Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I recently read a thread that said that orks were top tier, and daemon hunters were on the bottom.
I looked it up on different websites and it seemed that everyone agreed, but I could not find a semi-official ruling. All I saw was

TOP
Chaos
Eldar
Orks

MIDDLE
Tau
Tyranids
Necrons
I. Guard
Space Marines
Daemons
Sisters

LOW
Dark Eldar
Daemon Hunters


What are your guy's thoughts?
Any changes to this list or just your opinion on how it should be?

this is probibly just a rough estimate of each armys effectivness at tournies.

Dark Eldar and GKs are most likley at the bottom because very few actually play them(small wonder because they both NEED a new Codex bad) not because they are not effective lists.

opposite reason for the top teir.

IG is not longer middle tier from what I've seen. They've moved up recently with their newest codex. That's my 2 cents at least.

I hate the 'teir' system myself. I mean, a few months ago I saw a bunch of "Orks are Third Teir" threads, then a bunch of "orks are competetive" threads :S

I would say that if you want to build an army, forget, first off, which teir it's in. It won't help you come up with tactics, and it sure as hell won't help you figure out what to buy next!

Ignore teirs, to a certain extent, the army is not good, due to the codex, its good due the guy writing the list and playing the game

statu wrote:Ignore teirs, to a certain extent, the army is not good, due to the codex, its good due the guy writing the list and playing the game

I agree

Even though I already stated about hearing about IG being a different teir than stated I don't pay much attention to them. I play with Tau now and I am starting a DH army so it tells you how much I care about them. Besides I like being an underdog and almost tabling people.

To be honest pretty much every army is on close to equal footing thanks to a lot of the recent codeci (yea I know its wrong).

Really the only bottom tier armies are probably
Tyranids
Necrons
Daemonhunters
Daemons

(add in tau & orks depending on who you talk to)

Pretty much all the other armies have high end tournament quality lists.


Also, I know you can win with any army. But certain armies do give you and advantage.

Dark Eldar are GREAT vs specific armies; i.e. tyranids get owned hard by em.

That being said, yeah, some armys are gimped naturally. But as others said, a good player playing an OK army can make it great, just as a bad player playing a good army can make it bad.

Tiers don't exist in 40k. The metagame isn't developed enough for them to be valid, and the game itself changes so often that what's good frequently changes as well.

That said, Dark Eldar are certainly competitive. I suspect that every current 40k army has competitive potential, except for perhaps Necrons.

I did not actually think that there was an undecided list until I read that earlier post.
I don't believe in tiers for something like this, I thinks its too versatile to slap a label on.
I was just wondering what people thought about this game actually having a tier list

the Teir form is just for some people that think that it can apply and it probibly does as far as ease of play but not for competitiveness.
i belive that any army (Including Necrons @fetterkey) can win at the tournement level. didn't necrons just win one not too long ago?

I gotta disagree with you guys for the most part, there are armies that are just better than others. Nids, necrons, and tau are pretty much done for. I never see them do very well.

Everyone else is pretty much up in the air, whoever goes first and doesn't roll bad wins.

Nids and necrons are closer to the bottem just because there are not very many playing them.

you must not have much expierence with T'au, They can and do kick BUTT.

Fetterkey wrote:Tiers don't exist in 40k. The metagame isn't developed enough for them to be valid, and the game itself changes so often that what's good frequently changes as well.

That said, Dark Eldar are certainly competitive. I suspect that every current 40k army has competitive potential, except for perhaps Necrons.

I think it's a testament to how well the game is shaping up in 5th edition that much of the discussion of tiers and 'army x is over-powered' have died off, and when they do happen elicit many conflicting opinions.

LOL your tier system is about 8 months old, and flawed.

Current standings look like this:

Tier 1:
IG

Tier 2:
Everything not in tier one or three

Tier 3:
Nids
Pure DH
Tau
Necrons



Come october Space wolves will be #1 followed by IG.

swing and a miss clthomps

If you want my real tier list

T1
Tau
IG
Eldar
DE

T2
SM
SW
Sisters

T2.5
Chaos
Orks

T3
Nids
necrons
DH
Daemons

i am sorry, but i do not see tau ever do anything.

i have played against 3 different tau players and have never gotten less than them giving up by turn 4 with IG

A 'good' player nowadays builds good lists to take everyone on and has a good sense of target priority. the rest of the game is up to the dice.

Nurglitch wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Tiers don't exist in 40k. The metagame isn't developed enough for them to be valid, and the game itself changes so often that what's good frequently changes as well.

That said, Dark Eldar are certainly competitive. I suspect that every current 40k army has competitive potential, except for perhaps Necrons.

