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.

This is how it works:

*New Codex is released
*A new statistically superior army list hits the circuit. No one is expecting or prepared for it.
*It stomps all over everyone, people cry 'broken' or 'codex' escalation.
*About a month alter, everyone makes some minor tweaks and begins to understand the new codex.
*That superlist everyone is gunning for it and it loses its power.
*People begin to make a variety of balanced lists from the codex. Life goes on.
*The next codex is released.

Stelek wrote:People will learn to fear the new Space Marines.

Mark my words.

I'm not buying 6 Black Reach boxes to satisfy my need for Orks I don't want or need, ya know.

What build are you looking at? My early lines of thought seem to focus on flamers, pods, and the Salamander SC.

I can see where Stelek is coming from here, no army is defenseless they just need to get it together and find their tactical advantage or combo.

It's like when I used to play Street Fighter 3S competitively. There are tiers in that game, but it only feels like it applies to U.S. players. Chun-Li, Yun and Ken are the top tier. But when you jet set over to Japan it's completely different. Of course you see Chun, Yun and Ken win a little more but there are just some powerhouse combos that the others have.

The same is true for 40k too. There is a top tier. Probably CSM, Orks and Eldar. But it's not like other armies are complete trash. They have good combos and good players behind them. You will see the top tier win a little more but it doesn't mean the others are denfeseless.

Pepople who are on the bottom tier need to quit whining and find their combo or tactical advantage to win.

Pdeflorio wrote:Sadly, the super squirter you are using on me does not impress.

I don't think you are playing dead hard players, really.

Lol... You really have no idea... My club has 5 GT / Indy GT overall winners with a total of 9 overall best GT trophies. One of which is mine. Not mention a slew of lesser trophies. We have the first 40k and fantasy gt winner (tied with Matt York). Probably the best fantasy player around and we do a bunch of the play testing.

Our players are dead hard... But thanks for the concern :p

Pdeflorio wrote:

How do tau hold objectives?

Hmmm, let's see:

Devilfish.
Piranha's.
Crisis Suits.
Pathfinders scouting.
Kroot infiltrating.

Tau give up a ton of KP's? Only if you run drones (only place you have to is on Piranhas) do they give up more than anyone else, actually.

Yes. Thanks. I'm familiar with the troop choices and fast units in the list. But I t still think all of these are in a world of hurt if they have to push anything with a spine of an objective in the end game.

Let's face it. Tau shot well but their strength has always been in fielding huge amounts of units and they are highly maneuverable in a micro sense, kind a like dwarves in fantasy. I don't think these are really the hugely effective attributes in 5th.

Path finder got a huge boon, and the tanks with upgrades are really awesome now, but I think they are net negative compared to 4th. Crisis suits losing a lot of viable terrain to pop up attack really hurts. I know my Saim Hann army really took it on the chin.

Pdeflorio wrote:A small step down, a very small one. Regen fexes are as always humorous, please run them.

Bunch of stealers with feeder tendrils...wow that's pretty insightful there.

Yes I realize nids are no longer the godzilla gods, but I think the combined force really works well. I think it will have dificulty against some heavy tank builds, but against infantry list they are very good.

As for Carnies. The Dakka fex is still the most viable but the sniper fex needs to be re evaluated. I think if you pump the crap out of toughness wounds armorsave and regen you end up with a unit that is going to last all game and challenge an objective. I saw 3 run the other day and I was impressed enough to mention it. I think this is very important to nids now to have a new type of resilience as hordes will disappear quickly now.

Pdeflorio wrote:There are tons of ways to run Orks.

Most players won't run anything but horde, and the few that run shooty run them incorrectly. So I'm not worried about the handful of players that have figured out other ways to run Orks, I think the odds of me running into them are rather small.

lol. You can't even agree when I agree with you. Shooty is hands down the best. Although I am really beginning to think the best build includes battlewagons with death rollas.

Pdeflorio wrote: Mech Eldar are different, but they are stronger. See, the army you speak of was a point and click army run primarily by sucktastic "generals" who wouldn't know a tactic from a toothpick. Harlies and Falcons were never king over anything but Scrubland.

