Overview of the tournament scene

[Sheriff]

best thing about this is it filters out the stupid soft scores from the various tournaments. 

[Ravinsild]

What’s the prevalent strategy for Legions of Nagash to perform so well? Nagash himself? If so, I’m afraid I won’t be winning any tournaments any time soon... even if I go (which I doubt I will).

[Kyriakin]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this is yet another example of a wretched showing by the Fyreslayers, popularity-wise.

[LLV]

On 10/3/2018 at 5:16 PM, Ravinsild said:

What’s the prevalent strategy for Legions of Nagash to perform so well? Nagash himself? If so, I’m afraid I won’t be winning any tournaments any time soon... even if I go (which I doubt I will).

There are a few LoN lists popping up that are 4-1 that don’t include Nagash. Check out @ianob 4-1 facehammer list for instance. There are efforts in the works that will eventually tie this data in with lists.

[Enoby]

On 10/5/2018 at 3:55 AM, Kyriakin said:

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this is yet another example of a wretched showing by the Fyreslayers, popularity-wise.

I don't play them, but I do hope they get something new. FS seem kind of boring to play (just sit on an objective) and all models look very samey - none of them really have a wow factor. That said, I think GW may be less willing to make new stuff if they haven't sold well to begin with.

[WoollyMammoth]

First up - this graph is really cool and I hope to see more stuff like this in the future.

The meta seems to be dictated by a combination of two factors:

A. The 'New Hotness'
Many of us are addicted to plastic and when something cool and new comes out, we want it. Some people get everything new that comes out, either because they can afford it or by constantly selling and buying to recycle the hobby. I have played Death for years and rarely ever came across another death player. At LVO this year there were only a handful. That was only 9 months ago. Today, after the LoN book and the Nighthaunt, death players are 20% of the meta (also this is only the tournament meta, in stores it seems like 50% nighthaunt right now). Stormcast is perpetually the new hotness and they make up the largest meta. The top 5 are all new tomes of this year. Is this because the books were especially strong, or because more people are excited to play them and make the most of them? 

B. Competitively Effective Lists
You have to balance the 'new hotness' compared to what actually does well on the table. Death models (other than NH) are not particularly new and hot, but the mechanics of the gravesites and the power of Nagash is extremely potent right now, so a lot of players are gravitating to LoN lists, whereas Deepkin models are particularly new and hot, but  they are do not seem to outperform certain LoN and DoK lists.

A sub-factor of this is some kind of broken combo that boosts the meta. For example the multi-waaagh list is performing very well right now, and I expect Ironjaw lists are on the rise. There is also the factor of 'hotness longevity' .. some armies just always seem to get a lot of love. Orcs seem to always have a big following for example, and you will often see a lot of orc players even when they have not had any releases for a long time or are not shining competitively. Fyreslayers  in contrast fell off the face of the meta as soon as their list was not competitive.

Overall I think there is some really interesting things going  on in the meta with AoS 2.0. They seemed to have balanced out some key issues. Things are a bit wild right now but nothing particularly frustrates me like certain exploits before 2.0. Locally I have seen all kinds of lists win tournaments - Nagash, Ironjaws, Stormcast, Nighthaunt .. and many other armies that came very close.

If I had to nitpick I would say that witchbrew is a bit wild right now and I would love to see DoK get rounded out a little more. One thing you cant really see from the chart is how many people are taking 60 reapers. They are in the Nagash lists, they are in the Legion of Sacrament lists, they are in the Legion of Night lists, and they are in the Nighthaunt lists. They are like a glass cannon unit that just happens to have unbreakable glass. In the Nagash lists they are crazy good, where you need very specific tools to deal with them and even if you do have those tools and kill most of them, the unit easily refills to full - and then even if you manage to kill it they can re-spawn the entire unit with a command point. I stopped playing NH/Death lists because its annoying just being another one in the crowd doing this right now, I wish they would tweak the rules a bit so its not the current netlist.  

[Ravinsild]

31 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

First up - this graph is really cool and I hope to see more stuff like this in the future.

