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.

So, I would like to pose this question to the 40k tournament community.

If you are building competitively with all armies and taking the upper tier of the min/maxed lists from each 40k codex. Is there any armies that can't compete or are at a huge disadvantage in your opinion?

Not taking into account that some army books only have 1 good build. If you build to this, does everyone feel all armies can compete at this top notch level? Or at least decently compete?

Meaning while armies like Necrons and Daemons are a bit weaker, built well, they can potentially go toe to toe with with the upper tier armies like guard and space marines.

I don't believe in tiers or a best of list from each 40k codex. Especially the newest ones. So I'm gonna have to say that I think that all armies can compete in a tournament because tournaments are random draws and some armies just match up better against others. I mean even Necrons can be competitive vs. Orks and Tyrannids.

Timmah, those two do not have great chances to compete (along with maybe CSM), but I really think everything else does quite well.

The only issue older books have is a limit on competitive builds (and a lack of ability to scale up to 'Ard Boyz levels).

Way too subjective of a question Timmah. Not all codexes are created equal. However, when talking about tournament armies you have to ask yourself a couple things:

1: What points level are you playing at
2: What missions are being played (Tau in an all night fight mission going up against a CC oriented build will be cut to pieces)
3: How does the tournament handel wins? (In order to get full points do I need to get more killpoints then the other player? Or do I have to get double the killpoints, control more table quarters, and have more fast attack choices alive at the end of the game?)
4: How many games are played in a tournament vs how many players are in a tournament? (I've been on the top table at the end of game 3 in a 5 game tournament, but finished far down the list after getting beat down the final 2 games)

If you are talking straight up wins, then just about any codex has a chance (see Josh Dearth's Farsight Tau showing at Conquest NW).

The more versatile a force you need to score higher on the missions, the less competitive certain builds become.

I'm just talking a straight up game with a book mission. Nothing to do with the larger picture.

My personal feelings are:

Daemons and Necrons have a slightly tougher time competing, but outside of that every army is fine.

Depeds on the points level Timmah.

A tri monolith build will give most armies that arn't dread heavy a lot of fits if they get good reserve rolls.

Deamons need a bit of luck but can dish out the hurt. My friend Dan was on the top table at Conquest NW the first day running a fiend/scarbrand list.

Any balanced points level. So between 1850-2050.

Strong players can compete with at least one build from every dex (Daemonhunters realistically need to use IG allies, to be fair) in a tournament setting. The older dexes are limited to far fewer total builds.

MVBrandt wrote:Strong players can compete with at least one build from every dex (Daemonhunters realistically need to use IG allies, to be fair) in a tournament setting. The older dexes are limited to far fewer total builds.

Not sure I agree with that; DE and Necrons come to mind....as do Sisters.

I play Orks; not an incredibly abusive list, but well balanced and synergistic. I don't see Sisters or necrons ever beating me.

And my DE....I'm a strong player but if I come up against a decent IG list, let alone a strong one....nothing I do is going to change what happens.

Apparently you have never played Raider or Immo spam Dash...

I think that if you're going to consider balance, you have to look at which army lists suffer the least when compared to other various competitive builds.

Most would accept that a solid IG competitive list would do well versus most other competitive builds from most other codices.

A Codex like Dark Eldar with its limited competitive builds will do well against a mechanized MEq list, but will probably have trouble versus a horde army like orks.

While I believe anyone can get lucky with draws and do well in a tournament, I also believe that there are some codices that produce competitive builds that match up well against a broader range of opponent's competitive builds than some other codices can.

Unfortunately, 40K isn't a true Rock-Scissors-Paper kind of format; some competitive builds are the rock to a far larger number of scissors than are some other codices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:And my DE....I'm a strong player but if I come up against a decent IG list, let alone a strong one....nothing I do is going to change what happens.

I agree with this. I'm a DE player, too, and my current competitive list at 1850 points has 9 raiders and 3 ravagers. Against a highly mechanized IG list, I get beat up by sheer volume of fire.

I have 15 shots that glance his vehicles on a 4+ at 36 inches. The IG player has as much as three times that ability to down my vehicles.

I believe there's still a fair amount of imbalance between competitive lists at certain points levels, while perfectly balanced at other levels.

The quote about "certain builds are rock to a larger amount of scissors than others" is fairly accurate.

Sometimes there's only a handful of ways to counter a specific build that counters pretty much anything else...

Mechanized IG is an example. It can be beat, but doing so requires a specific build... and then your next opponent will be playing a completely different army to which your specific 'anti-mech-IG' list is going to falter because it's too specialized.

I think this comes about mostly because some armies gain mechanics (such as tank squadrons, allowing more armor for the same slots) that other armies can't get- and thus are at a very specific penalty against that build taking advantage of it.

Squadroning is only one way it was done, as it allowed more models/functionality out of the same limiting FOC slots.
Other armies are still hindered by the FOC limitations and thus can't field as much to counter the numerous tanks...

Another way this is getting out of hand is the blatant deep strike spam. It was fine when infantry with jump packs could deep strike, teleporting stuff okay, then there are items/units that can redeploy during the game via deep strike... cool.
Now we have burrowing monsters... sounds reasonable as Tyranids don't have transports...
Then deep striking multi-hundred-tonne tanks... wait... WTF?


