Hello

The question is simple;
Right now, what are the faction ranking in the game? top tier, mid tier and low tier
I'll try to keep the average of all post in this first post: do you agree, do you disagree?

On 06/04/18
TOP TIER:
- Craftworlds
- Tyranids
- Astra Militarum
- Chaos Space Marines
- Blood Angels
- Soups (Imperium, Chaos or Eldars)

MID TIER:
- Drukhari
- Death Guard
- Dark Angels
- Space Marines
- Thousand Sons
- Chaos Daemons
- Tau
- Necrons
- Custodes
- Sisters of battle (index)

LOW TIER
- Adeptus Mechanicus
- Grey Knights
- Space Wolves (index)
- Deathwatch (index)
- Orks (index)
- Genestealer Cults (index)

Imperium and chaos soups are the most effective armies at the moment.

Eldar and tyranids are also very solid but the most effective eldar lists are tournaments exclusive as only a few people in the world actually own 20+ dark reapers and while tyranids have tons of effective options they're far from being overpowered.

Among pure armies AM is still the most competitive one.

The only real low tier army is GK, they really struggle without allies. But IMHO it's because they shouldn't be an independent faction, but part of a larger one that includes SoB, inquisition, custodes and Ad Mech.

 Blackie wrote:
Imperium and chaos soups are the most effective armies at the moment.

Eldar and tyranids are also very solid but the most effective eldar lists are tournaments exclusive as only a few people in the world actually own 20+ dark reapers and while tyranids have tons of effective options they're far from being overpowered.

Among pure armies AM is still the most competitive one.

The only real low tier army is GK, they really struggle without allies. But IMHO it's because they shouldn't be an independent faction, but part of a larger one that includes SoB, inquisition, custodes and Ad Mech.

I'm trying to sell 25 dark reapers, and no one wants them. I think more people have access to it then a "few".

 djones520 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Imperium and chaos soups are the most effective armies at the moment.

Eldar and tyranids are also very solid but the most effective eldar lists are tournaments exclusive as only a few people in the world actually own 20+ dark reapers and while tyranids have tons of effective options they're far from being overpowered.

Among pure armies AM is still the most competitive one.

The only real low tier army is GK, they really struggle without allies. But IMHO it's because they shouldn't be an independent faction, but part of a larger one that includes SoB, inquisition, custodes and Ad Mech.

I'm trying to sell 25 dark reapers, and no one wants them. I think more people have access to it then a "few".

I disagree. They're very old monopose models, only power creep players could be interested in owning more than 5-10 of them. And a nerf on dark reapers is rumored basically since the release of the eldar codex. It's no surprise that 25 dark reapers are hard to sell, unless massive discount.

From what I gather from listening to various podcasts, Eldar Dark Reaper spam and Flying Hive Tyrant/Spore spam are the top two tournament lists with Eldar having the slight edge.

IMO (stand alone codexes, no index armies)
Top Tier
Eldar - turns out reapers are good
Tyranids - flyrants eat things
Astra Militarum (Imperial Guard) - everything can be taken more of less, no bad options
Chaos Space Marines - a nice mix of cheap to expensive in 1 book
Blood Angels - hit things reallllllly hard til they stop moving

Mid Tier
Dark Angels - I heard you like plasma
Space Marines - generic toolbox
Thousand Sons - own the psychic phase, but unless you have cultists / tzaangors, its expensive ppm
Chaos Daemons - Mono god doesn't really work, but combined gods...
Death Guard - like TS but less psychic

Low Tier
Custodes - elite model syndrome
Adeptus Mechanicus - very shooty, but that's about all
Grey Knights - like custodes, but less killy

source: my impressions when I read the codex (I have a habit of buying them all)
This doesn't account for the soup lists which are very strong (unless you're a nid player, in which case you turn things to soup)

Thank you
And with the indexes?
With the Tau?

 petitflacheur wrote:
Thank you
And with the indexes?
With the Tau?

Harlequins - mid tier
DE - might be mid tier with some builds, low tier otherwise
Ork - boyz spam is mid tier, but anything else is low tier
Ynnari - mid tier by itself. CWE/Ynnari soup is top tier

Tau are in that weird place where we haven’t seen if they are any good post codex. If there’s an Uber build I’m not seeing it yet, but they look ok. The same goes for necrons.

Chaos soup lists are right up there at the moment - maybe even ahead of Eldar.

 petitflacheur wrote:
Thank you
And with the indexes?
With the Tau?

Orks and drukhari are low tiers that can win against top tiers thanks to the rock-paper-scissor syndrome. An ork greentide can win if it faces a top tier list that invested hundreds of points in anti tank, while drukhari can melt competitive armored lists if they bring tons of lances.

This discussion is pointless if you don't specify the tules that you are going to use:
- ITC or ETC with their own mission and objectives?
- HEAT gw format with their limits?
- Homebrew format?
- Smite with nerf or not?

The difference between the rule set is huge: Chaos and Orks have a level of effectiveness really high in comparison to eldar if you play a gt, you can just take a look to the top list in this kind of event.

Of course, we can agree on the fact that this list may vary in fonction of:
- the build
- the army you face (rock-paper-scissor syndrome)
- the set of rules

And some information can be found on sites like bloodofkittens.com

But it's a simplification that help understand the meta and to have a good excuse when you lose :p

Feel free to disagree

No-ones seemed to touch on Genestealer Cults yet :(
At the moment GSC is garbage against any army that can properly screen but it does have a niche in facilitating tyranid soup by allying in guard, and by having very powerful deepstriking anti-armor (habberants and saw acolytes).
Hopefully the codex will change things

Not a single mention of space Wolves either sadday

I'm not sure Custodes suffer from Elite Model syndrome, given how cheap and how elite those models are. It depends on the tournament format.

Do we rise Custodes to mid tier?
The games i did against... i losted... but i'm not that good so...

I think Tau are going to move towards nids pretty quickly. It doesnt have as much amazing internal balance but its pretty damn good with a lot of really good options.

I think there's a Grey Knights tier in 40k. And none of the other books belong in it.

Adeptus Mechanicus and especially Adeptus Custodes are much better than Grey Knights, imo. I'd actually have Custodes as a mid/high tier codex, I think ya'll are sleeping on what an army with a Custodes detachment as its core can do.

 meleti wrote:
I think there's a Grey Knights tier in 40k. And none of the other books belong in it.

Adeptus Mechanicus and especially Adeptus Custodes are much better than Grey Knights, imo. I'd actually have Custodes as a mid/high tier codex, I think ya'll are sleeping on what an army with a Custodes detachment as its core can do.

Yeah I agree, custodes are a solid middle tier, they are VERY good at what they do. they benifit greatly from support mind you, but can operate on their own reasonably well. Grey Knights try to do too much and suffer as a result by comparison

Necrons are definitely low low tier.

It's still funny to me that people whined about the original admech codex so much people still think it's bad.

I'll say admech are solidly on par with my deathguard and CSM armies. A bit more monobuild but our codex has half the options of many that's not shocking. Perhaps a little weaker simply elder shut us down really hard atm (and guard are still pretty much a better version of us).

I'm also not sure how custodes move out of low tier, they just can't be used with any success without allies. I've faced good spam builds of mono custodes with less competitive builds of my main armies, who are fairly middle of the road themselves, and felt I still had the upper hand from sheer point efficiency.

Eldar isn't a Codex. And the top tier part of Craftworlds involves Ynnari, which also isn't a Codex.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Eldar isn't a Codex. And the top tier part of Craftworlds involves Ynnari, which also isn't a Codex.

What are you talking about? The Eldar Codex came out months ago.

 meleti wrote:
I think there's a Grey Knights tier in 40k. And none of the other books belong in it.

Adeptus Mechanicus and especially Adeptus Custodes are much better than Grey Knights, imo. I'd actually have Custodes as a mid/high tier codex, I think ya'll are sleeping on what an army with a Custodes detachment as its core can do.

Agreed. Dumpster Tier. Home to: GK, Index Deathwatch (non-primaris)

I'm hoping against hope that DW won't suffer GK's fate, but since GW seems to be incapable of understanding how to cost a marine statline in 8th.....

BrianDavion wrote:

 meleti wrote:
I think there's a Grey Knights tier in 40k. And none of the other books belong in it.

Adeptus Mechanicus and especially Adeptus Custodes are much better than Grey Knights, imo. I'd actually have Custodes as a mid/high tier codex, I think ya'll are sleeping on what an army with a Custodes detachment as its core can do.

Yeah I agree, custodes are a solid middle tier, they are VERY good at what they do. they benifit greatly from support mind you, but can operate on their own reasonably well. Grey Knights try to do too much and suffer as a result by comparison

IMO Grey Knights try to do too little. They have a bunch of a specific kind of firepower, but nothing else. And they are definitely in a league of their own.
Custodes (specifically bikers) are solid and mid-tier because all the stuff they pay for is complimentary. They don't suffer from glass cannon syndrome nor gun-less tank syndrome, they have good firepower on a durable platform that can get into optimal engagement range.

Death Guard is not top tier?

 meleti wrote:
I think there's a Grey Knights tier in 40k. And none of the other books belong in it.

Adeptus Mechanicus and especially Adeptus Custodes are much better than Grey Knights, imo. I'd actually have Custodes as a mid/high tier codex, I think ya'll are sleeping on what an army with a Custodes detachment as its core can do.

Admech has some serious problems as an army and some of the worst units in the game, but enough strong points to lift it well above the abyss that Grey Knights are at right now.

Custodes are basically strictly better Grey Knights with better utility through some absolutely killer stratagems. They can't function with any competitive viability on their own, but with the right support, they can be incredibly scary additions to greater Imperium armies.


