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.

So it's not all ITC results, it's just the tournaments that started this saturday and had more than 10 attendees. I calculated points using the ITC method up to 8th place, after that everyone got 30 points multiplied by the event size modifier. I couldn't use the best five because many armies didn't have 5 matches. The final caveat is this is only 202 players worth of data, we see larger tournaments several times a year, so this is very preliminary, and will undoubtedly change.

First up for the spreadsheet adverse:


for those that want to see the data and the tourneys that lead up to it:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rkEukRKKxJK9ecUyZxXqn-trRd0gqoXIQb--BTyHdq8

So some observations;

Lots of bug players so they ended up top points, they also finished near the top on points per player, so i think we can say they are a solid army.

Necrons finished second on points, but lower middle of the pack for points per player. I think that might be because people believing the hype, getting a necron army and expecting it to be easy and getting the crap kicked out of them. 9 of our 13 matches finished so far outside the winner's circle they probably couldn't have found it on a map. I don't believe that's because necrons suck now, I believe it's because people are incorrectly thinking necrons are FotM, and the necrons skill cap went up immensely.

To no ones great surprise Militarum tempestus appears to be broke as all get out, doubling the points per player average of the IG and firmly getting first place on points per player. I believe ti was Reece that said don't count on it staying like that for long, so I'd guess nerfs are a coming.

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

Perhaps fueled by several editions of bitter tears and neglect, SoB have come out swinging. Don't expect the forum martyrdom to end anytime soon though.

Aeldari are middle of the pack after catching some heinous nerfs, which probably says something about how over the top they were in the past.

Chaos marines still suck, water is wet, and fire is hot.

 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.

But where are the plastic sisters ?!

SCNR.

But interesting that regular IG isn't smashing everything with conscript spam, guess some folks overhyped that a tiny little bit.

 Grimgold wrote:
Chaos marines still suck, water is wet, and fire is hot.

So much for people in my team saying how things have changed for chaos and especially 1k sons.

nekooni wrote:
But where are the plastic sisters ?!

SCNR.

But interesting that regular IG isn't smashing everything with conscript spam, guess some folks overhyped that a tiny little bit.

Probably because MT is easier to do models for? Just taking that wolf guess?

DaPino wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Chaos marines still suck, water is wet, and fire is hot.

So much for people in my team saying how things have changed for chaos and especially 1k sons.

too small a sample size to say one way or another on 1k sons, we could have just got leeroy magnus and his 999 sons playing. Chaos daemons are doing well, no doubt a lot of that is tzeentch daemons, so maybe a mixed daemon and marine list might fare better.

A more useful sorting:

106,4 Adeptus Ministorum 1

93,5 Knights Renegades 1
91,5 Militarum Tempestus 3
90,4 Grey Knights 3




69,4 Adepta Sororitas 6
68,3 Chaos 6
65,7 Imperium 7
64,2 Chaos Daemons 7
61,2 Death Watch 2

58,7 Dark Eldar 6
58,2 Tau Empire 11
57,7 Tyranids 17
56,9 Death Guard 3
56,1 Ynnari 7
55,8 Dark Angels 5
54,8 Cult Mechanicus 5
52 Harlequins 8
51,5 Adeptus Astartes 11
51,3 Aeldari 6
50,8 World Eaters 2
50,5 Genesteler Cult 4

49,6 Necrons 13
49,6 Imperial Knights 3
49,4 Ultramarines 3
48,5 Astra Militarum 13
46,3 Blood Angels 13
42,7 Space Wolves 5
40,6 Orks 14
40,3 Chaos Space Marines 12

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

Where i can find the armylists???

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.

Nice to see the Sisters in there...

Always interesting to see how an early meta shakes out, especially one that brings as radical a change as 8th. It's interesting to see that quite a few of the armies people were panicking about in the first week (Tau, Crons, Eldar, Grey Knights) had pretty good showings, especially as the former three just got some powerful tools in FW: Xenos that likely came too late for most to use this weekend.