Loss of shooting from transports? Why do you need to move 12" to fire? Get used to moving 6". Maybe 8 grav tanks isn't exactly a good place to be with Eldar, eh?

Holding objectives is difficult? With a tank not vulnerable to melta fire? Please, more "advice".

Outflanking Scorps in Wave Serpents are good because deploying 12", moving 12" and armor arcs in 40K make side moves on turn X (whenever you show up) so awesome? And those scorps are pretty amusing, everyone knows where they are going to be able to assault so they never do.

Oh you're right. Harlies in falcons were never a strong tactical choice. They were only the backbone of the the army that won the adepticon gladiator... It was probably the strongest combo in 4th. Yes. Nerfing both of those units hurt mech Eldar. I dont; even think Falcons make the the stronger Eldar builds aanymore (unless they care a fire dragons maybe).

As for shooting transports, it depends on who you play. I've pretty much saved shooting with them untill end game. Turn 2 and 3 often has the risk of too many deepstrikers with melta guns not to keep them moving, thus to be efficeint you should be advancing on your enemy to unleash you dire avengers or seer council you might be transporting.

As for the scorps in a wave serpent, what makes them cool is that they outflank and come in in a wavserpent that can move 36" so you can basically challenge anything you want. Also the fact that they are in reserve usually means they are slightly delayed which allows you to often strike undefended archer units like dev squads and lootas. It's really not that easy to defend against and if you are defending agaisnt it they have already done their job stalling your advance.

Pdeflorio wrote:Most guard armies aren't run properly. They're built poorly and thus do poorly. Even the 'good' armies I've seen aren't 'good' they just don't suck as bad as battleforce armies.

Not sure how it's hard to table someone (wait, who WANTS to be tabled?) since I've been doing it for a decade at the GT's. Virtually every game ends in a tabling.

But I guess at the GT's the competition is somehow less, and people want to be tabled so they just drop games to make my epeen larger.

I do agree with you on this one. I think most guard lists are built way under powered. My take on guard is that they get better the more bodies you take. Tanks (as cool as they are) tend to just give opponents something to gain all those point they spent on tank hunting back. By taking no tanks you can really punish opponents lists.

As for tabled, yes at GTs I tend to table most of my opponents too, but that last two rounds you finally run into good generals and the chance of you tabling them is much less. My point is that with KPs if a competent general is up a couple KPs they will turtle and make it very difficult to kill off their entire army.

Pdeflorio wrote:
Top at a GW GT is an oxymoron. Best Kisser, Second Best Kisser, Third Best Kisser? Man now I'll win and have to eat those words.

Yes. We look forward to your placings. Your jackassery aside, I have to agree the GW GTs are much less challenging than the Indy GTs, so to do miserable would be embarrassing. I like that you are bringing DH though. It's a nice braggers army. If you do average, you look like you are good, if you get blown to hell you can blame it on the army. If you place top three you'd impress a bunch of people. It's a nice racket you have going there

As for daemons it's really too early to tell with them. I think they are about mid tier. Not being able to purchase things like seekers in quantity make rating th list fairly difficult at present, but I still think they beat DHs :p

Pete

Oh I do have an idea about your gaming group. I'm pre-not impressed. Dead ard? I certainly don't think so. Counting the number of social engineers in your group and saying they are elite tournament players is quite astounding. Don't take it the wrong way but until GW (and the Indy's) clean up their act with properly run tournaments I could really give a how many "GT winners" there are you know, are friends with, game with, or have children by. It's meaningless in the current system and everybody knows it.

I find your comments on the Tau strange. Having a hard time pushing enemies off an objective? News to me. I've never seen Tau armies running tons of units. The army maxes out around 10 units, pretty much whatever build you are going to run.

Tyranid combined force, you mean feeder tendril stealers and strangler fexes? Dunno about you but I'm not impressed with that build. Were you referring to something else?

Orks in battlewagons with deff rollas are decent enough builds. I don't know about best or worst yet.