As far as the current state of (Craftworld) Eldar are concerned, once Reapers (and Spears) get their well deserved nerf, unless other units get some significant rebalancing, expect them to drop to low pretty low tier positions. The aspects kind of suck outside of those two (Fire Dragons are okay, I guess), and Guardian spam does not inspire me. I'm not holding my breath for Dark Eldar either, as GW hasn't really shown any sign of having a good idea for what to do with them since 5th edition, but I'd love to be proved wrong. Imperial Guard will find its way back to the top dog position with no real contenders.

Custodes is one that changes heavily based on if it is a solo army or the core of a mixed build. Anything that can he then extra CP and some bodies makes them much better, but on their own they often get destroyed.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Death Guard is not top tier?

It basically has a single proven high level build, focused around spamming a single unit. You could argue that's really low upper tier or high level mid tier.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Eldar isn't a Codex. And the top tier part of Craftworlds involves Ynnari, which also isn't a Codex.

What are you talking about? The Eldar Codex came out months ago.

You are mistaken. There is no Codex Eldar.

Orks and Custodes are absolutely mid tier. The rest are appropriate.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Eldar isn't a Codex. And the top tier part of Craftworlds involves Ynnari, which also isn't a Codex.

What are you talking about? The Eldar Codex came out months ago.

You are mistaken. There is no Codex Eldar.

Semantics. A top tier Eldar list includes units from the craftworld codex and ynnari stuff from the index.

Also, it’s normal shorthand to call craftworld Eldar just Eldar.

To be fair, the OP asks which codexes are most powerful. Most of the discussion here has been about which factions are most powerful - which is far more relevant in competition. Many, if not most of the top builds sample from across several sources.

Index Necrons are definitely bottom tier.

Karang029 wrote:
Not a single mention of space Wolves either sadday

Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Ok, thanks for the correction

I up the custodes, down the necrons, replace inari and eldars by craftworld and add in low tier: space wolfs and deathwatch

For the ork, someone says "mid tier". Do you agree?

Last tournament i went to, 108 people and orks came 6th.

Though was 134 or so storm boys, so hard to say if its the army which is good or the model spammed

No one owns 134 stormboyz though, maybe a few crazy guys in the world. If you have to proxy for having such a list I'd say that solution doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 petitflacheur wrote:
Ok, thanks for the correction

I up the custodes, down the necrons, replace inari and eldars by craftworld and add in low tier: space wolfs and deathwatch

For the ork, someone says "mid tier". Do you agree?

No, I think they're bottom tier. In the rock-paper-scissor game that 40k can be, they can win though. But if they do it's not because they're units are good and they have efficient combos but only because other lists weren't 100% TAC but focussed on countering the most competitive ones and don't expect to fight orks.

Armies that can't deal with ork hordes are only bottom tier ones, so I'd definitely consider them bottom tiers.

8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Yeah orks work by not doing what the meta does. People’s armies aren’t designed to take them on.

I’ve seen the stormboy swarm in the flesh at a practice tournament for the ETC. It’s reslly quite scary how fast it’s totally all over people. I don’t think there’s a lot that my marines could do to stop it - I’d have very little chance going second. His unit count actually isn’t crazy, so that’s a distinct possibility.

I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Yeah no joke. I was not motivated enough to compile that list, but thank you for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Yeah no joke. I was not motivated enough to compile that list, but thank you for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

I suppose you could make an argument for a codex with multiple tournament-winning builds being stronger than one that is a one-trick pony... both options seem reasonable, anyway.

Just going to chim in and say space marines are not mid teir. They belong with admech and greyknights. In a seperate - "to be excluded from any serious discussion about army power".

How can you honestly look at dark angels codex - read the strategems - the psychic powers - and rate them one army ahead of space marines in terms of power?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Karang029 wrote:
Not a single mention of space Wolves either sadday

Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Space wolves are better than codex space marines.

 Tyr13 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

I suppose you could make an argument for a codex with multiple tournament-winning builds being stronger than one that is a one-trick pony... both options seem reasonable, anyway.

Lots of ways to respond to that.

Grey Knights have a lot of builds and they have won many smaller ITC tournaments (like the ones at a hobby shop where 8 players show up.) They're not going to win at a major, so I would not call them top tier.

Space Marine and IG soup lists consistently place in the top 10 at major tournaments, but not IG or Space Marines individually. The winning army combination is not from a Codex, it's from Codexes. Does that mean Codex armies are not top tier? Or maybe SM and IG should share the credit and both be second tier?

Eldar armies have a lot of troops from Index entries, for Ynarri and other units, and win a lot of tournaments. Does that mean Index + Codex armies are top tier? What tier is the index?

The more hairs we split, the less meaningful tiers become. 40k is a post-Codex game. You can combine detachments from different Codexes that outperform a straight Codex army. Which is absolutely great - you get to enjoy your models instead of being frustrated about the limitations of the old FOC.

I think we can all agree the higher the tier, the closer the armies would resemble an easy button. But Codex tiers don't really mean that much anymore, it's more about factions. The only real way to compare them is tournament results, and even that's horseshoes.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

I suppose you could make an argument for a codex with multiple tournament-winning builds being stronger than one that is a one-trick pony... both options seem reasonable, anyway.

Lots of ways to respond to that.

Grey Knights have a lot of builds and they have won many smaller ITC tournaments (like the ones at a hobby shop where 8 players show up.) They're not going to win at a major, so I would not call them top tier.

Space Marine and IG soup lists consistently place in the top 10 at major tournaments, but not IG or Space Marines individually. The winning army combination is not from a Codex, it's from Codexes. Does that mean Codex armies are not top tier? Or maybe SM and IG should share the credit and both be second tier?

Eldar armies have a lot of troops from Index entries, for Ynarri and other units, and win a lot of tournaments. Does that mean Index + Codex armies are top tier? What tier is the index?

The more hairs we split, the less meaningful tiers become. 40k is a post-Codex game. You can combine detachments from different Codexes that outperform a straight Codex army. Which is absolutely great - you get to enjoy your models instead of being frustrated about the limitations of the old FOC.

I think we can all agree the higher the tier, the closer the armies would resemble an easy button. But Codex tiers don't really mean that much anymore, it's more about factions. The only real way to compare them is tournament results, and even that's horseshoes.

Thats definitely true... though personally, I despise soup. Anything beyond an assassin or Inquisitor just feels... wrong to me. But then, I dont really play competitively either, so I dont really have much to add in that regard anyway.

My suggestion isn't losing but how about I can play with everything listed in the codex and not one build. Maybe I as a player and personal. Who's invested so much have a winning chance with other units. To be honest I doubt that's an unreasonable request to me orks aren't top tier cause I play them differently

 Tyr13 wrote:
Thats definitely true... though personally, I despise soup. Anything beyond an assassin or Inquisitor just feels... wrong to me. But then, I dont really play competitively either, so I dont really have much to add in that regard anyway.

You would hate the Inquisition / Deathwatch / Grey Knights / Sisters / Astra Militarum army I am working on right now.

So thick with fluff one must call it a stew. Will compete with pure Grey Knights for least useful, but it features the Throne of Judgement as a centerpiece.

ballzonya wrote:
My suggestion isn't losing but how about I can play with everything listed in the codex and not one build. Maybe I as a player and personal. Who's invested so much have a winning chance with other units. To be honest I doubt that's an unreasonable request to me orks aren't top tier cause I play them differently

I think this is fair, but it applies to almost everything anyone talks about when they talk about "top tier codexes". Like, there's a lot of crap in the Eldar codex. Mostly this idea of codex tiers is kind of silly in a world where GW is willing to buff and nerf individual units and rules. And I mean that it's silly for reasons beyond what techsoldaten points out -- that it should be super-factions like "IMPERIUM" and not codices we care about if we're going to care about anything like this at all.

Mostly I feel like people fight about codex tiers because they want there to be a perception that their faction needs buffing, or because they want to push back against a perception that their faction needs nerfing. One hopes that no one with any power over the process is paying any attention to this at all. This is obviously an unhelpful oversimplification of the state of the game.

There's just no reason to talk about Codex: Asuryani or whatever it's called as a "top tier codex". What people need to understand is just that Dark Reapers are incredibly good, especially in combination with certain stratagems and the Ynnari rules. That should be fixed, specifically. It's not "Eldar" warping tournaments, it's Ynnari with Dark Reapers. There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so, and which perhaps ought to be pushed in order to create a sense of faction identity (it's obviously a very Eldar-y unit). One could talk about the extent to which Alatoic and its ability to stack hit modifiers on Rangers and flyers and advancing grav tanks is unfair to gunline armies. That's all fair game, but it just seems not at all helpful to take all of that and then have an argument over whether it means that the codex is "top tier". Dark Reapers should be fixed and the other stuff should at least be looked at. But on the other hand there are a lot of things in the codex that badly need some love. Most of the unit choices are still pretty awful. Beyond points, three of the Craftworlds have pretty terrible traits and the Warlord Traits and Relics are unexciting to say the least. One hopes that if GW does a balance pass and hits Dark Reapers, they also lift up Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions. It's not actually a good codex, just a powerful one, and it's powerful on the back of a very small number of units and rules interactions.

I think I've pretty fairly summed up most of what's going on with the Eldar codex in a paragraph -- it's not hard. Surely anyone who cares enough about the game to be talking about it on a forum cares enough to understand this much about every codex that they want to argue about. But given that you have some concept of a codex that's merely as detailed as that, what's the point of trying to work out a tier for it? Lists might be top-tier, sure, and it's worth talking about exactly which lists are performing best. I feel like you'll actually get a lot more consensus doing this too -- I bet a lot more Eldar players will agree that Ynnari Dark Reapers is top tier than will agree that "Eldar" are top tier. Likewise you'll see a lot more Guard players willing to agree that Guardsmen are a problematic component of Imperial soup lists than will agree that "Guard" are too strong.

Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Yes it does. 90% of the faction being trash doesn't matter if one unit is all it needs to crush everything else. If that was the case, Eldar wouldn't be high on anyone's lists either. Tier lists are concerned with factions being run at their absolute peak efficiency and at the highest skill levels. As poorly as they may be designed overall right now, they're still one of the best competitive forces right now.

 meleti wrote:
Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

I don't understand who you think you're arguing with. I don't see how my post could be interpreted as saying that Eldar lists are literally nothing but Dark Reapers. Is it your position that anything that shows up in a tournament-winning list is too good and should probably be nerfed? Are you upset that I didn't call out Guardians as something that GW should think about rebalancing? I admit it: I don't think that Guardians should be nerfed and I think that'd be a pretty silly position for someone to take.

I mean, I even mentioned grav tanks (which would include Wave Serpents -- actually they're the main ones I had in mind) and Rangers specifically as things that one could reasonably think are too good in certain circumstances/matchups. Did you read my post?

Eldar being built on the back of a couple units doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely everything else is worthless. There are other competent Eldar units, they're just heavily overshadowed by the big two, and without them aren't enough for Eldar to be a highly functioning force.

There are also a lot of really, really bad units in the Craftworld codex. Considerably more than there are decent ones. The Craftworld codex is actually pretty bad as a whole.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:
Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

I don't understand who you think you're arguing with. I don't see how my post could be interpreted as saying that Eldar lists are literally nothing but Dark Reapers. Is it your position that anything that shows up in a tournament-winning list is too good and should probably be nerfed? Are you upset that I didn't call out Guardians as something that GW should think about rebalancing? I admit it: I don't think that Guardians should be nerfed and I think that'd be a pretty silly position for someone to take.

I mean, I even mentioned grav tanks (which would include Wave Serpents -- actually they're the main ones I had in mind) and Rangers specifically as things that one could reasonably think are too good in certain circumstances/matchups. Did you read my post?

You said that Eldar are only playing two "very good" units. So yeah, I completely disagree. I think that entire army core is great. And much more than just the Rangers or the Wave Serpents, too.

 meleti wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:
Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

I don't understand who you think you're arguing with. I don't see how my post could be interpreted as saying that Eldar lists are literally nothing but Dark Reapers. Is it your position that anything that shows up in a tournament-winning list is too good and should probably be nerfed? Are you upset that I didn't call out Guardians as something that GW should think about rebalancing? I admit it: I don't think that Guardians should be nerfed and I think that'd be a pretty silly position for someone to take.

I mean, I even mentioned grav tanks (which would include Wave Serpents -- actually they're the main ones I had in mind) and Rangers specifically as things that one could reasonably think are too good in certain circumstances/matchups. Did you read my post?

You said that Eldar are only playing two "very good" units. So yeah, I completely disagree.

Okay, so yes, you might want to reread my post because I'm pretty sure you can't find this statement.

Edit: Wait, is this just you missing the context around "very good but not plausibly not game-breakingly so"? Like, I would hope that the other part of that sentence, and the end of the sentence, and the rest of the paragraph where I say that GW should look at them, makes clear to the reader that I'm picking out Shining Spears as something that very plausibly require nerfing, not that they're the only other unit besides Dark Reapers that could possibly qualify as "very good" by any definition. I mean, come on. Also note that I even introduced Spears as one of an indeterminate number of units that should be looked at, not as the only one. Though the main other one I have in mind is the Hemlock.

I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Probably not, which is why this is so weird. But I think you're misunderstanding where other people are coming from.

Actually I think this is a good example of why it's not useful to try to talk about a codex as a whole as being strong or weak or whatever. This doesn't mean anything. You say that it's not a weak codex because it's got a number of other units in it that you're generally pretty happy to have in a list but which won't be winning tournaments by themselves. Other people say that it's a weak codex aside from Reapers and maybe Spears for exactly the same reason -- it's got a number of other units in it that you can get good use out of but which you're not going to have much success with competitively without supplementing with the really OP stuff. This just seems like a glass half full / half empty thing to me. I think it's pretty plausible that you agree on almost all of the specific details with a lot of the people you're thinking of as expressing "pure nonsense"; you're just putting those all together into a judgment about the codex as a whole in a different way. But this judgment doesn't matter for anything!

That's why I think it's probably most useful to talk about the problematic elements specifically rather than trying to figure out what we ought to think about the competitiveness of the codex as a whole, somehow abstracted from any of the specific units in it. What should be nerfed, and by how much? What should be buffed, and by how much?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Probably not, which is why this is so weird. But I think you're misunderstanding where other people are coming from.

Actually I think this is a good example of why it's not useful to try to talk about a codex as a whole as being strong or weak or whatever. This doesn't mean anything. You say that it's not a weak codex because it's got a number of other units in it that you're generally pretty happy to have in a list but which won't be winning tournaments by themselves. Other people say that it's a weak codex aside from Reapers and maybe Spears for exactly the same reason -- it's got a number of other units in it that you can get good use out of but which you're not going to have much success with competitively without supplementing with the really OP stuff. This just seems like a glass half full / half empty thing to me. I think it's pretty plausible that you agree on almost all of the specific details with a lot of the people you're thinking of as expressing "pure nonsense"; you're just putting those all together into a judgment about the codex as a whole in a different way. But this judgment doesn't matter for anything!

That's why I think it's probably most useful to talk about the problematic elements specifically rather than trying to figure out what we ought to think about the competitiveness of the codex as a whole, somehow abstracted from any of the specific units in it. What should be nerfed, and by how much? What should be buffed, and by how much?

I don't think this thread is really intended to be a "what should be changed" discussion, that's more like one of those multiple GD threads floating around, and nothing every really comes out of those discussions anyway. Just a whole lot of people going to bat for their pet units getting points drops or rules changes, and arguing against everybody else's pet units. I envisioned it more as a quick look at what's good and what isn't, without getting into all the sticky details since we're talking about a dozen or more armies here.

But so far as being competitive without supplementing with Reapers, check out some of Sean Nayden's recent Eldar lists. No Dark Reapers. No Shining Spears. And he had a whole lot of success with those lists.

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Avatar of Khaine
Autarchs that don't ride bikes
Most of the Phoenix Lords
Warlock Councils
Howling Banshees
Striking Scorpions
Shadow Spectres (not codex, but I'm sore)
Swooping Hawks
Windriders
Vypers
Warp Spiders
Falcons
Nightspinners
Support Batteries
Wraithlords
Wraithknights

All units ranging from mediocre to outright terrible.

 meleti wrote:

I don't think this thread is really intended to be a "what should be changed" discussion, that's more like one of those multiple GD threads floating around, and nothing every really comes out of those discussions anyway. Just a whole lot of people going to bat for their pet units getting points drops or rules changes, and arguing against everybody else's pet units. I envisioned it more as a quick look at what's good and what isn't, without getting into all the sticky details since we're talking about a dozen or more armies here.

But so far as being competitive without supplementing with Reapers, check out some of Sean Nayden's recent Eldar lists. No Dark Reapers. No Shining Spears. And he had a whole lot of success with those lists.

Yeah, I didn't think it was either. I posted originally because there seemed to be some confusion and fighting about what it means to be a "good codex", and I explained why you'd see these disagreements even between people who agree about all the details and then suggested that that shows that that's not a useful way to talk about the game.

Can you link some of these lists?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:

I don't think this thread is really intended to be a "what should be changed" discussion, that's more like one of those multiple GD threads floating around, and nothing every really comes out of those discussions anyway. Just a whole lot of people going to bat for their pet units getting points drops or rules changes, and arguing against everybody else's pet units. I envisioned it more as a quick look at what's good and what isn't, without getting into all the sticky details since we're talking about a dozen or more armies here.

But so far as being competitive without supplementing with Reapers, check out some of Sean Nayden's recent Eldar lists. No Dark Reapers. No Shining Spears. And he had a whole lot of success with those lists.

Yeah, I didn't think it was either. I posted originally because there seemed to be some confusion and fighting about what it means to be a "good codex", and I explained why you'd see these disagreements even between people who agree about all the details and then suggested that that shows that that's not a useful way to talk about the game.

Can you link some of these lists?

LVO: https://i.imgur.com/E523kdz.jpg

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sean-Nayden-1st-Overall-Hammer-in-the-New-Year-GT-2018-.pdf

Both from January.

C4790M wrote:
No-ones seemed to touch on Genestealer Cults yet :(

I think it is somewhat hard to gauge where exactly GSC sits overall, as they have the unfortunate combination of being a relatively new army and one of the most expensive armies to collect which makes it difficult to optimize them. The second issue is that 8th more or less gutted the old 7th edition GSC Metamorph spam list which means anyone who was playing them competitively in 7th had to radically rebuild the army going in 8th.

For what it is worth I think with Chapter Approved they are just shy of being a mid-tier army as a standalone force, just they are held back by the lack of codex tricks (Stratagems, Traits, etc.) and a couple things that could stand to be a bit cheaper. With allies they are probably mid-tier, but both allies are very competitive on their own so it is a bit of a wash.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Space wolves are better than codex space marines.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Space wolves are better than codex space marines.

I think with the CA, dropping points in some key units of the wolves, they are decent. TWC are better now with their points drop, Wuflen as well and especially with the new stratagem allow them to outflank. Also worth note is, the FW Dreadnought Droppod got quite a point decrease, so taking a "Axe Shield" Dread and Murderfang in two Droppods might be good.

