From Toqtamish:

"120 players, cut to top 16

Top 16 was 7 Dark Eldar, 4 Space Marines, 3 Eldar, 1,Tau, 1 Chaos.

Top 8 was Tau, Chaos, Space Marine x2, Dark Eldar x4

Top 4 was 2 DE vs 2 SM

Top 2 was SM vs SM"

With this is mind I looked at the total entries and how they did compared against the cut (of top16):

35 SM in, 4 in top 16 (11.4%)

23 Chaos in, 1 in top 16 (4%)

15 Eldar in, 3 in top 16 (20%)

14 DE in, 7 in top 16 (50%)

11 Tau in, 1 in top 16 (9%)

11 Ork in, 0 in top 16 (0%)

10 AM in, 0 in top 16 (0%)

So with these numbers it does look like DE did the best, with Eldar and SM right behind (though you could make a case SM did better since the final was 2 SM decks).

Obvisouly a big part of this is who ran the decks, but I'm wondering your all's thoughts on if this provides a clear picture of the meta. Are DE really that strong? Are Ork and AM really that weak? (I personally think Ork may be, while AM might not be - I think combining Preemptive Barrage with Captain Markis' abiltiy is a wicked combo). Surprised to see Chaos do so poorly?

With this is mind I looked at the total entries and how they did compared against the cut (of top16):

35 SM in, 4 in top 16 (11.4%)

23 Chaos in, 1 in top 16 (4%)

15 Eldar in, 3 in top 16 (20%)

14 DE in, 7 in top 16 (50%)

11 Tau in, 1 in top 16 (9%)

11 Ork in, 0 in top 16 (0%)

10 AM in, 0 in top 16 (0%)

I prefer to look at it this way

SM, 29.41% of starting pool, 25% of cut pool (-4.41%)

Chaos, 19.32% of starting pool, 6.25% of cut pool (-13.07%)

Eldar, 12.60% of starting pool, 18.75% of cut pool (+6.15%)

Dark Eldar 11.76% of starting pool, 43.75% of cut pool (+31.99%)

Tau 9.24% of starting pool, 6.25% of cut pool (-2.99%)

Ork 9.24% of starting pool, 0% of cut pool (-9.24%)

AM 8.40% of starting pool, 0% of cut pool (-8.40%)

My rankings of how Factions did, from best to worst would be

1. Dark Eldar

2. Eldar

3. Tau

4. SM

5. AM

6. Ork

7. Chaos

Keep in mind that your Top 16 numbers are a bit skewed by the 5 people that dropped out of the cut round so that they could play Netrunner. AM, for example, did represent in the Top 16 after Swiss, but the player dropped out.

Hard to take the results too seriously. The game is so knew a good number of players there had probably hardly played the game much.

IMO, I think that Dark Eldar did so well because a lot of players who've played the game a lot played them and also, the playstyle of Dark Eldar is a little more involved/less obvious.

SM did well because they are strong and straight forward to play.

I think it came down to there being a lot of people still learning the game, the "ace" players tended to gravitate to Dark Eldar more, and SM being strong.

IMO, SM is hands down the best build right now but in the hands of a good player the Dark Eldar can be very good as well.

Not to say that the two guys in the finals are not good players, obviously you have to be pretty good to beat out 120 other players. Strong Deck+Strong player.

Hard to take the results too seriously. The game is so knew a good number of players there had probably hardly played the game much.

IMO, I think that Dark Eldar did so well because a lot of players who've played the game a lot played them and also, the playstyle of Dark Eldar is a little more involved/less obvious.

Yup.

Dark Eldar is also perfect for taking down inexperienced players. Not that everyone there was inexperienced but I saw a lot of people buying core sets and building decks that morning and Thursday night! With raid and some of the command control a DE deck can provide it really shuts down a person learning the game.

Also keep in mind taking a percentage of players with a certain factions making the cut isn't a really good indicator. That assumes all the decks are run by players with equal skill and deck building know-how.