Winning the adepticon gladiator with a crappy force just speaks volumes to the level of competitive play at said tournament. Apparently at adepticon with 20 lascannon armies, Falcons never died. Yet at the LVGT, not one of my Falcons survived against much lesser arrays of firepower. Must be my lack of skill that allowed my opponents to roll 5/5, 5/6, and 6/6 in every game, eh? If only my army strategy was based on avoiding playing 40k for as long as possible and then zipping in to take the objectives at the end of the day. Strange that lameness was nerfed by GW, eh? Too little talent winning way too many tournaments because of a busted ruleset. Strong? I don't think so. It's telling of you and your gaming group that you find that particular build to be the strongest build from 4E. Dual Seer Bike Council was the strongest build from 4E. It's not like they didn't have tri-falcon with fire dragons to knock yours out, ya know. And seer council jetbikers annihilate harlequins like nobody's business.

It's funny how adepticon players think they're the best (they aren't), GW GT's are the worst (I rail against the level of competitiveness at both adepticon and the GW GT's but the level of holes is about one hundred times less at the GW GT vs adepticon), and the two tournaments are so different in so many ways that comparing them is almost pointless. Lots of holes though.

You must play alot of fantasy. Calling dev squads archer units. No wonder what you say makes little sense to me.

Scorpions outflanking don't impress me, never will. I don't like parking 300 points off the table solely for the right to move 24" then fly 12" more. While the rest of my army gets shot to pieces, and I need autarchs to make sure I come in when I want them to...makes for an army I personally don't like playing. I call most hope armies trash because that's what they are.

My buddies Ard Boyz list has like 350 guard in it. I barely beat it last year with my marine dev squad spam army. Came down to a single 3+ save. lol

I don't know about much less challenging. I played the Indy circuit for a while a few years back. I played alot of holes who thought they were top kit but were nothing of the sort. Funny thing is, alot of the people that are naysayers about me and my skill have played me but oddly enough don't remember me. Musta been a bad day I guess.

I won't blame the army if I get blown to hell. I talked alot of and I'm more than willing to put up or shut up. I'm looking forward to losing a game for once, more than anything else really. Well ok the star trek experience is always more fun but that's another story. lol

Demons are highly amusing, and while I think there are a handful of builds that need a good balance to drop...essentially demons will always suck because they require linchpins to function properly, and in the end...those linchpins are unavailable for the critical turns on a 1-2, 1-3. Not exactly my kind of odds. The oddsmakers in Vegas will not give you a great deal on odds like that lol.

So don't take things personally. I'm a jackass, after all. What do I know?

Of what variety? The pure-vehicle flavor, the bikey flavor, or the hybrid-with-infantry-for-your-home-objectives flavor?

Pure-vehicle is still competitive. Not sure about the Jetbike flavor, as I play Biel-Tan like, not Saim-Hann. The hybrid is not competitive, as it requires to split the army.

@Stelek, have you attended an Adepticon? You speak like you have, but have you?

Also, the Star Trek experience is gone. There just were not enough nerds coming to see it. It ends Sept 1. You are gonna just miss it.

wuestenfux wrote:Sisters? Tier 1? No, certainly not.

Then you dont understand either sisters or 5th edition dynamics.


Sisters(not WH) are incredibly strong in 5th. Better than more than a few armies.

Stelek wrote:
Winning the adepticon gladiator with a crappy force just speaks volumes to the level of competitive play at said tournament. Apparently at adepticon with 20 lascannon armies, Falcons never died. Yet at the LVGT, not one of my Falcons survived against much lesser arrays of firepower. Must be my lack of skill that allowed my opponents to roll 5/5, 5/6, and 6/6 in every game, eh? If only my army strategy was based on avoiding playing 40k for as long as possible and then zipping in to take the objectives at the end of the day. Strange that lameness was nerfed by GW, eh? Too little talent winning way too many tournaments because of a busted ruleset. Strong? I don't think so. It's telling of you and your gaming group that you find that particular build to be the strongest build from 4E. Dual Seer Bike Council was the strongest build from 4E. It's not like they didn't have tri-falcon with fire dragons to knock yours out, ya know. And seer council jetbikers annihilate harlequins like nobody's business.