They may still not be good, at least they are not top tier of course, but I don't think they are trash tier. Furthermore, their Codex is not out yet, who can say what kind of potential they would have?

From my point of view, the interesting part of the debate is a reflexion when you want to start a new army without loosing every single game.
So off course, spam armies aren't that representative about the codex in general and tournament players aren't the regulars players.
Sooo boyz (with their flying and hidding conterparts) are clearly mid tier but the ork codex is deeply low-tier... orks have won some tournaments but few in comparaison of other lists...
And Tau have just been released so we need time to see if it's working or not


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and the big FAQ or the next chapter approuved will probably change the meta

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Space wolves are better than codex space marines.

I think with the CA, dropping points in some key units of the wolves, they are decent. TWC are better now with their points drop, Wuflen as well and especially with the new stratagem allow them to outflank. Also worth note is, the FW Dreadnought Droppod got quite a point decrease, so taking a "Axe Shield" Dread and Murderfang in two Droppods might be good.

They may still not be good, at least they are not top tier of course, but I don't think they are trash tier. Furthermore, their Codex is not out yet, who can say what kind of potential they would have?

I agree, I think they're decent and I enjoy playing with them. But they're worse than SM, especially UM and RG, that's for sure. I'm talking about the current index+CA SW, maybe with the codex they'll be top tiers, at the moment they don't stand a chance against competitive armies. Including the strongest UM and RG lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Tournaments data are always important but you have to consider than orks work very well with a single built, the green tide, in 3 turns games. Even with their strongest built orks are not about killing stuff but avoiding getting tabled and scoring points. In regular 5-7 turns games the same lists that managed to placed in those tournaments struggle a lot against the same competitive opponents.

Competitive TAC lists can kill 40+ orks per turn and of course if the game doesn't last more than 3 turns those 150+ orks are durable enough to win the game. In a regular 40k game even the strongest green tides are very far from the top tiers level.

I hope that the people who are talking about SW and Orks realize that the discussion is supposed to focus on Codex armies (like it says in the title).

Nah that's good... it's more like best actual faction (and as you can see all the index are pretty low in this little chart)

 Fafnir wrote:

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Avatar of Khaine
Autarchs that don't ride bikes
Most of the Phoenix Lords
Warlock Councils
Howling Banshees
Striking Scorpions
Shadow Spectres (not codex, but I'm sore)
Swooping Hawks
Windriders
Vypers
Warp Spiders
Falcons
Nightspinners
Support Batteries
Wraithlords
Wraithknights

All units ranging from mediocre to outright terrible.

Looks like a list of average units that perform well vs their counterparts in other armies. I'd rather take a wraithlord over a dreadnought for example. I'd rather take scorpions than a unit of company veterans. Compared to an imperial knight - wraith knights are about even. Falcons are better then predators for less points and they transport units.

What I am saying is - the bad eldar stuff isn't nearly as bad as other armies bad stuff. I know because I fool around with it all the time.

2 units that don't even belong on your list are support batteries and swooping hawks though.
For the cost of a space marine a swooping hawk has a 24" assault 4 gun with str 3. The ability to deep strike and cause mortals for jumping over units and insane mobility.
75 point d cannons aren't weak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Space wolves are better than codex space marines.

No they're not. SW have better melee but they're way worse in shooting, several units are basically the worse version of the SM counterpart, I'm looking at long fangs/devastators and stormwolf/stormravens mostly. Not to mention that the wolves have only one stratagem at the moment, which allows to outflank a unit, nothing else. And this edition doesn't favor heavy hitters in melee.

Pure SM lists can be decent in competitive metas, SW ones can't.

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Except everyone argues that for Eldar, and Space Marines as well.

The Orks have a very powerful army. One that works exactly as the army is supposed to. An unstoppable wall of boys with some random crap in the back field. That is Orks. Mean while your Space Marine armies are all Bobby G with Razorbacks, or Bobby G with Devestators, or Bobby G with Hellblasters. Not a tactical squad in sight. Marines have a single gimmicky build, that doesn't work with how they are supposed to work.

Orks are a top tier army, and IMO they're only going to get better when their codex drops.

 djones520 wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Except everyone argues that for Eldar, and Space Marines as well.

The Orks have a very powerful army. One that works exactly as the army is supposed to. An unstoppable wall of boys with some random crap in the back field. That is Orks. Mean while your Space Marine armies are all Bobby G with Razorbacks, or Bobby G with Devestators, or Bobby G with Hellblasters. Not a tactical squad in sight. Marines have a single gimmicky build, that doesn't work with how they are supposed to work.

Orks are a top tier army, and IMO they're only going to get better when their codex drops.

Orks have always been a combined arms forces - there's just more of them then there are of the enemy.

Also, a space marine is a space marine, "tactical marine" or not - if anything, the army is functioning exactly how its supposed to; look up every classical image of space marines that exist - they're always locked into one area, surrounded on all sides, guns-a-blazin'. How is that NOT how they're supposed to work?

Also, fluff should be 1:1 equal to gameplay rules, am i right?

Don't try to tell my that because I have one single model (plus KFF Mek, so, two models) that form an army that wins entirely by skewing the meta, that Orks are fine - they're not. Hell, if having one good entry means you're a good army; lets cut out all the misc bullcrap and reduce each codex to one-two units a piece; because that's all that matters, what people are going to spam.

Eldar: Psyker+Dark Reaper
Ork: Boy+Big Mek
Space Marine: Guilliman+Razorback
Astra Militarum: Infantry+Manticore
Tau: Firewarrior+Cadre Commander
Tyranids: Genestealer+Big Bug that moves them
etc, etc

fe40k wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Except everyone argues that for Eldar, and Space Marines as well.

The Orks have a very powerful army. One that works exactly as the army is supposed to. An unstoppable wall of boys with some random crap in the back field. That is Orks. Mean while your Space Marine armies are all Bobby G with Razorbacks, or Bobby G with Devestators, or Bobby G with Hellblasters. Not a tactical squad in sight. Marines have a single gimmicky build, that doesn't work with how they are supposed to work.

Orks are a top tier army, and IMO they're only going to get better when their codex drops.

Orks have always been a combined arms forces - there's just more of them then there are of the enemy.

Also, a space marine is a space marine, "tactical marine" or not - if anything, the army is functioning exactly how its supposed to; look up every classical image of space marines that exist - they're always locked into one area, surrounded on all sides, guns-a-blazin'. How is that NOT how they're supposed to work?

Also, fluff should be 1:1 equal to gameplay rules, am i right?

Don't try to tell my that because I have one single model (plus KFF Mek, so, two models) that form an army that wins entirely by skewing the meta, that Orks are fine - they're not. Hell, if having one good entry means you're a good army; lets cut out all the misc bullcrap and reduce each codex to one-two units a piece; because that's all that matters, what people are going to spam.

Eldar: Psyker+Dark Reaper
Ork: Boy+Big Mek
Space Marine: Guilliman+Razorback
Astra Militarum: Infantry+Manticore
Tau: Firewarrior+Cadre Commander
Tyranids: Genestealer+Big Bug that moves them
etc, etc

You don't even have the orks correct.

They have lots of good units.
Storm boys
Commandos
KMC
Weird boy

and it's all cheap horde - the best units in the game right now. It even looks like an ork army. I'm sorry your dreads suck - but take a look around - everyones dreadnoughts suck.

Gulliman + razorbacks hasn't been top tier since IG dropped.

Guilliman + fire raptors though. Yep everyone wants to run out and add 1-3 2-300$ flyers to their "SM" list to be competitive (it's the only SM list that is placing at tournies now-a days).

At least orcs have hope that their codex will help.

As far as the list goes it seems a pretty good representation.

I'm curious where Tau fall after their book is digested. It seems like they can be a really dangerous force built around fire-warriors, drones and kroot with commander deepstrike support but I'm curious to see how they show up in tournaments.

 petitflacheur wrote:
The question is simple;
Right now, what are the faction ranking in the game? top tier, mid tier and low tier
I'll try to keep the average of all post in this first post: do you agree, do you disagree?

On 20/03/18
[snip]

I know it's an index still... but it's amusing that Adeptus Ministorum doesn't even make the list, when other index things did.

bananathug wrote:
Gulliman + razorbacks hasn't been top tier since IG dropped.

Guilliman + fire raptors though. Yep everyone wants to run out and add 1-3 2-300$ flyers to their "SM" list to be competitive (it's the only SM list that is placing at tournies now-a days).

At least orcs have hope that their codex will help.

As far as the list goes it seems a pretty good representation.

I'm curious where Tau fall after their book is digested. It seems like they can be a really dangerous force built around fire-warriors, drones and kroot with commander deepstrike support but I'm curious to see how they show up in tournaments.

Why would you ever bring kroot? Just bring more fire warriors. The 4+ save alone and the for the greater good is worth the +2 points.

 Melissia wrote:
I know it's an index still... but it's amusing that Adeptus Ministorum doesn't even make the list, when other index things did.

wow ur rite. They have some GT placings and may be mid-tier.

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Gulliman + razorbacks hasn't been top tier since IG dropped.

Guilliman + fire raptors though. Yep everyone wants to run out and add 1-3 2-300$ flyers to their "SM" list to be competitive (it's the only SM list that is placing at tournies now-a days).

At least orcs have hope that their codex will help.

As far as the list goes it seems a pretty good representation.

I'm curious where Tau fall after their book is digested. It seems like they can be a really dangerous force built around fire-warriors, drones and kroot with commander deepstrike support but I'm curious to see how they show up in tournaments.

Why would you ever bring kroot? Just bring more fire warriors. The 4+ save alone and the for the greater good is worth the +2 points.