The meta seems to be dictated by a combination of two factors:

A. The 'New Hotness'
Many of us are addicted to plastic and when something cool and new comes out, we want it. Some people get everything new that comes out, either because they can afford it or by constantly selling and buying to recycle the hobby. I have played Death for years and rarely ever came across another death player. At LVO this year there were only a handful. That was only 9 months ago. Today, after the LoN book and the Nighthaunt, death players are 20% of the meta (also this is only the tournament meta, in stores it seems like 50% nighthaunt right now). Stormcast is perpetually the new hotness and they make up the largest meta. The top 5 are all new tomes of this year. Is this because the books were especially strong, or because more people are excited to play them and make the most of them? 

B. Competitively Effective Lists
You have to balance the 'new hotness' compared to what actually does well on the table. Death models (other than NH) are not particularly new and hot, but the mechanics of the gravesites and the power of Nagash is extremely potent right now, so a lot of players are gravitating to LoN lists, whereas Deepkin models are particularly new and hot, but  they are do not seem to outperform certain LoN and DoK lists.

A sub-factor of this is some kind of broken combo that boosts the meta. For example the multi-waaagh list is performing very well right now, and I expect Ironjaw lists are on the rise. There is also the factor of 'hotness longevity' .. some armies just always seem to get a lot of love. Orcs seem to always have a big following for example, and you will often see a lot of orc players even when they have not had any releases for a long time or are not shining competitively. Fyreslayers  in contrast fell off the face of the meta as soon as their list was not competitive.

Overall I think there is some really interesting things going  on in the meta with AoS 2.0. They seemed to have balanced out some key issues. Things are a bit wild right now but nothing particularly frustrates me like certain exploits before 2.0. Locally I have seen all kinds of lists win tournaments - Nagash, Ironjaws, Stormcast, Nighthaunt .. and many other armies that came very close.

If I had to nitpick I would say that witchbrew is a bit wild right now and I would love to see DoK get rounded out a little more. One thing you cant really see from the chart is how many people are taking 60 reapers. They are in the Nagash lists, they are in the Legion of Sacrament lists, they are in the Legion of Night lists, and they are in the Nighthaunt lists. They are like a glass cannon unit that just happens to have unbreakable glass. In the Nagash lists they are crazy good, where you need very specific tools to deal with them and even if you do have those tools and kill most of them, the unit easily refills to full - and then even if you manage to kill it they can re-spawn the entire unit with a command point. I stopped playing NH/Death lists because its annoying just being another one in the crowd doing this right now, I wish they would tweak the rules a bit so its not the current netlist.  

Then there’s people like me who go by themes...

i love the Warcraft Horde forever and so Ironjawz was an obvious pick and I adore my Ironjawz. 

Mad a fury Warrior main and Barbarian being my default class in D&D and overall lover of melee focused slaughter obviously Khorne would draw my eye as the manliest incarnation of rage and murder. 

Then of course I’ve always been a vampire fan and that new AoS card game had a death deck and I started playing vampires and skeletons and liked it so much I went out and bought vampires and skeletons! 

Turns out vampires and skeletons aren’t very good. Vargheists suck and regular skeletons are meh and Grave Guard and Black Knights only work well in swarms, but I don’t like ghosts so I’ll figure out a way to make it work  

i avoid anything Nighthaunt or ghostly like the plague, I’m all about Deathrattle, Vampires and vampire-like beings and Morghasts who honestly should be summonable super skeletons. I mean it wouldn’t be over powered

[Nevvermore]

1 hour ago, Ravinsild said:

Then there’s people like me who go by themes...

i love the Warcraft Horde forever and so Ironjawz was an obvious pick and I adore my Ironjawz. 

Mad a fury Warrior main and Barbarian being my default class in D&D and overall lover of melee focused slaughter obviously Khorne would draw my eye as the manliest incarnation of rage and murder.  

Then of course I’ve always been a vampire fan and that new AoS card game had a death deck and I started playing vampires and skeletons and liked it so much I went out and bought vampires and skeletons! 

Turns out vampires and skeletons aren’t very good. Vargheists suck and regular skeletons are meh and Grave Guard and Black Knights only work well in swarms, but I don’t like ghosts so I’ll figure out a way to make it work  

i avoid anything Nighthaunt or ghostly like the plague, I’m all about Deathrattle, Vampires and vampire-like beings and Morghasts who honestly should be summonable super skeletons. I mean it wouldn’t be over powered 

No dude, just no. Regular skeletons are one of the best units in the game! Vampire Lords are great, the one on foot has an amazing spell (or is it command ability) and the one on Zombie Dragon is one of the best and most durable monsters in the game. Black Knights are very good in units of 5 as objective grabbers and harassers. Only units you are spot on about are Grave Guard (you need 30) and Vargheists (indeed pretty meh).