Still, I'd caution anyone from drawing too big a conclusion about anyone's viability (positive or negative) from one weekend of games. Maybe Scions are really that strong, but it might be that points-efficient plasma spam is efficient at running over unrefined lists but will drop off in potency as players get more comfortable with 8th.

Excellent. Tau doing better than I imagined. I was right about Dark Eldar and Orks though. Go figure lol.

Strange that WE and CSM are doing so badly, I've been quite happy with the couple of games I've played with them. Maybe it's because comp play hasn't hit our group yet. :/

Ooo good to see Deathwatch putting in more work and not bad but not super strong. This is a very positive sign for me. Well If there is another one or two weeks of these results then I'll be glad to admit I was wrong and embrace 8th. I never had a problem with the core rules they are fantastic.

Orks are still at the bottom it seems... Didnt one of the playtesters claim that they where a top tier army now?

 jhnbrg wrote:
Orks are still at the bottom it seems... Didnt one of the playtesters claim that they where a top tier army now?

Ironically, Orks are doing really well at my LGS, but I think that's just because there are only two Ork players, and both of us are some of the better players there.

nekooni wrote:
But interesting that regular IG isn't smashing everything with conscript spam, guess some folks overhyped that a tiny little bit.

It's what week after release? How many gets 100+ conscript painted in that time

CSM is probably weighed down by Chaos Soup; IMO the best CSM armies are going to have some daemons in them, so we don't know how many of those "Chaos" armies in the high tier are true mixes or, for example, Thousand Sons with horrors for troops. Space Marines are kinda the same deal with Imperium being a high tier faction but Astartes being mid tier on its own.

Eldar Vampire Hunter wrote:
Always interesting to see how an early meta shakes out, especially one that brings as radical a change as 8th. It's interesting to see that quite a few of the armies people were panicking about in the first week (Tau, Crons, Eldar, Grey Knights) had pretty good showings, especially as the former three just got some powerful tools in FW: Xenos that likely came too late for most to use this weekend.

I mean, Necrons are 22nd of 34 which is a pretty mediocre showing really. Their showing is even worse if you consider that 7 of the armies below them are restricted variants of other armies; namely, these are Ultramarines (variant of Adeptus Astartes), Astra Militarum (represented in Militarum Tempestus and Imperium), Blood Angels (variant of Adeptus Astartes), Thousand Sons (variant of CSM), Asuryani (variant of Aeldari), Imperial Fists (variant of Adeptus Astartes) and Skitarii (variant of Cult Mechanicus). FW stuff should help them considerably though.

Also, it's a very small sample to be drawing many conclusions from; for example, I'm expecting Daemons to shake out as second or third best once people have enough brimstone horrors. Likewise, does it really make sense that World Eaters have ~25% more points than CSM? Do we think pure Death Watch is a better army than generic Astartes? Doesn't really add up IMO. What I would be much more interested in (though it's considerably harder to produce) is a unit-by-unit usage by win percentage; for example, maybe every top placing nid list is using hormagaunts, and every top placing Tempestus army is using command squads. That seems like it would be a better indication of what's working in 8th, especially as unit choices are far less obvious at the beginning of the meta.

...Wait, I just realized. How did a Skitarii army get fielded? Skitarii doesn't have any HQ's to fill out detachment requirements. Did they just bring 3 Auxiliary Detachments?

Eyjio wrote:

I mean, Necrons are 22nd of 34 which is a pretty mediocre showing really. Their showing is even worse if you consider that 7 of the armies below them are restricted variants of other armies; namely, these are Ultramarines (variant of Adeptus Astartes), Astra Militarum (represented in Militarum Tempestus and Imperium), Blood Angels (variant of Adeptus Astartes), Thousand Sons (variant of CSM), Asuryani (variant of Aeldari), Imperial Fists (variant of Adeptus Astartes) and Skitarii (variant of Cult Mechanicus). FW stuff should help them considerably though.