Scout move. Kroot are a cheap way to screen away deep strikers and certain turn 1 charge shenanigans.

 meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Gulliman + razorbacks hasn't been top tier since IG dropped.

Guilliman + fire raptors though. Yep everyone wants to run out and add 1-3 2-300$ flyers to their "SM" list to be competitive (it's the only SM list that is placing at tournies now-a days).

At least orcs have hope that their codex will help.

As far as the list goes it seems a pretty good representation.

I'm curious where Tau fall after their book is digested. It seems like they can be a really dangerous force built around fire-warriors, drones and kroot with commander deepstrike support but I'm curious to see how they show up in tournaments.

Why would you ever bring kroot? Just bring more fire warriors. The 4+ save alone and the for the greater good is worth the +2 points.

Scout move. Kroot are a cheap way to screen away deep strikers and certain turn 1 charge shenanigans.

Firewarrior lines kind of want to get charged don't they? It will remain to be seen I guess but I don't think deep strike close combat is going to be effective against tau. I think stealth suit do this job better anyways.

Someone in another thread called them Xenos IG. I think that is pretty close. Commanders are plasma scions.

I'm not sure their big guns are quite as good as IG and without the mant/basi indirect fire tanks they maybe at a disadvantage but IG doesn't have anything approaching Y'vahra flame power so there's that (shadowsword?)...

bananathug wrote:
Gulliman + razorbacks hasn't been top tier since IG dropped.

Guilliman + fire raptors though. Yep everyone wants to run out and add 1-3 2-300$ flyers to their "SM" list to be competitive (it's the only SM list that is placing at tournies now-a days).

At least orcs have hope that their codex will help.

As far as the list goes it seems a pretty good representation.

I'm curious where Tau fall after their book is digested. It seems like they can be a really dangerous force built around fire-warriors, drones and kroot with commander deepstrike support but I'm curious to see how they show up in tournaments.

Your around 400pts Flyer gonna become your opponent's when GSC pskyer cast power on it, and helped enemy to kill Guilliman or other important stuff nearby instead. lol

Deep strikers can have guns too, and fire warriors fold like wet tissue paper to any sort of volume of fire.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Deep strikers can have guns too, and fire warriors fold like wet tissue paper to any sort of volume of fire.

You can get 30 fire warriors for a measly 210 points, so you will need A LOT of assault cannon level fire power to clean them away efficiently in a timely and point efficient manner. Because Ap0 guns or morale won't do the job against 7pt 4+ saves, bonding knives and a cheap Ld10 + FnP bubble for several units provided by a sincle Sa'cea Ethereal. And gods forbid if these FWs end up in cover...

Not to mention you have to get that sort of infantry killing fire power into range first... without the several dozen dice of 15"-21" rapid fire S5 guns blasting it off the table.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Deep strikers can have guns too, and fire warriors fold like wet tissue paper to any sort of volume of fire.

You can get 30 fire warriors for a measly 210 points, so you will need A LOT of assault cannon level fire power to clean them away efficiently in a timely and point efficient manner. Because Ap0 guns or morale won't do the job against 7pt 4+ saves, bonding knives and a cheap Ld10 + FnP bubble for several units provided by a sincle Sa'cea Ethereal. And gods forbid if these FWs end up in cover...

Not to mention you have to get that sort of infantry killing fire power into range first... without the several dozen dice of 15"-21" rapid fire S5 guns blasting it off the table.

challenge accepted, 6 raven guard aggressors infiltrated between 13" and 18" away, AKA the raven guard deathball.

2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 * 114 shots = 25.3 dead tau before morale, for a total point investment of 222pts. You don't want to involve HQ or other support units since the shrike allows them to reroll misses, and a Lt would allow them to reroll ones to wound which would more than offset what a fireblade or an ethereal could provide. Marines have had a long time to cook up counters for massed infantry, and tau do next to nothing special in that area.

 axisofentropy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I know it's an index still... but it's amusing that Adeptus Ministorum doesn't even make the list, when other index things did.

wow ur rite. They have some GT placings and may be mid-tier.

Be careful when you read those lists. A lot of them are actually Soup lists, but Sisters flavored instead of Marine flavored.

bananathug wrote:


Guilliman + fire raptors though. Yep everyone wants to run out and add 1-3 2-300$ flyers to their "SM" list to be competitive (it's the only SM list that is placing at tournies now-a days).

Yeah and how much money do orks players should burn to get their most competitive list? KMKs are among the most expensive kits, it's almost 1:1 in terms of money:points and you need at least 4 of them. Stormboyz are sold in packs of 5 dudes, you need at least 30 to make them competitive. Boyz you need 150+, which means another 15+ boxes. Plus characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Storm wolf is better than a storm raven.

Absolutely not, the stormraven is a pain in the ass thanks to its anti infantry weapons and it can carry a dread IIRC, and as you said cheap hordes are the way to go in 8th edition. The stormwolf is cheaper but is another anti tank source mostly, which is not needed. If it had hurricane bolters it would be great. SW dreads are also decent at least and the possibility of carrying one would make the SW flyer very good. Sadly it's not the case.

I can't believe people are arguing for orks to be anything but low tier. A few things to consider;

1. We are extremely monobuild - massed Boyz, KMK and Weirdboyz are the only units featured in competitive lists.
2. We have not performed well in a tournament since more and more codexes have been released. LVO top ork placed 55th. There were many more factions that had players finish in the top 8 at ITC events across January (we didn't even finish in the top ten aggregate), pre codex Tau for example.
3. There are still units that we have absolutely no way of effectively destroying. Any flyer with - 1 to hit chapter trait. Any stealth units with - 1 to hit chapter trait.
4. The current meta allows our most competitive build to over-perform.
5. The current tournament organisation (limited time, unevenly split between players) allows our most competitive build to over-perform. This will change when players start seeing turn 4 and 5. We cannot survive late game with the firepower other armies have access to.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

4. The current meta allows our most competitive build to over-perform.
5. The current tournament organisation (limited time, unevenly split between players) allows our most competitive build to over-perform. This will change when players start seeing turn 4 and 5. We cannot survive late game with the firepower other armies have access to.

...current metas are the only thing tier lists actually matter for. That's exactly what they're meant to measure. This isn't about how healthy an army is. Orkz are neck-and-neck with Dark Eldar in that regard.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Deep strikers can have guns too, and fire warriors fold like wet tissue paper to any sort of volume of fire.

You can get 30 fire warriors for a measly 210 points, so you will need A LOT of assault cannon level fire power to clean them away efficiently in a timely and point efficient manner. Because Ap0 guns or morale won't do the job against 7pt 4+ saves, bonding knives and a cheap Ld10 + FnP bubble for several units provided by a sincle Sa'cea Ethereal. And gods forbid if these FWs end up in cover...

Not to mention you have to get that sort of infantry killing fire power into range first... without the several dozen dice of 15"-21" rapid fire S5 guns blasting it off the table.

challenge accepted, 6 raven guard aggressors infiltrated between 13" and 18" away, AKA the raven guard deathball.

2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 * 114 shots = 25.3 dead tau before morale, for a total point investment of 222pts. You don't want to involve HQ or other support units since the shrike allows them to reroll misses, and a Lt would allow them to reroll ones to wound which would more than offset what a fireblade or an ethereal could provide. Marines have had a long time to cook up counters for massed infantry, and tau do next to nothing special in that area.

Gotta get past my Kroot Carnivore and Kroot Hound screen first though .

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Deep strikers can have guns too, and fire warriors fold like wet tissue paper to any sort of volume of fire.

You can get 30 fire warriors for a measly 210 points, so you will need A LOT of assault cannon level fire power to clean them away efficiently in a timely and point efficient manner. Because Ap0 guns or morale won't do the job against 7pt 4+ saves, bonding knives and a cheap Ld10 + FnP bubble for several units provided by a sincle Sa'cea Ethereal. And gods forbid if these FWs end up in cover...

Not to mention you have to get that sort of infantry killing fire power into range first... without the several dozen dice of 15"-21" rapid fire S5 guns blasting it off the table.

challenge accepted, 6 raven guard aggressors infiltrated between 13" and 18" away, AKA the raven guard deathball.

2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 * 114 shots = 25.3 dead tau before morale, for a total point investment of 222pts. You don't want to involve HQ or other support units since the shrike allows them to reroll misses, and a Lt would allow them to reroll ones to wound which would more than offset what a fireblade or an ethereal could provide. Marines have had a long time to cook up counters for massed infantry, and tau do next to nothing special in that area.

.
Gotta get past my Kroot Carnivore and Kroot Hound screen first though .

Or Stealth Suits doing their board control thing, either way, Tau have enough board control elements to make it hard to get that ideal deployment. Another important consideration is how MSU affects the efficiency of that deathball. If the fire warriors are in 5 man units there's no way the Aggressors get full bang for their buck. They will still kill stuff (lots of stuff), but you can't just take the raw number without context.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Deep strikers can have guns too, and fire warriors fold like wet tissue paper to any sort of volume of fire.

You can get 30 fire warriors for a measly 210 points, so you will need A LOT of assault cannon level fire power to clean them away efficiently in a timely and point efficient manner. Because Ap0 guns or morale won't do the job against 7pt 4+ saves, bonding knives and a cheap Ld10 + FnP bubble for several units provided by a sincle Sa'cea Ethereal. And gods forbid if these FWs end up in cover...

Not to mention you have to get that sort of infantry killing fire power into range first... without the several dozen dice of 15"-21" rapid fire S5 guns blasting it off the table.

challenge accepted, 6 raven guard aggressors infiltrated between 13" and 18" away, AKA the raven guard deathball.