It's funny how adepticon players think they're the best (they aren't), GW GT's are the worst (I rail against the level of competitiveness at both adepticon and the GW GT's but the level of holes is about one hundred times less at the GW GT vs adepticon), and the two tournaments are so different in so many ways that comparing them is almost pointless. Lots of holes though.

SO now your slagging Adepticon and its players? Wow, what makes you so special snowflake?


edited by yakface

Darrian13 wrote:@Stelek, have you attended an Adepticon? You speak like you have, but have you?

Also, the Star Trek experience is gone. There just were not enough nerds coming to see it. It ends Sept 1. You are gonna just miss it.

Yes I have, why would I speak like I had but not actually have gone? I went to the first one.

No ST? That's too bad really.

Stelek,

I've edited Carmachu's flame at you, but frankly he wasn't doing much but pointing back the sentiment you had expressed above in your post.

Just because you generalize your insults out to a wide group of people doesn't make them any less of an insult.


I just don't get the incessant need to prove (by anyone) that they are the 'big dog'. We are talking about a tabletop miniature game here for christsakes, not a boxing match.

If someone goes to a tournament and wins all their games with a particular army it doesn't suddenly mean that army is fantastic. It just means that particular build of that army, played by that player, against those particular opponents, using those missions was the best.

With the multitude of variables present in all tournaments it is almost impossible to really get a gauge on what any results actually mean to how a particular army behaves against the myriad of different enemy army combinations that players can encounter in any given game.


The *only* thing we can really provide to each other on a forum is our personal experiences and our opinions that have formulated from those experiences.

Feel free to share your experiences and opinions, but at the same time don't denigrate others when they speak from their own personal experience.


In short, everyone let's please discuss the game and the tactics and not the person.

Stelek wrote:Oh I do have an idea about your gaming group. I'm pre-not impressed. Dead ard? I certainly don't think so. Counting the number of social engineers in your group and saying they are elite tournament players is quite astounding. Don't take it the wrong way but until GW (and the Indy's) clean up their act with properly run tournaments I could really give a how many "GT winners" there are you know, are friends with, game with, or have children by. It's meaningless in the current system and everybody knows it.

I find your comments on the Tau strange. Having a hard time pushing enemies off an objective? News to me. I've never seen Tau armies running tons of units. The army maxes out around 10 units, pretty much whatever build you are going to run.

Tyranid combined force, you mean feeder tendril stealers and strangler fexes? Dunno about you but I'm not impressed with that build. Were you referring to something else?

Orks in battlewagons with deff rollas are decent enough builds. I don't know about best or worst yet.

Winning the adepticon gladiator with a crappy force just speaks volumes to the level of competitive play at said tournament. Apparently at adepticon with 20 lascannon armies, Falcons never died. Yet at the LVGT, not one of my Falcons survived against much lesser arrays of firepower. Must be my lack of skill that allowed my opponents to roll 5/5, 5/6, and 6/6 in every game, eh? If only my army strategy was based on avoiding playing 40k for as long as possible and then zipping in to take the objectives at the end of the day. Strange that lameness was nerfed by GW, eh? Too little talent winning way too many tournaments because of a busted ruleset. Strong? I don't think so. It's telling of you and your gaming group that you find that particular build to be the strongest build from 4E. Dual Seer Bike Council was the strongest build from 4E. It's not like they didn't have tri-falcon with fire dragons to knock yours out, ya know. And seer council jetbikers annihilate harlequins like nobody's business.

It's funny how adepticon players think they're the best (they aren't), GW GT's are the worst (I rail against the level of competitiveness at both adepticon and the GW GT's but the level of holes is about one hundred times less at the GW GT vs adepticon), and the two tournaments are so different in so many ways that comparing them is almost pointless. Lots of holes though.

You must play alot of fantasy. Calling dev squads archer units. No wonder what you say makes little sense to me.

Scorpions outflanking don't impress me, never will. I don't like parking 300 points off the table solely for the right to move 24" then fly 12" more. While the rest of my army gets shot to pieces, and I need autarchs to make sure I come in when I want them to...makes for an army I personally don't like playing. I call most hope armies trash because that's what they are.

