The choices behind the armies: LGT force dispositions in numbers
LGT 2026 in numbers | Part 4 of 6
Take and Hold and Priority Assets dominated selection. Results within Grey Knights and Death Guard provide more interesting questions than a simple overall ranking.
Faction choice was only one way players differed at LGT 2026. The results export also records Force Disposition, allowing us to see what players selected and how those groups performed. Two choices dominated attendance: Take and Hold and Priority Assets, selected by 626 of the 1,024 active players.
That is 61.1% of the field. Their popularity is clear. Whether either choice caused better results is a much harder question, because these groups contain different armies, players and opponents. The most useful story starts with the choices people made, then looks at the results without treating selection as an experiment.
Two choices accounted for most of the field
Take and Hold was the largest group, with 317 players, narrowly ahead of Priority Assets on 309. Purge the Foe had 182, Reconnaissance 155 and Disruption 45. Sixteen active players had no disposition recorded and remain in an unspecified category.
These counts tell us what the room looked like. They do not tell us whether players picked a disposition for its rules, a particular list, prior practice or personal preference. Those explanations would need information beyond the pairings and placings files. Force Disposition is also a separate export field from faction; it should not be relabelled as detachment data.
The overall gaps were relatively modest
Reconnaissance recorded the highest overall win-equivalent rate among the named dispositions, at 52.3%. Take and Hold followed on 51.0%, Priority Assets on 50.0%, Purge the Foe on 47.3% and Disruption on 46.8%. These figures use all two-player games in rounds one to five, including encounters between players with the same disposition.
Including those same-disposition encounters draws group rates towards 50%, because every win is matched by a loss within that group. Excluding them gives Reconnaissance 52.8%, Take and Hold 51.4%, Priority Assets 50.0%, Purge the Foe 46.9% and Disruption 46.7%. The broad ordering remains, but neither version isolates the effect of the choice itself.
Faction mix changes how we should read the table
An overall disposition rate blends together several different faction populations. If one selection attracts more players from a faction that performs well, some of its headline result may reflect that faction mix. The faction-by-disposition chart is therefore an essential companion to the leaderboard: it shows who is actually being compared.
Looking within a single faction removes one obvious difference, although it still leaves list construction, player experience and opponents uncontrolled. Here, the contrasts become more striking. Grey Knights players using Take and Hold recorded 56.5% across 62 game appearances from thirteen players. Those using Priority Assets recorded 32.9% across 73 appearances from fifteen players: a gap of 23.6 percentage points.
Two within-faction stories worth following up
Death Guard showed another large observed contrast. Ten Disruption players recorded 62.2% across 49 game appearances. Nine Take and Hold players recorded 35.6% across 45 appearances. That is a 26.7-percentage-point difference between these two cohorts.
The denominators are central to the story. Sixty-two game appearances do not mean sixty-two independent players: they came from thirteen people. A few strong runs can move the result considerably. Comparing many faction-disposition combinations also makes it easier to find unusually large gaps, so these examples should prompt investigation rather than an immediate recommendation to switch.
The strongest next step would be to ask those players how their choice fitted their army and game plan, then compare that account with their lists and opponents. The LGT data gives us concrete starting points for those conversations. It establishes that the cohorts performed differently; it leaves the explanation open.
About the data
Source: the LGT 2026 main-event placings and pairings exports. All rates count draws as half and use rounds 1-5. Disposition and within-faction rates include faction mirrors; the alternative overall rates exclude same-disposition encounters only. The within-faction graph displays cohorts with at least eight players. Dispositions are self-selected, unadjusted groups.
Follow UKTC and the LGT over the next few days as we share the results, matchups and player stories from the event.
Comments