2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 * 114 shots = 25.3 dead tau before morale, for a total point investment of 222pts. You don't want to involve HQ or other support units since the shrike allows them to reroll misses, and a Lt would allow them to rer-oll ones to wound which would more than offset what a fire-blade or an ethereal could provide. Marines have had a long time to cook up counters for massed infantry, and tau do next to nothing special in that area.

Raven guard huh? Not really a competitive choice is it? Plus if Tau wins the roll to go first you are just down command points for no benefit at all. As easy as they shred infantry with an average of 15.5 shots (impressive but your equation should reflect 93 shots base and fire warriors in cover (15.5)(6) - (That looks like this 93*2/3*2/3*1/3 =13.77) Still nearly make their points back in 1 turn. A 70 point firewarrior unit next to a fireblade actually has comparable firepower because it is str 5. The -1 to hit would hurt across the board though. It would be a good matchup for ravengaurd but ravengaurd aren't competitive vs anything else.

Plus what if tau have a ghost keel? with fusion build and counterfire defense system. Aggressors can't touch the ghostkeel man. He's -2 to hit against the backfield ravengaurd.

Also - commanders gonna have a feild day against the ravens. Have you seen our relic grenade launcher? That weapon alone will wipe a unit of aggressors. Feels bad for marines man.

SoB is for sure top mid or in high tier.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
SoB is for sure top mid or in high tier.

It's really not. Sisters continue to have a lot of problems against vehicles, elite assault units, and nasty characters, having almost entirely anti-horde firepower and practically no assault capability. The best they can do is bring some meltaguns, which aren't that practical for non-vehicle work.

They also don't have a codex. So they don't belong on a list the codex thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
SoB is for sure top mid or in high tier.

It's really not. Sisters continue to have a lot of problems against vehicles, elite assault units, and nasty characters, having almost entirely anti-horde firepower and practically no assault capability. The best they can do is bring some meltaguns, which aren't that practical for non-vehicle work.

I went up against this list not to long ago and it ended really bad for me.



++ Battalion Detachment +3CP (Imperium - Adeptus Ministorum) [45 PL, 782pts] ++

+ Dedicated Transport +

Immolator [5 PL, 105pts]: Immolation Flamer, Storm bolter

Immolator [5 PL, 105pts]: Immolation Flamer, Storm bolter

Immolator [5 PL, 105pts]: Immolation Flamer, Storm bolter

+ HQ +

Canoness [4 PL, 64pts]: Combi-plasma, Power maul

Celestine [14 PL, 250pts]: Celestine, 2x Geminae Superia, Inspiring Orator, Warlord

+ Troops +

Battle Sister Squad [4 PL, 51pts]
. 2x Battle Sister
. Battle Sister w/ Special or Heavy Weapon: Storm bolter
. Battle Sister w/ Special Weapon: Storm bolter
. Sister Superior: Bolt pistol, Storm bolter

Battle Sister Squad [4 PL, 51pts]
. 2x Battle Sister
. Battle Sister w/ Special or Heavy Weapon: Storm bolter
. Battle Sister w/ Special Weapon: Storm bolter
. Sister Superior: Bolt pistol, Storm bolter

Battle Sister Squad [4 PL, 51pts]
. 2x Battle Sister
. Battle Sister w/ Special or Heavy Weapon: Storm bolter
. Battle Sister w/ Special Weapon: Storm bolter
. Sister Superior: Bolt pistol, Storm bolter

++ Outrider Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Adeptus Ministorum) [34 PL, 813pts] ++

+ Dedicated Transport +

Sororitas Repressor [5 PL, 112pts]: Heavy flamer, Storm bolter, Storm bolter

Sororitas Repressor [5 PL, 112pts]: Heavy flamer, Storm bolter, Storm bolter

Sororitas Repressor [5 PL, 112pts]: Heavy flamer, Storm bolter, Storm bolter

+ HQ +

Canoness [4 PL, 66pts]: Eviscerator, Inferno pistol

+ Fast Attack +

Dominion Squad [5 PL, 137pts]
. Dominion Superior: Bolt pistol, Combi-melta
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun

Dominion Squad [5 PL, 137pts]
. Dominion Superior: Bolt pistol, Combi-melta
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun

Dominion Squad [5 PL, 137pts]
. Dominion Superior: Bolt pistol, Combi-melta
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun
. Dominion w/ Special Weapon: Meltagun

++ Outrider Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Adeptus Ministorum) [16 PL, 358pts] ++

+ HQ +

Canoness [4 PL, 64pts]: Combi-plasma, Power maul

+ Fast Attack +

Seraphim Squad [4 PL, 98pts]
. 2x Seraphim
. Seraphim Superior: Bolt pistol, Plasma pistol
. Seraphim w/ Special Weapons: 2x Inferno Pistols
. Seraphim w/ Special Weapons: 2x Inferno Pistols

Seraphim Squad [4 PL, 98pts]
. 2x Seraphim
. Seraphim Superior: Bolt pistol, Plasma pistol
. Seraphim w/ Special Weapons: 2x Inferno Pistols
. Seraphim w/ Special Weapons: 2x Inferno Pistols

Seraphim Squad [4 PL, 98pts]
. 2x Seraphim
. Seraphim Superior: Bolt pistol, Plasma pistol
. Seraphim w/ Special Weapons: 2x Inferno Pistols
. Seraphim w/ Special Weapons: 2x Inferno Pistols

++ Total: [95 PL, 1953pts] ++

This is as close as I can remember it at least. I think one a canoness might have had an eviscerator and inferno pistol instead and I'm sure there were hunter killers. It definitely dealt with anything big.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
I went up against this list not to long ago and it ended really bad for me.

And last time I faced off against Guard, my Marines wiped them from the board. Does that anecdote thus mean Marines are better than guard?

 Melissia wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
I went up against this list not to long ago and it ended really bad for me.

And last time I faced off against Guard, my Marines wiped them from the board. Does that anecdote thus mean Marines are better than guard?

No but only one person in my meta has beaten this list, meaning that it's obviously good (at least in my meta)

SoB has been placing high at many tournaments (even top 3 in a few).

They also have lots of anti-tank options, just not "long range" its all mid to short range melta and MM, if you take them. They can literally have a full army of nothing but melta if you wanted, and in Open top rhinoes (more or less).

But.. the problem with tournaments are, some armies do better than others in different rules sets, since there is no one rule set everyone plays its very hard to actually gauge an army other than "who can table the other faster"

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
No but only one person in my meta has beaten this list

Good for them.

So much hyperbole:
"Falcons are better than Predators for less points and they transport units."?

How are Falcons better than Predators, aside from less points and transport cap?
Lets go BL Falcon vs Quad-Las Pred (for best comparision):

Falcon Pros:
-Fly (so get out of CC)
-Move 2" further
-Cost about 3/4ths the Pred
-Can carry 1 small Aspect Warrior squad
-Have 1 better AP

Pred Pros:
-Have 33% more shots
-Have +1S on each shot
-Have +12" range
-Do an EV of 14W vs 9.5W (assuming all hit/wound/fail to save)
-Block LOS

So it's 33% more shots for 33% more points. But each shot is stronger, has longer range, and does more (on average) W.

For the points, they are about right, but Falcons certainly don't outperform Preds per-model.

"I'd rather take scorpions than a unit of company veterans."
Why?

Scorpions are the CWE ASM. They can deploy better, but can't move as well. They hit marginally harder in CC, but they die a bit faster too. You do realize their +1S weapons make them S4? So the only edge they have in doing damage are the +1 to-hit if the entire enemy unit is in cover and their unlikely mandiblasters. And that's compared to ASM - one of the lowest-output CC units around. Vanguard Vets get half again the attacks for very little more points.

Also, the damage output of ASM/VV are the weapons you add to the squad, not the chumps with Chainswords. It's the Sarge (or vet) with a Power Fist - much like it's the Exarch in the SS squad doing it's damage. But unlike VV, the SS can't add a second weapon.

"For the cost of a space marine a swooping hawk has a 24" assault 4 gun with str 3."
For the cost of a Swooping Hawk you could have 3 Guardsmen with a 24" RF 1 gun. Sure, outside 12", 1 less shot. Inside, you get 2 more. And 3 bodies at a 5+ vs 1 body at a 4+. Do you realize that boltguns kill Swooping Hawks exactly twice as fast as Marines, for the same points?

"75 point d cannons aren't weak"
D-weapons are no longer S: D...

Any time Marines get discussed, so much bad logic gets thrown around.

So,
I have placed sisters of battle mid tier for now (do you agree or disagree?)
Changed the titles ( we are talking about codexes and indexes)
And it's seems that Orks are staying in low tier, even with some strong opposition...

And... What was the conclusion about the tau?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Raven guard huh? Not really a competitive choice is it? Plus if Tau wins the roll to go first you are just down command points for no benefit at all. As easy as they shred infantry with an average of 15.5 shots (impressive but your equation should reflect 93 shots base and fire warriors in cover (15.5)(6) - (That looks like this 93*2/3*2/3*1/3 =13.77) Still nearly make their points back in 1 turn. A 70 point firewarrior unit next to a fireblade actually has comparable firepower because it is str 5. The -1 to hit would hurt across the board though. It would be a good matchup for ravengaurd but ravengaurd aren't competitive vs anything else.

Plus what if tau have a ghost keel? with fusion build and counterfire defense system. Aggressors can't touch the ghostkeel man. He's -2 to hit against the backfield ravengaurd.

Also - commanders gonna have a feild day against the ravens. Have you seen our relic grenade launcher? That weapon alone will wipe a unit of aggressors. Feels bad for marines man.