[mikethefish]

I will voice my support of the fact that Skeletons are frakking amazing.  I get that it's arrogant of me to say that you are doing it wrong, but ... you really must be doing it wrong.

[WoollyMammoth]

@Ravinsild
I'm just talking about what pushes the tournament meta. People like you will probably go to a tournament and hate it and never go again. If you went to an event - you would probably more enjoy a narrative event or just taking classes and just enjoying everyone's artwork. Tournaments are pretty cutthroat. Personally I am considering if going to an event only to take classes and enjoy the scene is a much better life choice overall. 

Vampires and Skeletons are extremely good.
- A vampire lord on a zombie dragon is the pinnacle "generic" hero for any list in the new Legions of Nagash list. Being generic he can take the command traits for a lot of flexibility. With the ethereal artifact hes especially good right now. Or you can make him Prince Vordrai to make him a smash-face named char. 
- Neferata is one of the most powerful heroes in the game
- Nagash lists are probably the strongest right now (albeit with reapers) 
- Arkhan is an incredible wizard in a time when magic is a very strong part of the game
- A Vampire Lord is a very good hero
- 40 skeletons are one of the best battleline units in the game, and with the heroes and gravesites bringing them back, they are to the point where they are too good. 
- Grave  Guard are expensive but they are insanely good, and very hard to kill with gravesites. The problem is  that if your opponent focuses them down it really hurts.
- Black Knights got a good update in the new book and are in a great place. They are kind of like a mobile wall though which is not super exciting - so they are not as flashy as other units and  don't see a lot of play. 
- Blood Knights unfortunately were gutted and left super expensive. They are probably the worst unit in death right now. Since its still a $100 resin kit, this is probably for the best. That being said they can still be a very hard-hitting unit in a Legion of Blood list, so they are not useless.

[Lhw]

Sorry, just to disagree massively with @WoollyMammoth on tournaments. I've found them to be completely non cut throat. @Ravinsild I'd highly recommend going to one. I've been to around 20 since starting AoS and must have had about 2 bad games in all that time. The vast majority of games have been played in a friendly spirit, with lots of discussion and great stories. That's including the 6 games I played at the UK masters last year.

Also, the other key point to mention, if you lose your first couple of games in a tournament, you go down to other players who have lost two games. Your chances of meeting an overly competitive idiot at that point are smaller than the small odds they start off at that point!

[Dead Scribe]

Most of the tournaments I go to are pretty cut throat, but thats also how we like it.

[SwampHeart]

9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Most of the tournaments I go to are pretty cut throat, but thats also how we like it.

Yeah but don't you exist in some form of cartoon meta where literally the only way to play the game is with the best possible netlists, terrain that perfectly mirrors adepticon, where any model that isn't at the peak of mathematical efficiency is garbage, where any rule can and should be argued specifically to beneift you at the expense of your opponent, and generally aims to live up to every other sterotype of the 'competitive' side of the hobby? I ask this because having read a ton of your posts it seems like you literally play in a caricature of what people think the competitive scene is. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@Lhw
You are misunderstanding my meaning of cutthroat. I know plenty of good guys whom its fun to play games with, but that play with cutthroat lists indented to smash you into the ground. Some people are so competitive that they are bad sports and that sucks but is not always the case at a tournament. Those people tend to quit as soon as they lose a game so if you lose a game and keep playing, you are likely to run into more laid back people and so your experience will be better. But in a narrative event generally everyone is laid back from the get-go so you do not have to worry that you might win too many games lol.

Regardless @Ravinsild hasn't said anything about playing events.  

[Lhw]

Fair enough, maybe I misunderstood you slightly ?. I still, personally, think that's the minority of lists at tourneys. Certainly where I'm based, in the UK. Lots of lists designed to win, but few designed to just smash you into pieces.

Also, I've never known a single player at any tournament I've been at quit a tournament after losing a game.