On top of that, there's a significant rise in the availability of "point and your dead" abilities, such as Jaws of the World Wolf and special characters-that-are-demigods like Mephiston...


Instead of trying to tune down the crazy-meter, each successive codex is trying to build of the powergaming of the last.

I also truly, in my heart and soul, believe that taking away the ability to use special characters in your army (or at least make them significantly more expensive or less powerful) would help solve a lot of issues...
Right now some of the most competitive builds require the inclusive of these characters-- which makes it glaringly obvious that there's a balance issue with them because they have become the 'no-brainer' choice... like Vulkan in C:SM.

Uh, what other competitive build uses/needs a special character?(besides Vulkan)

STRAKEN, BABY, YEEEEAAAAH!



*blink*

MVBrandt wrote:STRAKEN, BABY, YEEEEAAAAH!



*blink*

yea... *rolls eyes*

MVBrandt wrote:Strong players can compete with at least one build from every dex (Daemonhunters realistically need to use IG allies, to be fair) in a tournament setting. The older dexes are limited to far fewer total builds.

I agree, although I think that Demonhunters do not need IG allies, but they help.

This isnt warmachine, no all armies are not equal in competative builds.

carmachu wrote:This isnt warmachine, no all armies are not equal in competative builds.

Thanks for you're compelling reasoning...

Grimnar makes a heck of an addition to make a truly balanced competitive Space Wolves list.

Timmah wrote:

carmachu wrote:This isnt warmachine, no all armies are not equal in competative builds.

Thanks for you're compelling reasoning...

Think about it instead of snarking for a moment- in PP there are several competative builds, and further, the game is built around the idea of competitive play, and further each faction generally gets equal treatment.

None of that really happens in 40k. The pendulum swings way too much between books- There's no comparison between say the Dark Angels book, which is fairly weak when compared to say the brand new Blood Angels book, which looks alot nastier. There isnt alot of competative balance between codex in 40k. Its worse in fantasy.

Carmachu, Timmah isn't asking if all of the armies are exactly identical in terms of power. He's asking if they're roughly balanced enough to allow all army books to compete with one another.

Danny Internets wrote:Carmachu, Timmah isn't asking if all of the armies are exactly identical in terms of power. He's asking if they're roughly balanced enough to allow all army books to compete with one another.

the answer is still no. When one book has only one real competetive build, say Chaos, demons, sisters, necrons, and something like BA has 3-4(jsut throwing it out there for the moment) then no their not still roughly balanced to compete. Does anyone think DH can compete with a serious IG list? How about Necrons vs IG?

So books are just better, with better builds, then others that have very few or one.

carmachu wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Carmachu, Timmah isn't asking if all of the armies are exactly identical in terms of power. He's asking if they're roughly balanced enough to allow all army books to compete with one another.

the answer is still no. When one book has only one real competetive build, say Chaos, demons, sisters, necrons, and something like BA has 3-4(jsut throwing it out there for the moment) then no their not still roughly balanced to compete. Does anyone think DH can compete with a serious IG list? How about Necrons vs IG?

So books are just better, with better builds, then others that have very few or one.

And DE too.

There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.

Dashofpepper wrote:

And DE too.

There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.

Right. I'm sure there are others too, but the point is there isnt any balance considering the disparity between books, especially older ones.

didn't want to start an argument, so...

If we assume the armies are designed and played by players of equal skill and experience then no I don't think that the various codices are equal, not even roughly equal. Judging by the recent results at Adepticon we saw that IG & SW dominated. The scale of power can shift from year to year. All it takes is one major codex release like the new Blood Angels to shift the metagame. I think most knowledgeable people will tell you that older armies such as Necrons & Tau are no longer very competitive. Sure there are the few diehards that might say otherwise but already only a quarter of the way through the new year the results from all of the major hobby events are rather telling. Would armies such as Necrons or Tau fare any better in a competitive tournament environment, just look at hte results from last year's Ard Boyz finals... Neither army was on any of the top tables.

G

Dashofpepper wrote:
There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.

I disagree. I think there are a couple of builds that can stand up to IG.

As far as some armies like Necrons not doing well, it is because no one plays them, but they did place 5th at the UK GT finals.

ummm my outflanking bikes beat up on guard, it requires Kahn.

I have also seen drop pod dreadnought spam work against IG (12 pods and 6 AOBR boxes and a MOTF)

but our meta heavily favors SM over other builds.

Blackmoor wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:
There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.

I disagree. I think there are a couple of builds that can stand up to IG.

As far as some armies like Necrons not doing well, it is because no one plays them, but they did place 5th at the UK GT finals.

With the typical DE build at 1850 points, you'll have 15 lances and 9 disintegrators firing at 36" range. I have roughly a 1/3 chance to get an effect on a Chimaera with a Raider's DL. I have more chances to hit with a Dissie, but less chance to effect.

A decent IG list will have at least as many Chimaera as I have Raiders, and each Chim will have 6-9 shots at 36 inches, each of which are capable of knocking down my Raiders. A Chimaera has 30/24 chance to get an effect on a Raider, assuming no pintle mounted weapon.

Not if you put on nightshields. Or get cover. Or actually go on the offensive

I don't agree with Blackmoor much but I agree there is DE builds that stand up to mech