Also, it's a very small sample to be drawing many conclusions from; for example, I'm expecting Daemons to shake out as second or third best once people have enough brimstone horrors. Likewise, does it really make sense that World Eaters have ~25% more points than CSM? Do we think pure Death Watch is a better army than generic Astartes? Doesn't really add up IMO. What I would be much more interested in (though it's considerably harder to produce) is a unit-by-unit usage by win percentage; for example, maybe every top placing nid list is using hormagaunts, and every top placing Tempestus army is using command squads. That seems like it would be a better indication of what's working in 8th, especially as unit choices are far less obvious at the beginning of the meta.

Agreed on both points. I guess I misread the placement of Necrons the first time. I think they got possibly the best deal of anyone from forge world though, so with luck that will boost them up a bit. Hopefully we don't end up in a situation where running a Pylon is almost mandatory, though I would expect if that does end up being the case it will hit the viability of Knight lists a fair bit single-handedly.

The Necron downplay in this thread is kind of funny

 SHUPPET wrote:
The Necron downplay in this thread is kind of funny

What do you mean? The numbers, small sample size notwithstanding, indicate that a lot of people bought into the hype for Necrons and got smashed for it.

I'm holding my reservations on Necrons. I'll need to see some more results before I really say if the hype is real or if it's all wind. I thought they were on the stronger side, but I didn't think they were that strong.

Eyjio wrote:

Eldar Vampire Hunter wrote:
Always interesting to see how an early meta shakes out, especially one that brings as radical a change as 8th. It's interesting to see that quite a few of the armies people were panicking about in the first week (Tau, Crons, Eldar, Grey Knights) had pretty good showings, especially as the former three just got some powerful tools in FW: Xenos that likely came too late for most to use this weekend.

I mean, Necrons are 22nd of 34 which is a pretty mediocre showing really. Their showing is even worse if you consider that 7 of the armies below them are restricted variants of other armies; namely, these are Ultramarines (variant of Adeptus Astartes), Astra Militarum (represented in Militarum Tempestus and Imperium), Blood Angels (variant of Adeptus Astartes), Thousand Sons (variant of CSM), Asuryani (variant of Aeldari), Imperial Fists (variant of Adeptus Astartes) and Skitarii (variant of Cult Mechanicus). FW stuff should help them considerably though.

Also, it's a very small sample to be drawing many conclusions from; for example, I'm expecting Daemons to shake out as second or third best once people have enough brimstone horrors. Likewise, does it really make sense that World Eaters have ~25% more points than CSM? Do we think pure Death Watch is a better army than generic Astartes? Doesn't really add up IMO. What I would be much more interested in (though it's considerably harder to produce) is a unit-by-unit usage by win percentage; for example, maybe every top placing nid list is using hormagaunts, and every top placing Tempestus army is using command squads. That seems like it would be a better indication of what's working in 8th, especially as unit choices are far less obvious at the beginning of the meta.

Ultramarines and Iron Fists aren't limited versions of Adeptus Astartes, they're Marines with access to additional unique characters, Astra Militarum contains Militarum Tempestus quite often and "Imperium" is literally the opposite of "restricted". It's a mix of anything that's Imperium. Skitarii aren't a "variant" of Cult Mechanicus, they're something entirely different - both are a subset of Adeptus Mechanicus though. Not sure about the other examples you mentioned, but you're not really making sense regarding the Imperium factions.

nekooni wrote:
Ultramarines and Iron Fists aren't limited versions of Adeptus Astartes, they're Marines with access to additional unique characters, Astra Militarum contains Militarum Tempestus quite often and "Imperium" is literally the opposite of "restricted". It's a mix of anything that's Imperium. Skitarii aren't a "variant" of Cult Mechanicus, they're something entirely different - both are a subset of Adeptus Mechanicus though. Not sure about the other examples you mentioned, but you're not really making sense regarding the Imperium factions.

How are Ultramarines and Iron Fists not variants of Adeptus Astartes? They're from the same book, with 95% of the same rules. The only defining characteristic is their special rules which is really not much of a difference compared to, say, Tau and Orks. Skitarii are essentially a variant of Cult Mechanicus now for the simple fact that it's not even possible to run a pure Skitarii army without only using aux detatchments. I don't understand why you're saying it's unfair to call something restricted when it can only use a single faction like Ultramarines as opposed to using the full Imperium keyword? I also never said Imperium was a restricted variant either, you seem to be arguing against things I never actually said. The fact of the matter is that the armies I listed are by most metrics just restricted versions of more encompassing keywords, and it doesn't make sense that the more restrictive version would be doing better with fewer options. That's the whole point - the sample is too small.

