Lords player ran away before the end of the event? Not to mention an Emperor's Children player ending up at 138, given that's 2x69.
Marines took 25% of the top 8, roughly where they should be if participation was the only metric that mattered. Top 16 though.... They ran away with again more than 50% higher rate than their participation number.
Dysartes wrote: For events between 33 and 128 players, looking at the top 8 Ordo Fanaticus Presents: Rosehammer - Portland, Oregon, USA - (95, 6 rounds)
95 entrants, 0 show no results, 14 dropped during the event
Given the proportion of entrants, there's an argument to be made that Knights Renegades and Tau Empire underperformed here. With a wide spread of slots in the top 8, Idon't think anyone really overperformed.
Top 8 Marines didn't over perform. I am surprised that Salamanders finally did well.
Dysartes wrote: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play Event - Nottingham, ENG - (81, 5 rounds)
81 entrants, 0 show no results, 1 dropped during the event
With three of the top 8 placces, Space Marines definitely overperformed relative to their participation % (16.04% vs. 37.5%). Adeptus Custodes also heavily overperformed (7.4% vs. 25%), arguably by a greater degree. Chaos Space Marines are probably the Codex which was closest to being able to be described as underperforming at this event.
Worth noting that while the metric he used means only counting the top 8, Marines had 6 players in the top 16. The highest amount so far by any faction.
Dysartes wrote: Mighty Meeple 40kGT #2 - Concord, North Carolina, USA - (35, 5 rounds)
41 entrants, 6 show no results, 7 dropped during the event
Both Adeptus Custodes and Imperial Guard substantially overperformed compared to their participation percentages (25% of the top 8 each, compared to 11.43% and 5.71% of the field, respectively). Space Marines slightly underperformed, but it is close enough that I'd call it a wash in that regard.
Fair enough.
Dysartes wrote: In line with last time, for events with 32 or fewer entrants I'll look at top 4, rather than top 8 WH40k Level Up Grimdark Grand Tournament - Pensacola, Florida, USA - (32, 5 rounds)
Compared to participation, Space Marines definitely overperformed here. Can't really say any of the factions underperformed compared to their participation, though.
Marines had 1/2 of the top 4...so yep over performed by a lot.
Dysartes wrote: BFS - 2 Day Competitive Warhammer 40000 Tournament - Colchester, ENG - (30, 5 rounds)
Don't think anyone can really be said to have overperformed or underperformed here. I'm am surprised by the Adeptus Custodes and Space Marine participation rates, though.
Marines had 2 players, highest placing was 10th place.
Dysartes wrote: 'Ere We Go Again Ladz 40k Store Championship - Oviedo, Florida, USA - (28, 5 rounds)
Safe to say that Space Marines underperformed at this event - nearly 40% of the field, and no-one in the top 4? In contrast, Adeptus Custodes heavily overperformed walking away with 50% of the top 4 slots while only making up 14.29% of the field.
Marines had ranks 6 and 7 and more importantly, the #6 Marine player was playing for 1st place but lost to the tournament winner in the last game. So it was literally a 49 to 43 decision that separated Space Marines from winning another tournament. And 7th place Marine lost his final game to the guy who finished 4th. So they were in the running for 50% of the top spots but barely lost.
In smaller events the data is a bit screwier since a single loss one way or the other can drastically shift the numbers, same for the mid sized events while the bigger events tend to give a clearer picture. Point I made originally in this thread is still standing though, Marines are top tier right now.
Dudeface wrote: Marines are both simultaneously top and bottom tier.
Depends upon what narrative you want to tell.
I believe this is what we call a High Ceiling, Low Floor faction. Good players can craft strong list and do very well, but it is very easy to build a bad list or pilot a list badly to a bad result.
For kicks, I ran some additional stats on The Southampton GT.
Dysartes wrote:The Southampton GT - Southampton, ENG - (197, 5 rounds of Swiss, followed by top 4 cut)
Participation % (by Codex) (197 entrants) Adepta Sororitas - 2.54%
Adeptus Custodes - 7.11%
Adeptus Mechanicus - 2.03%
Aeldari - 3.05%
Chaos Daemons - 7.11%
Chaos Space Marines - 3.05%
Craftworld Eldar - 5.08%
Dark Eldar - 3.55%
Death Guard - 0.51%
Genestealer Cult - 3.05%
Grey Knights - 1.02%
Harlequins - 0.51%
Imperial Guard - 6.60%
Imperial Knights - 3.05%
Knights Renegades - 3.55%
Leagues of Votann - 4.57%
Necrons - 1.02%
Orks - 4.06%
Space Marines - 23.35%
Tau Empire - 7.11%
Thousand Sons - 1.52%
Tyranids - 1.02%
Tzeentch - 0.51%
World Eaters - 3.05%
Ynnari - 1.02%
No faction - 1.02%
Top 8 slots (12.5% each) Craftworld Eldar x1
Imperial Guard x2
Leagues of Votann x1
Space Marines x3
World Eaters x1
9-16 (each slot now worth 6.25%)
Adeptus Custodes x1
Chaos Daemons x1
Craftworld Eldar x1
Dark Eldar x1
Genestealer Cult x2
Knights Renegades x1
Space Marines x1
There was something odd going on with round 1 here, which is why we have two entries under "No faction", and several people tying for 193rd on the leaderboard.
If we look at the top 8, both Imperial Guard and Space Marines are overperforming compared tot heir participation %, both by roughly 1 top 8 spot.
If we look at the top 16, Space Marines revert to performing about as expected (23.35% of the field vs. 25% of the top 16), while Craftworld Eldar, Genestealer Cult and Imperial Guard are all overperforming, with at least twice as many top 16 spots as expected.
The only faction I'd say ends up underperforming in the top 16 compared to its participation % is Tau Empire - with 7.11% of the field, you'd expect 1 top 16 spot, and they ended up with none.
Of the 46 Space Marines players, the average placing was 94.146 and the median placing was 96. This tells us that Space Marines were pretty well distributed from top to bottom of the rankings, even given the large number of 193rd placings in the event.
So this event very much shows High Ceiling, Low Floor for Space Marines.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
2k Points
Competition Index