[Ravinsild]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Lhw
You are misunderstanding my meaning of cutthroat. I know plenty of good guys whom its fun to play games with, but that play with cutthroat lists indented to smash you into the ground. Some people are so competitive that they are bad sports and that sucks but is not always the case at a tournament. Those people tend to quit as soon as they lose a game so if you lose a game and keep playing, you are likely to run into more laid back people and so your experience will be better. But in a narrative event generally everyone is laid back from the get-go so you do not have to worry that you might win too many games lol.

Regardless @Ravinsild hasn't said anything about playing events.  

I’ve never played at an event  and I’m not sure I want to. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@Lhw
maybe people are nicer in the UK. Currently a lot of people are taking 60 reaper lists and 60+ Witch Elf lists .. these lists will smash you to pieces. 

People leave tournaments all the time, but you don't often hear about it unless you are directly involved. Depends on the situation. Local tournaments, you generally know some of your opponents and see it through even if you are losing badly. At LVO though, people quit to go have fun in Vegas. 

@Ravinsild If you really get into the hobby and have a fully painted army you should. If your mindset is that you just want to have some fun games and you dont care if you win or lose - you are likely to have a great time.

[Dead Scribe]

15 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Yeah but don't you exist in some form of cartoon meta where literally the only way to play the game is with the best possible netlists, terrain that perfectly mirrors adepticon, where any model that isn't at the peak of mathematical efficiency is garbage, where any rule can and should be argued specifically to beneift you at the expense of your opponent, and generally aims to live up to every other sterotype of the 'competitive' side of the hobby? I ask this because having read a ton of your posts it seems like you literally play in a caricature of what people think the competitive scene is. 

How I play is pretty much how I know everyone in my region to play so no I don't think its a caricature of anything.  Stereotypes I imagine exist for a reason.  Because they tend to be true or rooted in truth.  Any competitive facebook group that I follow is the same.  I don't see why that seems so rare for you.

[SwampHeart]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

How I play is pretty much how I know everyone in my region to play so no I don't think its a caricature of anything.  Stereotypes I imagine exist for a reason.  Because they tend to be true or rooted in truth.  Any competitive facebook group that I follow is the same.  I don't see why that seems so rare for you.

Because I travel all over the US for work, play in lots of stores and tournaments and have never seen anything like you describe. Even in the hotbeds of the most competitive tournaments around - yeah people play tough lists technically but nothing like what you post about regularly. I've never been to a store where the concept of narrative gaming or not playing 100% on at all times is so alien that people just stare at me like I'm a fish person. 

[Equinox]

2 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Because I travel all over the US for work, play in lots of stores and tournaments and have never seen anything like you describe. Even in the hotbeds of the most competitive tournaments around - yeah people play tough lists technically but nothing like what you post about regularly. I've never been to a store where the concept of narrative gaming or not playing 100% on at all times is so alien that people just stare at me like I'm a fish person. 

I am in a similar situation with travel as yourself and I have seen many of the "issues" that others have mentioned.  I have also been to events where it felt like a brotherhood sharing a weekend of fun and the lists were all ones that you would never see at "big-name" events.  It varies and the best advise is to do research on an event before attending it.  Talk with the TO.  Talk with players who have attended prior years.  Also, ask yourself what do you really want to get out of a weekend.  No single opinion/review/feedback is going to be a complete picture of a meta or tournament experience.

[jackmcmahon]

Here we go again.  People on TGA trying to make people feel bad for competing at a competition.  Dead scribe, your scene sounds like the fun of AoS without the walking on eggshells sometimes required.  I think I'd enjoy it.

[SwampHeart]

1 hour ago, jackmcmahon said:

Here we go again.  People on TGA trying to make people feel bad for competing at a competition.  Dead scribe, your scene sounds like the fun of AoS without the walking on eggshells sometimes required.  I think I'd enjoy it.

No one is trying to make anyone feel bad for competing at a competition - I routinely play in tournaments (big and small) with the intent to win.  I'm likely more competitive than the average bear as it were. I'm pointing out that there is a stereotype of competitive play and then there is competitive play. I believe that the hobby is at its absolute healthiest when it inspires and maintains many different kinds of hobbyists with distinct and unique goals (which its doing a great job of right now). What I don't believe in is perpetuating the competitive stereotypes - that anyone who plays in tournaments (even with the goal of winning) is a cut throat bandit who'll leave a 2 dayer after day 1 if they had a bad day 1. Or that tournament players only ever play with what is the exact best list of the day with only the exact best models, or that tournament players are more interested in the win than helping promote the hobby (the hobby being tournament play in this case) and show casing what top level play actually looks like.  This isn't about not taking hard lists or playing correctly, its about doing those things while being a steward of the hobby. 