My buddies Ard Boyz list has like 350 guard in it. I barely beat it last year with my marine dev squad spam army. Came down to a single 3+ save. lol

I don't know about much less challenging. I played the Indy circuit for a while a few years back. I played alot of holes who thought they were top kit but were nothing of the sort. Funny thing is, alot of the people that are naysayers about me and my skill have played me but oddly enough don't remember me. Musta been a bad day I guess.

I won't blame the army if I get blown to hell. I talked alot of and I'm more than willing to put up or shut up. I'm looking forward to losing a game for once, more than anything else really. Well ok the star trek experience is always more fun but that's another story. lol

Demons are highly amusing, and while I think there are a handful of builds that need a good balance to drop...essentially demons will always suck because they require linchpins to function properly, and in the end...those linchpins are unavailable for the critical turns on a 1-2, 1-3. Not exactly my kind of odds. The oddsmakers in Vegas will not give you a great deal on odds like that lol.

So don't take things personally. I'm a jackass, after all. What do I know?

Are you really surprised that you meet so many @ssholes? If you are anything like your internet persona... I would be an @sshole to you as well.

Then you dont understand either sisters or 5th edition dynamics.

Don't understand 5th ed dynamics? Meh.
Possibly, I don't understand Sisters. They never did well in the tournaments I attended incl GTs.

Hobbyist's willing to go to major tournaments are lower than ever.

Overall tournament attendance is lower than ever.

Go ahead and tell me it isn't. Hey if we "sell out" all of our tickets but only sell 120 instead of 200...nothings amiss, right? :S

Why should the tournament community lose so many members that GW is considering cancelling their GT's because they can't even break even?

What's worse, is they are changing their format to meet the needs of the vocal few--the that go to the Indy's and aren't happy that GW actually makes them not be pricks at their tournaments so lets bring in the adepticon guys and ruin the whole GT scene because GW can't be bothered to do it anymore.

Just bury your heads in the sand, call ME the , and watch the GT system disappear into nothing but hot dog fillers.

I don't see many (if any) of you trying to foment change in the community, GW or the GT system.

At least I am trying. Go ahead and flame away. Be a good whipped topping to this cherry of a thread.

nkelsch wrote:This is how it works:

*New Codex is released
*A new statistically superior army list hits the circuit. No one is expecting or prepared for it.
*It stomps all over everyone, people cry 'broken' or 'codex' escalation.
*About a month alter, everyone makes some minor tweaks and begins to understand the new codex.
*That superlist everyone is gunning for it and it loses its power.
*People begin to make a variety of balanced lists from the codex. Life goes on.
*The next codex is released.

I don't believe that happened with the Daemons codex.

While GT attendance may be dropping (I don't know if it is or not), I think that's more a reflection that the Indy GTs are going strong. Really, GW can't compete with an Indy GT for a lot of reasons. I've felt for years that it made more sense for GW to support the Indy GTs with prizes than to run their own. If they run their own, it's a huge investment in time and capital, plus it opens them up to liability (if someone is hurt at a GT, they could name GW in any suit). If they just give prize support and don't run it, they're not liable for anything, have virtually no manhours, and not much capital in it (if they donate $1,000 of stuff, it costs them a lot less). Plus, the Indy GTs are free to do all sorts of odd tournies and missions (Gladiator, Team, etc.) - if GW does, they take a bunch of heat for not running a 'normal' tourney - and that gives the Indy GTs a lot more flavor. Plus, the Indy GTs are very well organized and are generally putting on a better event than a GT (which almost feels like an extended RTT).

So, why should GW take on something that someone else is doing better, and it even costs less for GW? I won't mind if the GTs go away, I haven't been to one in 5 years, but I've been to Adepticon 4 years in a row.

Edited by moi

Modquisition
Yak's popped on this thread twice. Lets keep this both on point and on topic. We can argue the merits of individual armies without attacking each other. If not the thread will be closed.
Modquisition off

Oh and the Fraz is of the unalterable belief that the Pan Fo are THE top Tier army of V5. Come on, have any of you been able to even ponder a counterlist to their awesome might?

Stelek wrote:Hobbyist's willing to go to major tournaments are lower than ever.