I think it's a testament to how well the game is shaping up in 5th edition that much of the discussion of tiers and 'army x is over-powered' have died off, and when they do happen elicit many conflicting opinions.

I agree. 5th edition is the best by far.

With new books out I think it looks a bit more like this.

TOP
Chaos
I. Guard
Space Marines

MIDDLE
Eldar
Orks
Tau
Necrons
Daemons
Sisters
Dark Eldar
Daemon Hunters

LOW
Tyranids

Why do people keep putting orks on this really high and narrow pedestal

And if Orks are upper tier and Nids are bottom, explain to me why myself and another ork player at the club repeatedly get savaged by those bugs...

Edit: and explain how that bug player is able to reliably savage most of his opponents most of the time.

Because tiers are bunk and the success of an army depends primarily on the skill of the player using it.

Nurglitch wrote:Because tiers are bunk and the success of an army depends primarily on the skill of the player using it.

What he said.

tho I will say certain armys basically play rock-paper-scissors with others, depending on the situation. Like orks can tool tau just because tau has issues handling the massive orky numbers before they get into assault and tear em a new one lol

I think there's a place for the "tier" discussion, but it's better directed at specific builds.

For example, Tyranids are getting a lot of negative press in this thread, and I agree they're a bit feeble, but a MC heavy list can be a real bear, while a more fluffy Tyranid list is total trash. So, maybe 85% of the builds you might produce from the Tyranids Codex are trash, but a few are solid (thought maybe not top tier).

The same can be said for Chaos vs. Lash Chaos.

Or Eldar vs. Seer Council

Or IG vs. Melta Vets.

Etc.

Tier systems dont really have any use IMO.
Its down to the general when it comes to tactics and list building.

for example - Newer player designs his own ork army but its not effective, a so called "top tier" army quickly drops.

A good general plays DA with a great list, it now goes up a tier or 2.

the general has 100% control of what tier his own army is in based on his play style and tactics.

JD21290 wrote:the general has 100% control of what tier his own army is in based on his play style and tactics.

I disagree to some extent. In Fantasy Battle, a poor general can defeat a better one with Daemons of Chaos because the army is so plainly broken. In 40K, a good general with Grey Knights/Daemonhunters has little chance of beating a worse general with most armies, because they are not a solid army. Then there are the specific match-ups. My Sisters massacre almost everyone more often than not, but are massacred by Orks every time.

Elric: A good general knows how to play the game to the highest extent.
A bad general knows how to play, but generally makes alot of mistakes.
If the good player takes the chances left by the bad player anything is possible.

a quick example here, but i played a little rich kid (19 or so) who's mummy and daddy buy him everything.
He had a full nob biker army, kitted out with the usualy cookie cutter gak, but he didnt have the key element.
He had no idea how to use the army, he had seen and heard about it being a great list, but it didnt mean he could play it.

when you get slaughtered by a non competative BA army it speaks volumes.

WHFB is a little more 1 sided, as you sais, daemons are strong, but still can be beated if they have a bad general.

For at ard boys. That tourny gave a good indication.

FYI what you experience at your FLGS has nothing to do with the tier system.

Seems to me
IG
Chaos
elder
marines


all do very well but that is of course just looking at the sterotypical lists. Mech Ig, Mechdar, lash, and vulkan.

I think my own views echo that of the majority. The tier system is bunk, but some BUILDS will have an advantage over another type of BUILD and a disadvantage against others (paper/ scissors/ rock). Of course as most builds in 5th ed are mechanized this put some armies such as Tyranids and Necrons at a disadvantage as they lack ANY build to counter Mech and other armies such as Daemon Hunters are simply too expensive too be considered competitive against players of similar skill. Naturally we can only discuss this in broad generalizations such as 'advantage' as the most determining factors in any fight are the generals themselves, and to a lesser degree chance.

There are no tiers, just codex’s that aren't able to deal with certain things. Most of the time these "things" are Vehicles. Timmah has already named them. Nids, Necrons, DH, Orks and Daemons are not able to deal with many armoured targets.
For example: as an Ork player you have to kill a landraider in CC (no shooting above str 8), most of the time with str. 9 ('cept for Warbosses, Kanz and Dreadz). So you need a 6 to hit, a 5 to glance and a 6 to penetrate then you need another 5 to destroy it. You might be able to do this once per game and probably lose a squad every time you do to whatever is inside. When facing 3 LR you'll find that your anti-tank is lacking.
The same goes for Nids and Daemons (but these at least have some fast MC).
DH aren't able to deal with much armour or a Horde type list.
Necrons aren't able to deal with much armour.

All the other codex's can be competitive against all types of other types of lists.