Some questions:

1) When will we see some of the Top decks?

2) To what percentage do you think, from 120 players, bought the game right before the tournament?

3) Why isn't there more interest in this topic?

@topic: On the base of this tournament and personal experience, i would say, that SM is at the top right now. With DE i am not sure. It could be due to people not being experienced in the handling of a doom play and the more controlish style of DE. The surprising factor of the DE tricks come in hand if you only have to play 1 match and not bo3 and at the first tournament, where many players do not know all the cards yet.

But i was surprised to see such few Tau doing well. I think it can be very strong too. In the end Siccarius ability is superior to Shadowsun's and that may have played a key role.

Guys, it is telling that DE decks did so well, regardless if those who chose DE were either new to the game or experienced with the game.

It seems that factional power will shift back and forth with in the years to come, given that we are mostly looking at the meta primarily through the cards in the Core set. I for one would love to see more Ork and AM decks being played, which I hope will be possible in time.

gr4ffi,

1)Here's one thread on some of the top decks.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18329-worlds-top-8-undefeated-in-swiss-dee/

There's plenty of info on some other threads over there at cardgamedb as well.

2)I had heard a few were buying and building decks right then and there.

3) I wonder the same!!!

I agree with some of the previous posts here. I think DE can be tough to handle for newcomers. They're a little less straight forward than most. Lots if tricky events. I myself am not sure if the meta can be judged by these results but I do think SM and DE are strongest out of the box. Personally, I really like Tau and AM...

So in general there is more activity over at cardgamedb? Sorry for non-topic

@topic again: Chaos seemed to be very popular, but only 1 got into tops out of 23. I thought their Warlord Zarathur had a really good ability and the squad was ok too. Getting a Bloodletter to work would be insane. Plus, they have some more cute dmg effects that get synergy with the warlord. Orc and DE alliance is viable imho. Why do you think Chaos did so poorly? Also, to confirm this, i really would like to see the detailed positions of all 120 players.

So in general there is more activity over at cardgamedb? Sorry for non-topic

More general discussion definitely takes place over at cardgamedb.

Getting a Bloodletter to work would be insane. Plus, they have some more cute dmg effects that get synergy with the warlord. Orc and DE alliance is viable imho. Why do you think Chaos did so poorly?

Well, I would toss out a few possibilities:

1. It might depend on how you define "poorly." How much of a faction's success can be attributed to the ally chosen for the deck, and how many of the DE decks that placed so highly used Chaos allies?

2. The success of DE suggests that control strategies played a big part in the success of many games at Worlds. Chaos, generally, seems to be more about dealing a lot of damage quickly. It's not much of a "control" faction. As such, it might have been at a disadvantage in what turned out to be a "control field."

3. Building on #2, Chaos's best units tend to be more expensive side. As such, they could have been particularly vulnerable to the "control field." Once Chaos gets behind on the resource curve, it can be very hard for them to catch up.

4. Ultimately, I think people went into Worlds expecting to see a lot of Chaos (and other general "damage dealing" strategies). So the relatively poor showing might simply be because people were prepared for Chaos in a way that they were not prepared for factions like DE.

I think Chaos is a bit too dependent on getting the right cards at the right time for now. One of my play group brought a Chaos deck that he has done really well with locally, but he lost out right away. Chaos has some really great tools, but if you don't draw those tools then you are probably going to lose hard.

I can definitely agree with the observation that SM and DE are probably strongest out of the box (though requiring skill to play, obviously). I made top 16 with Eldar, and I don't think I've lost to SM with that deck. That being said, I'm not sure I've ever beaten DE. The interesting challenge going forward is how to remove the rock-paper-scissors and find something that can beat everyone.

Well, I was playing VS a good mono Ork deck tonight that was formidable. We played 5 times, I think I won 3-2 with SM/Tau.

All wins on both sides were pretty lopsided.

The more I play, the more decks I see the more I think that some factions are not as strong as people think and some are not as weak as people think.

I think Ork can do well VS SM, maybe not great against DE.