Overall tournament attendance is lower than ever.

Go ahead and tell me it isn't. Hey if we "sell out" all of our tickets but only sell 120 instead of 200...nothings amiss, right? :S

Why should the tournament community lose so many members that GW is considering cancelling their GT's because they can't even break even?

What's worse, is they are changing their format to meet the needs of the vocal few--the that go to the Indy's and aren't happy that GW actually makes them not be pricks at their tournaments so lets bring in the adepticon guys and ruin the whole GT scene because GW can't be bothered to do it anymore.

Just bury your heads in the sand, call ME the , and watch the GT system disappear into nothing but hot dog fillers.

I don't see many (if any) of you trying to foment change in the community, GW or the GT system.

At least I am trying. Go ahead and flame away. Be a good whipped topping to this cherry of a thread.

I'm confused. This thread is not about the state of the GT tournament scene. It was a discussion about which armies are best for 5th edition.

Please keep the comments about how the tournament system is broken and you're the only one trying to fix it for another thread.

yakface wrote:The *only* thing we can really provide to each other on a forum is our personal experiences and our opinions that have formulated from those experiences.

Feel free to share your experiences and opinions, but at the same time don't denigrate others when they speak from their own personal experience.

Interesting.

yakface wrote:I've edited Carmachu's flame at you, but frankly he wasn't doing much but pointing back the sentiment you had expressed above in your post.

Just because you generalize your insults out to a wide group of people doesn't make them any less of an insult.

Catch 22?

yakface wrote:I'm confused. This thread is not about the state of the GT tournament scene. It was a discussion about which armies are best for 5th edition.

Please keep the comments about how the tournament system is broken and you're the only one trying to fix it for another thread.

Wait, so the GT scene has nothing to do with 5th edition army tiers? Surely you jest.

If people have a need to define top 'tier' in so-called "friendly" non-tournament games, doesn't that definition make the game "unfriendly" at best?

You know it does, yak.

Chest thumping over whose army book is best is something tournament players do.

Hobbyists could give a damn.

Stelek wrote:Hobbyist's willing to go to major tournaments are lower than ever.

Overall tournament attendance is lower than ever.

Go ahead and tell me it isn't. Hey if we "sell out" all of our tickets but only sell 120 instead of 200...nothings amiss, right? :S

Ok, there isnt.

Do you have any evidence? Links? proof? Just saying so doesnt make it so....

Since when did this thread become a pissing contest?

Capt K

I don't think ranking armies or builds by tiers is exclusively a tournament players pastime. If anything, it's done by relatively soft core players, not the true elite (who frequently build and play offbeat lists). Even in friendly and casual play, there is more of an effort to even out lists so that both players have a fun game; a knowledge of relative army power is useful there. Even many casual gamers will refuse to play with certain armies simply because they think they're too powerful. Sure, a lot of it is mistaken, but it's there.

To try and get back on topic...

I do believe there are tiers and that looking at the GTs can provide pretty good insight to what those tiers are. Although in this game you see more diversity than in some others as to who is the winner there. I don't follow any GTs or anything, but if someone could provide some links/insight on what lists have won in the past year or so we could look at that and see if it matches up with what most of us have been or are looking at as the top tier army.

I also liked the counter to the codex release cycle. Chaos Daemons are very balanced. I've never played them and they do have their one power list and there is a player in my group who uses that list. But I don't remember a lot of bawwing going on during it's release and it's been pretty quiet afterwards. I guess one might here more about SM because they are the 'flagship' good guys team.

wuestenfux wrote:

Then you dont understand either sisters or 5th edition dynamics.

Don't understand 5th ed dynamics? Meh.
Possibly, I don't understand Sisters. They never did well in the tournaments I attended incl GTs.

Your right they didnt, pre-5th.

But now the new ruleset is here you'll see them more I think. Once foks get over the sticker shock of building it. Sisters didnt lose that much, mostly dealing with AV 14, and gained alot. Book of st Lucius for example, the 5pt wargear lets you test on unmodified LD. Which was good last edition, but is pretty much broken in 5th for combat. Good chances you never go anywhere losing combats unless you want to. And there is other stuff.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Since when did this thread become a pissing contest?