Lets see 6 shots from bolt storm gauntlets 3.5 from fragstorm launchers, times 6 aggressors times 2 because of their trait. so that's 72 (6 * 6 * 2) boltstorm gauntlet shots, plus 42 (3.5 * 6 * 2) fragstorm launchers shots, so 72 plus 42 is 114 unless I'm really failing at the math. so your shorting the aggressors 21 shots, and still have to admit their firepower is awesome. The -1 to hti trait is the strongest chapter tactic in the game, at least until Necrons come out (then it will have a rival), there is a reason all of the dark reapers in the LVO were from craftworld Iyanden. -1 to hit is a reduction in effectiveness of 33% for BS 4, So tau hit like wet noodles against anyone with the trait. Which to be clear is the number one meta list, and several good imperial and chaos soup ingredients.

The boast was what will you do about 30 fire warriors for a mere 210 points, and my response was murder them with ease for about the same number of points, and do it ins a single round. I'm not interested in playing a game of what ifs so you can try to move the goal post. When you have to add in other units it's a sign your argument is boned, because you admit the base argument is beyond salvage by itself and have to try to add other variables to save it. To be clear aggressors are far from the only unit that could handily deal with 30 fire warriors, I could also have said deploy 52 guardsmen, deploy venomthropes, use webway assault on a number of eldar/harlequin units, but I used aggressors because I love the silly number of shots they get.

 petitflacheur wrote:
So,
I have placed sisters of battle mid tier for now (do you agree or disagree?)
Changed the titles ( we are talking about codexes and indexes)
And it's seems that Orks are staying in low tier, even with some strong opposition...

And... What was the conclusion about the tau?

SoB Mid tier is fine for now.

 Grimgold wrote:

The -1 to hti trait is the strongest chapter tactic in the game, at least until Necrons come out (then it will have a rival), there is a reason all of the dark reapers in the LVO were from craftworld Alaitoc. -1 to hit is a reduction in effectiveness of 33% for BS 4, So tau hit like wet noodles against anyone with the trait. Which to be clear is the number one meta list, and several good imperial and chaos soup ingredients.

FTFY. Alaitoc is -1 to hit. Iyanden is only 1 model can flee to morale and you always use the top wounds bracket for models that have them.

 Melissia wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
SoB is for sure top mid or in high tier.

It's really not. Sisters continue to have a lot of problems against vehicles, elite assault units, and nasty characters, having almost entirely anti-horde firepower and practically no assault capability. The best they can do is bring some meltaguns, which aren't that practical for non-vehicle work.

Sisters are honestly quite good right now. They are carried by Celestine and FW repressors.

I played against an army with 5 repressors full of melta gun dominions. It was filth. Stupidly, and unlike any comparable vehicle (like the tidewall, land speeder storm and eldar stuff), the dominions can fire after the tank falls back. I learned some painful lessons in that game!

With the new codexes (Tau, Necrons and Dukhari), did these races raised in the meta? low, mid or top tier?

Mandragola wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
SoB is for sure top mid or in high tier.

It's really not. Sisters continue to have a lot of problems against vehicles, elite assault units, and nasty characters, having almost entirely anti-horde firepower and practically no assault capability. The best they can do is bring some meltaguns, which aren't that practical for non-vehicle work.

Sisters are honestly quite good right now. They are carried by Celestine and FW repressors.

I played against an army with 5 repressors full of melta gun dominions. It was filth. Stupidly, and unlike any comparable vehicle (like the tidewall, land speeder storm and eldar stuff), the dominions can fire after the tank falls back. I learned some painful lessons in that game!

And mass cheap scout squads with mass cheap HB squads, then you have mass cheap Jump units next to Celestine with 5++ re-rolling save that can have 4 Melta pistols (Inferno).

 petitflacheur wrote:
With the new codexes (Tau, Necrons and Dukhari), did these races raised in the meta? low, mid or top tier?

Way too early to be asking, but they've all gotten stronger over their index lists. I think Drukhari has potential to go top tier.

Drukhari codex ins't even out yet. I doubt pure drukhari lists will win tournaments from what I've seen yet but they can easily be mid tiers with several efficient combinations thanks to the new shenanigans and points reductions.

I get the feeling Scourge spam is going to be really hot, but outside of that, it's going to be a solid middle/high-middle codex.

All of the new codexes place above vanilla space marines (like I've been crying about for months now)...

Tau
Crons
Dark angels
Death Guard
DE
SM
TS
CD

Should be the start of the mid-tier list. But I agree with some of the other posters that we should wait and see what crazy builds some of you guys pull out.

I think Crons and DE will have some really powerful builds but Tau may work better (depending on if GW realizes that Y'Vahra is broken). DE may just end up being a very powerful part of Eldar soup but mono-faction they might not be as good as the others (which makes sense).

Also, DG needs to be moved further up the list. Pox walker farms/PBC spam are better than anything vanilla marines are putting out there.

So i added Eldar soup on top tier
Raised Necrons on mid tier
And lefted Dukhari / DE on low tier for the moment
Feel free to agree or disagree, i try to base the ranking on your opinions

And there are no rakings Inside the tiers... that will be impossible to manage...With the v8, factions are somewath way more balanced... there are no awfull factions IMHO

 Melissia wrote:
It's really not. Sisters continue to have a lot of problems against vehicles

Sisters have always had problems with range and mobility. They've never had problems killing any vehicles they can catch up to, and still don't.

elite assault units

Sisters have never had problems dealing with elite assault units. In previous Editions you'd wall them off behind a bunch of vehicles and watch them flail at hulls for 4 turns, assuming you couldn't double them out with all your Meltaguns. In 8th Edition you just walk out of combat with them.

and nasty characters

Sisters have never had problems dealing with nasty characters. See above.

having almost entirely anti-horde firepower

Meltaguns are not anti-horde.

and practically no assault capability

Sisters do not and have never needed any assault capability whatsoever. They need it less than ever now you can walk out of combat.

How are people playing this army? "I brought 30 Celestians and a squad of Repentia and keep getting mulched! Sisters are trash-tier boohoo!"

I'll agree that Sisters chances against Reaper-spam Ynnari aren't great, but that's primarily because Ynnari Reapers have range and mobility, which have been Sisters' weaknesses since forever. Other than that they're a pretty smart Index - not sure where they are tier-wise, but they seem capable enough to me.


EDIT: On-topic, a little explanation of why these armies are appearing in their positions would be nice. Why do people think Nids are god-tier? What is it about Custodes that makes them suck? etc etc.

 BBAP wrote:


EDIT: On-topic, a little explanation of why these armies are appearing in their positions would be nice. Why do people think Nids are god-tier? What is it about Custodes that makes them suck? etc etc.

I like this idea

Assuming that all factions are pure unless listed as soups, I think that Admech is definitely mid tier (above both sisters and Crons) and that space marines are on the low end of mid tier. They have Bobby G and ravenguard; otherwise they’d be worse than Orks.

Oh also Drukhari will not be low tier for long once people figure out how to use their codex. A lot of nice stuff in there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 petitflacheur wrote:

 BBAP wrote:


EDIT: On-topic, a little explanation of why these armies are appearing in their positions would be nice. Why do people think Nids are god-tier? What is it about Custodes that makes them suck? etc etc.

I like this idea

Custodes are actually quite good the second you add a little guard contingent and a few assassins. For instance, my 2k Custodes is about 1700 points of Custodes. They just lack cheap backfield objective holders and anti psyker inherently. As soon as you cover those weaknesses, they are sweet.

Nids are hit or miss and they can lack staying power, but they can do two turns of board control better than almost any army in the game. They are also counter-meta at the moment, and are a true Swiss army tool that can do anything pretty well. Not super easy to use well but rewarding for the savvy general.

 luke1705 wrote:
Assuming that all factions are pure unless listed as soups, I think that Admech is definitely mid tier (above both sisters and Crons) and that space marines are on the low end of mid tier. They have Bobby G and ravenguard; otherwise they’d be worse than Orks.

.

really it's the fire raptors and stormravens that keep marines above Orks.

Orks are still better than this thread believes. Look at the data.

 axisofentropy wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
Assuming that all factions are pure unless listed as soups, I think that Admech is definitely mid tier (above both sisters and Crons) and that space marines are on the low end of mid tier. They have Bobby G and ravenguard; otherwise they’d be worse than Orks.

.

really it's the fire raptors and stormravens that keep marines above Orks.

Orks are still better than this thread believes. Look at the data.

Only one built keeps orks low mid tiers, the green tide. Anything else is going to be crushed by turn 3, especially now that almost everyone has a codex. Those data are also referred to three turns games, in which orks perform way better than in regular games (but note: only with a greentide), since even the green tides are not that hard to table in 4+ turns.

They're still an index army though. I take it that that is axis' point; they're pretty close to Marines in power, even before their codex has dropped?

 grouchoben wrote:
They're still an index army though. I take it that that is axis' point; they're pretty close to Marines in power, even before their codex has dropped?

They're not close to marines. In a single match SM vs Orks, SM are clearly in favor. In a regular game with 5-7 turns SM are superior as well. Orks do well in some tournaments because 3 turns game favor them and because tournament metas are usually full of anti tank, which orks can nullify. A real TAC list with the proper amount of anti infantry melts orks quite easily.

We don't know anything about the codex, it may even nerf them They're orks and GW always nerf them I think they will buff a little bit the garbage units to a level that makes them viable at most while nerfing the boyz and weirdboyz spam. That's what I'm expecting with the ork codex: an army that can bring more variety and being mid tiers anyway but with the best lists weaker than the current ones.

 Blackie wrote:


Only one built keeps orks low mid tiers, the green tide. Anything else is going to be crushed by turn 3, especially now that almost everyone has a codex. Those data are also referred to three turns games, in which orks perform way better than in regular games (but note: only with a greentide), since even the green tides are not that hard to table in 4+ turns.