Hm, that's a nice position for T'au - and having many players, its result can be better valued than the single-player armies.

Top mid. Of the 'better' armies, I'll meet only GKs and DE (which is basically in the same power level).



Of course, this is the first 'big' tourney in 8th. Things may change in the future, but for now I'm ok. I'd like to see the lists, though.

First, a "Thank You" to the OP for making the data available. A shame that I happen to draw different fundamental conclusions.

I would argue the OP's analysis is flawed on two levels:

1. The new edition has been out less than a week. There have been no truly massive tournaments yet from which to draw conclusions. Most likely, people are still new to the edition or playing with non-optimized lists.

2. ITC points are a poor overall measure of army performance. If you bother to examine the OP's data table, Astra Militarum/IG/Scions are not nearly as dominant as the OP's analysis would make them seem. Out of the ten tournaments in the table, they have won exactly none. They do place in every top 10 though. What is really striking is the sheer diversity in armies that place in the Top 10 and in winning factions. The only factions that appear to be over represented in the table are Tyranida and various MEQ factions, but at this point that is to be expected. ITC points would appear to measure a faction's raw efficiency at placing in the top 10 rather than their ability to dominate tournaments.

In short, these ITC rankings are overblown and not representative of the metagame they proclaim to be.

CovenantGuardian wrote:
A more useful sorting:

106,4 Adeptus Ministorum 1

93,5 Knights Renegades 1
91,5 Militarum Tempestus 3
90,4 Grey Knights 3




69,4 Adepta Sororitas 6
68,3 Chaos 6
65,7 Imperium 7
64,2 Chaos Daemons 7
61,2 Death Watch 2

58,7 Dark Eldar 6
58,2 Tau Empire 11
57,7 Tyranids 17
56,9 Death Guard 3
56,1 Ynnari 7
55,8 Dark Angels 5
54,8 Cult Mechanicus 5
52 Harlequins 8
51,5 Adeptus Astartes 11
51,3 Aeldari 6
50,8 World Eaters 2
50,5 Genesteler Cult 4

49,6 Necrons 13
49,6 Imperial Knights 3
49,4 Ultramarines 3
48,5 Astra Militarum 13
46,3 Blood Angels 13
42,7 Space Wolves 5
40,6 Orks 14
40,3 Chaos Space Marines 12

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

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

 TheNewBlood wrote:
First, a "Thank You" to the OP for making the data available. A shame that I happen to draw different fundamental conclusions.

I would argue the OP's analysis is flawed on two levels:

1. The new edition has been out less than a week. There have been no truly massive tournaments yet from which to draw conclusions. Most likely, people are still new to the edition or playing with non-optimized lists.

2. ITC points are a poor overall measure of army performance. If you bother to examine the OP's data table, Astra Militarum/IG/Scions are not nearly as dominant as the OP's analysis would make them seem. Out of the ten tournaments in the table, they have won exactly none. They do place in every top 10 though. What is really striking is the sheer diversity in armies that place in the Top 10 and in winning factions. The only factions that appear to be over represented in the table are Tyranida and various MEQ factions, but at this point that is to be expected. ITC points would appear to measure a faction's raw efficiency at placing in the top 10 rather than their ability to dominate tournaments.

In short, these ITC rankings are overblown and not representative of the metagame they proclaim to be.

I'd agree with you, but also add that outside of MASSIVE imbalances (that we are used to), I don't think flat stats are ever a strong measurement of really anything. The size of the playerbase is tiny in comparison to other games, and the competitive scene even smaller. This isn't something like Overwatch where there is a million games happening daily worth of stats to compile from. Also this community (well, most to be honest) is closed minded to the idea of something being good until they see a different, better player than themselves doing well with it. Theres only a select few who even push that. I don't think statistics are ever a substitute for critical thinking and reasoning. They are interesting to see what is popular at least.