 

[relic456]

Not really sure how this:

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

No one is trying to make anyone feel bad for competing at a competition
 

Lines up with this:

21 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Yeah but don't you exist in some form of cartoon meta where literally the only way to play the game is with the best possible netlists, terrain that perfectly mirrors adepticon, where any model that isn't at the peak of mathematical efficiency is garbage, where any rule can and should be argued specifically to beneift you at the expense of your opponent, and generally aims to live up to every other sterotype of the 'competitive' side of the hobby? I ask this because having read a ton of your posts it seems like you literally play in a caricature of what people think the competitive scene is. 

Where you basically ridicule @Dead Scribe's meta and playstyle?  

I guess to make sure I stay on topic, I really agree with @WoollyMammoth's analysis.  I always find the differences between your local meta and the international meta to be fascinating.  Being able to figure why certain lists win local tournaments but maybe don't make an appearance in an overview post goes a long way in improving your play!  I'm curious to see how Beasts of Chaos shake things up.  I don't think they are much of a threat to the popular Death lists (ignoring Rend and what not) but on paper they seem strong enough to make a top table showing here or there.

[Dead Scribe]

2 hours ago, jackmcmahon said:

Here we go again.  People on TGA trying to make people feel bad for competing at a competition.  Dead scribe, your scene sounds like the fun of AoS without the walking on eggshells sometimes required.  I think I'd enjoy it.

Thats pretty much dead on my friend.  We all accept what we like (hardcore full on competition in any game) and we aren't afraid to play as advertised.  We have had nothing but success for several years.  Honestly I've never seen the eggshells that you refer to in any other game until I started this one a year ago.  

Anyone know why that is?  Why is being competition-focused seen as such a bad "toxic" thing where you'll get picked at for it and called a cartoon character?  I feel I'm pretty tame compared to a lot of people I know that post in other forums and groups for other games. 

The other things that are referred to, leaving after a day if you can't place, playing with the exact best of the army list / models those things are pretty much normal fare everywhere else I look, I'm not sure how that destroys the community here if you play that way.

I dont think it does at all.  I think that if someone doesnt like those things that those people should stick with the people that like what they do and it all will be fine.   

[SwampHeart]

1 hour ago, relic456 said:

Where you basically ridicule @Dead Scribe's meta and playstyle?  

Not ridicule at all, just poking at a little fun. If I was trying to make him feel bad for competing at a competition I'd maybe say some things about how tournaments are bad, or playing to win is bad, I might toss out the term WAAC. I did none of that - I just noted that he plays in what amounts to a stereotype of what people assume all competitive play looks like.  And I don't think that's healthy because it leads to tribalism. Don't confuse me making fun of stereotypes as me ridiculing someone for enjoying competitive play. You can be a super competitive player without fitting the narrative.  

 

36 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The other things that are referred to, leaving after a day if you can't place, playing with the exact best of the army list / models those things are pretty much normal fare everywhere else I look, I'm not sure how that destroys the community here if you play that way.

Leaving a 2 day event because you had a bad first day is the definition of poor sportsmanship.  You've created a headache for the organizer and other players specifically because you haven't gotten what you want. Hopefully the TO has a ringer ready, hopefully a player doesn't spend 30 minutes of round 4 waiting for pairings to be reshuffled, and hopefully the tournament doesn't score on SoS. 

And as to why I belabor this? Because I don't want AoS to turn into what 40k has turned in to which is a game so plagued by problems that it took over a year of 8th edition to have a clean tournament. I don't want AoS's tournament scene to turn in to one where players use 'gotcha' tactics in the middle of a stream and attract the attention of RIOT games CEO, and I certainly don't want AoS tournaments to turn into a thing where for 3 weeks after there are massive threads discussing the controversy surrounding the cheating (or perception thereof). 40k has become all those things and I'd really rather AoS didn't.  Again both of you seem to think I don't like tournaments or competitive play, far from it. I engage in both regularly - but I still believe you and I have a responsibility to represent the community of tournament players well.