Capt K

Mostly when folks are responding to Stelek's assertions. Overall its been fairly easy going.

I'm almost sorry I started this thread, but I appreciate the efforts of those who have tried to pull it back on topic.

Army tiers (if they exist) are obviously a contentious topic. So we can maybe get back to discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of armies in 5th I will attempt to define exactly what I mean.

Firstly, I do not think that looking at tournament results will tell you much about army tiers at this stage of 5th. (obvious, I know) Any tournament community will react to particular builds, sucessful ones will be replicated until they are either refined or obsolete. It is the nature of a community like this to act in this way, and it can be loads of fun.

Certain builds will turn out to be highly succesfull for a while, not because they are neccecarily great builds, but merely because they were particularly good at beating what was around before them. For the longest time in 4th edition it was all about the biggest guns for killing the scariest most elite builds. Who ran hordes? The orks arrived and suddenly there were horde options. The ork horde army obviously excelled for a time (and still do pretty well), not because they are unstoppable, but because let's face it, most of the viable builds at the time were not set up to deal with horde. Time goes on and now people are talking about a shooty ork army! I know this is a gross oversimplification, but micro trends have as much to do with the community as they do with good builds.

However... Over time, some specific builds do seem to be simply better than most others, and some armies just plain suck. We do not have a level playing field. The essence of my belief in tiers is based around the simple belief that if you took two players of equal ability in 4th edition, gave one almost any normal army, and the other a min/maxed eldar tri falcon with harly spam, or nidzilla for example, the latter would almost certainly win.

So obviously we can't prove it, but I still believe that there are some builds (not armies) that lend an intrinsic advantage. Obviously, the only true test of player skill would be a tournament where every player had the same army and tables were symetrical. (I would sign up to that, it could be interesting!) But lots of fun is to be had finding that build, the one that gives the player that advantage before the game starts... we all do it.

So it stands to reason, if there are some more powerful builds than others, there must be a tier system. Not many players could beat a guard tank company with an army of basic guardsmen. Therefore, the tank company is on a higher tier than the army of basic guardsmen. This must follow to a certain extent with competitive builds. This thread is (was supposed to be) a discussion about where people's playing experiences and theoryhammer had led to a feeling that some builds were good in 5th.

Thanks for sticking it out this long if you're still reading, I have a couple of questions, anyone can chip in...

1. Why are shooty orks all of a sudden the best choice? I guess that's a trend I've not noticed picking up here yet.

2. To be honest, I'd not rated mechanised eldar that highly in the new edition. The lack of places to hide and the reduction in staying power of the tanks seems to me to have dealt a blow strong enough to have knocked them off the top tier. What do they have now that they did not have before? somearmies appear to have gained from 5th, mech eldar seem somehow less...
Please explain this to me, I feel I've missed something. (and bonus points to anyone who can explain it to me without any cheap shots for my not having realised it before)

1: Shooty orcs was always the choice of those understanding the new orc codex, directly when it was out. Quite alot of people argued for CC-horde but the more experienced players feared the shooty ones, wich proved in the tournaments at the end of 4th.

2: Mech eldar didnt gain anything special, they actually lost the benefits of holo-spirit-falconsx3 but mech armies overall benefits from the more massed fire enviroment and need for fast objective grabbing/contesting. Not dying from glancing hits also helps.

***accidental triple post***

***accidental triple post***

Take what I say with a grain of salt, because I'm relatively inexperienced, but here's my 2 cents:

Necrons are going to be the dark horse. Sure, they can only immobilize with their gauss guns now, but the Monolith became thoroughly impractical to destroy. Plus WBB has a huge advantage over FNP, imo, because it eats time. You don't know until the Necron players' turn if you eliminated his unit or not. And the Monolith allows for spontaneous resurrection (and complete KP denial) as well as placing scoring units on top of nearby objectives. Ouch.

Anyone who says necrons aren't mobile hasn't seen them played correctly. If I ever become a serious GT player, they'll be my army of choice. For right now, I'm still discovering how to beat them.