These are all arguments that deny the real world in which competitive games are actually played. Is this thread about ranking factions in some hypothetical world?

The definition of competitive play is not unique: I conisder competitive play a battle with optimized lists.

The hypotetical world is the tournament setting, which is defined by house rules, like the turns limitation and each tournament has its own house rules, sometimes chosen from a standard format, like ITC. A real game lasts 5-7 turns.

 axisofentropy wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Only one built keeps orks low mid tiers, the green tide. Anything else is going to be crushed by turn 3, especially now that almost everyone has a codex. Those data are also referred to three turns games, in which orks perform way better than in regular games (but note: only with a greentide), since even the green tides are not that hard to table in 4+ turns.

These are all arguments that deny the real world in which competitive games are actually played. Is this thread about ranking factions in some hypothetical world?

Can you provide your data that shows Orks are over performing in tournaments?

As I understand we have yet to be in the top ten armies that have most often been in the top 3 of GT events. What I mean is in both January and February 10 more factions finished in the top 3 of GT events more often than Orks. Including Ultramarines, Black Legion and pre-codex Tau.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Can you provide your data that shows Orks are over performing in tournaments?

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

 axisofentropy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Can you provide your data that shows Orks are over performing in tournaments?

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

This is outdated. 2017? We're in 2018 now bud.

However if you want to go for 2017 for some reason we can do it. Top 10 armies of 2017 based on who placed most often in top 3 at major ITC events and GTs (hold on to your cornflakes);

10 - Grey Knights?!?!
9 - Death Guard
8 - Sisters O' Battle
7 - Tyranids!!!
6 - Tau?!
5 - Orks!!
4 - Ultramarines
3 - Ynarri
2 - Astra Militarimperial Guard
1 - Chaos

Right now let's look at the most successful armies of 2018 so far based on the same criteria.

January
10 - Astra Militarum
9 - Ultramarines
8 - AdMech!?
7 - Craftworld Aelvesdari
6 - Tau!!! Again!
5 - Sisters
4 - Blood Angelis
3 - Chaos
2 - Tyranids
1 - Ynarri

February
10 - Imperium Soup
9 - Blood Angels
8 - Astra Militarum
7 - Craftworlds
6 - Ultramarines
5 - Tau (pre codex?!?!, 3 Commanders used anyway)
4 - Black Legion
3 - Death Guard
2 - Ynarri
1 - Tyranids

Ruhroh! I'm not seeing much in the way of Orks?! Perhaps there's a reason? Like, dare I say it, we're not as strong now that more codexes have been released and players have learnt how to use their freshly minted new codex armies better.

Does anyone know how these top lists are created?
As I have seen tournament lists with over 1k of ad mech liated as BA, over 1k of blood angles and custodes listed as ad mech and all sorts of wierd factions that realy should ve listed as imperial or chaos or aldari as they are unrepenting soup.

Ice_can wrote:
Does anyone know how these top lists are created?
As I have seen tournament lists with over 1k of ad mech liated as BA, over 1k of blood angles and custodes listed as ad mech and all sorts of wierd factions that realy should ve listed as imperial or chaos or aldari as they are unrepenting soup.

In the case of my lists, it depends on what the main faction "keyword" of the army was. If it was <Chaos> or <Imperium> then it'd say it was that soup. Where possible almost all the lists were "soup" of some sort but the faction keyword that had the most points invested in it was considered the primary. So for example those Sisters of Battle armies in my lists all had Imperial Guard or Space Marine units of some description within them.

 Fafnir wrote:
I get the feeling Scourge spam is going to be really hot, but outside of that, it's going to be a solid middle/high-middle codex.

Ravager spam

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I get the feeling Scourge spam is going to be really hot, but outside of that, it's going to be a solid middle/high-middle codex.

Ravager spam

Why not both? Sourges and Ravagers will just eat things.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Can you provide your data that shows Orks are over performing in tournaments?

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

This is outdated. 2017? We're in 2018 now bud.

However if you want to go for 2017 for some reason we can do it. Top 10 armies of 2017 based on who placed most often in top 3 at major ITC events and GTs (hold on to your cornflakes);

10 - Grey Knights?!?!
9 - Death Guard
8 - Sisters O' Battle
7 - Tyranids!!!
6 - Tau?!
5 - Orks!!
4 - Ultramarines
3 - Ynarri
2 - Astra Militarimperial Guard
1 - Chaos

Right now let's look at the most successful armies of 2018 so far based on the same criteria.

January
10 - Astra Militarum
9 - Ultramarines
8 - AdMech!?
7 - Craftworld Aelvesdari
6 - Tau!!! Again!
5 - Sisters
4 - Blood Angelis
3 - Chaos
2 - Tyranids
1 - Ynarri

February
10 - Imperium Soup
9 - Blood Angels
8 - Astra Militarum
7 - Craftworlds
6 - Ultramarines
5 - Tau (pre codex?!?!, 3 Commanders used anyway)
4 - Black Legion
3 - Death Guard
2 - Ynarri
1 - Tyranids

Ruhroh! I'm not seeing much in the way of Orks?! Perhaps there's a reason? Like, dare I say it, we're not as strong now that more codexes have been released and players have learnt how to use their freshly minted new codex armies better.

this is a good post if you drop the childish language.

Nobody argued that Orks were on top, just that they're not on bottom. That's still true.

You've made a good argument that some of the other factions in the OP's list should be shuffled around!

Tyranids did a hard sweep of adepticon due to the missions. Not really because they’re that strong

 luke1705 wrote:
Tyranids did a hard sweep of adepticon due to the missions. Not really because they’re that strong

The opposite could be said about AM and ITC.

So do mechanicus go to mid tier?

So having played against the new Dark Eldar codex now... they deserve to be at the top tier, no question, arguably at the top of it.

 djones520 wrote:
So having played against the new Dark Eldar codex now... they deserve to be at the top tier, no question, arguably at the top of it.

So you got... what? One game in against a new army that you're unfamiliar with and now they're god?

 Fafnir wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So having played against the new Dark Eldar codex now... they deserve to be at the top tier, no question, arguably at the top of it.

So you got... what? One game in against a new army that you're unfamiliar with and now they're god?

No, I've used my 20 years of experience playing this game to exam their rules, discussed the topic with friends who are very experienced/good at the game as well, who agree on the strengths of the new book, and gotten play experience against the army, and saw how great it was.

But thanks for being an ass.

I'm not gonna pretend that we know where Dark Eldar will fall just yet but at a first glance the codex seems to be top of the top tier. The only army that can cancel a stratagem. The only army that can give another unit the ability to ignore the character restrictions on shooting. Some of their units seem broken strong regardless of both of the above - Wyches are bonkers for their price and Kabalites for 6ppm seem undercosted.

I have no doubt they'll rise to top tier over time as players get used to the army.

 axisofentropy wrote:
this is a good post if you drop the childish language.

Nobody argued that Orks were on top, just that they're not on bottom. That's still true.

You've made a good argument that some of the other factions in the OP's list should be shuffled around!

What childish language? A bit of levity to a serious discussion?

Orks are bottom tier if we're going on recent results. If we're going on last year's results before the codexes were released then I guess not. It all depends on whether we want to use the most recent data or old, 2017 data I guess.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

What childish language? A bit of levity to a serious discussion?

It really does come across as condescension. Not that condescension is particularly uncommon here.

 djones520 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So having played against the new Dark Eldar codex now... they deserve to be at the top tier, no question, arguably at the top of it.

So you got... what? One game in against a new army that you're unfamiliar with and now they're god?

No, I've used my 20 years of experience playing this game to exam their rules, discussed the topic with friends who are very experienced/good at the game as well, who agree on the strengths of the new book, and gotten play experience against the army, and saw how great it was.

But thanks for being an ass.

And I've got 10 years behind me and have done much the same, and I'm sitting at the revelation that short of Ravagers, Scourges, and the fliers, everything looks potent yet fairly reasonable at mid-high in the face of the relevant meta.

 Fafnir wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So having played against the new Dark Eldar codex now... they deserve to be at the top tier, no question, arguably at the top of it.

So you got... what? One game in against a new army that you're unfamiliar with and now they're god?

No, I've used my 20 years of experience playing this game to exam their rules, discussed the topic with friends who are very experienced/good at the game as well, who agree on the strengths of the new book, and gotten play experience against the army, and saw how great it was.

But thanks for being an ass.

And I've got 10 years behind me and have done much the same, and I'm sitting at the revelation that short of Ravagers, Scourges, and the fliers, everything looks potent yet fairly reasonable at mid-high in the face of the relevant meta.

You only really need 1 detachment worth of units for Drukhari to be a mainstay on the top tables. The rest of the list can just be Ynnari/Craftworlds as per usual. It might be ideal if you can take a powerful Battalion given that Agents of Vect is 3CP, but it's also probably not necessary since those lists can get CP elsewhere if they need to do so. But this gets into the schizophrenic nature of this thread: are we talking about codexes, or are we talking about how people actually build their armies in the real world?

 djones520 wrote:
So having played against the new Dark Eldar codex now... they deserve to be at the top tier, no question, arguably at the top of it.

Yeah when you face someone for the first time and have no clue about how to counter that's the impression you get. I got the same impression the first time I faced the guilliman list, which seemed impossible to defeat.

So Dukhari are at least mid tier for now

Do you guys think the ‘nids are still gonna be top of the top tier for ITC games if the faq limits flyrants to one pr. detachment?

 killerpenguin wrote:
Do you guys think the ‘nids are still gonna be top of the top tier for ITC games if the faq limits flyrants to one pr. detachment?

yeah it was Adepticon's missions and terrain that helped them. In ITC they're less important and balanced tyranids are already better than tyrant spam.