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.

Kevin Nash wrote:
I think the idea is what armies give you best chance to win all comers. Maybe you can win with Orks, but is the path to victory easier with Space Wolves? Probably.

I'm pretty confident with Orks and feel like I can do well with them. But if someone tells me I'm playing for a million dollars I'm pretty sure I'm not playing with Orks. I'm gonna play with the army that gives me the best chance to win.

If someone tells me I'm playing for a million dollars, I guess first I'd think they're crazy. Then I'd get my orks. Not because I think they're the best, but because they're the army I know the best. And I think that's so much more important. When it comes down to it, knowing what it takes to win with the army you have is more important than having the best army.

My tournament record with orks vs. space wolves is 3-1 (with the loss when I was playing as the ringer at 'ard boyz, with a randomly thrown together list). Vs IG is 3-0-1. Does that mean orks are better? No. It means that I played my orks better than my opponents played their armies.

What're the 3 best armies? The ones played by Centurian99, DarthDiggler and InquisitorMalice.

I would say that there is no clear best army. That said, IG have been taking a lot of events recently. I would say that all current armies except for Necrons and Dæmonhunters can put together a competitive list. That said some armies are definitely harder to use than others. I wouldn't recommend that any new player pick up Witch Hunters, Tau, or Dark Eldar, for example, even though all of these armies can be very strong in the right hands.

jaweyermuller wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:

jaweyermuller wrote:Ya, I agree with that assessment. I have seen Wolves beat IG plenty of times but the opposite is a rare occurrence where I play. I personally think that part of the problem with the IG codex is there are so many good units people want to take them all and end up with a list that is too diverse to do anything because they want it to do everything.

On a side note; it's funny but I tried to put a link up on BoLS to the article on CNC and they took it down. Another guy on there complained about that too. I was wondering if anyone knew if I inadvertently broke one of their terms of use rules or something along those lines?

On the contrary, I haven't lost to space wolves yet (although 1 game was VERY close, and that was with a drop pod SW army). With wolves it is critical to have some form of counterattack unit, as relying on shooting won't hack it.

That point is fair enough, I have yet to play a guard list with adequate counter attack. For the most part if my opponent has Rough Riders he throws them at me immediately instead of holding them back. What else would you use in terms of counter attack with Guard?

That's a poor use with the RR...I use them as reserves, and only assault whittled down units...rushing forward and getting stuck in immediately without any thought is a BAD idea....I have also used ogryns in a game, and they successfully counterassaulted a whittled down grey hunter pack (4 ogryns versus 6 GH with WG).....I also like using a commissar led blob with power weapons which outflank as part of Capt. Sidewinder (my Alrahem) platoon, and since I like to setup on corners they usually come in and have a great effect to rescue my firebase.

Again, note that I stress assaulting WHITTLED down units. The counterassault unit is there to finish off units in the assault phase, instead of wasting more overkill firepower in shooting to wipe them out. I'd rather that firepower be applied somewhere else, as after all there is an assault phase to be taken advantage off, something that many IG players forget. In many cases it is true that IG shooting can be so effective that these units may not actually need to counterassault, but Ogryns and RR (who have krak grenades btw) can also bust up vehicles with a rear armor of 10, and the outflanking blob can also act as a flanking firebase, as I equip them with autocannons and grenade launchers for this purpose.

SW & IG are the strongest. Orks are still good but require more tactics. BA are kind of the new kid on the block. For SW TWC Grey Hunters & Long Fangs are a potent combination.

G

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:
I think the idea is what armies give you best chance to win all comers. Maybe you can win with Orks, but is the path to victory easier with Space Wolves? Probably.

I'm pretty confident with Orks and feel like I can do well with them. But if someone tells me I'm playing for a million dollars I'm pretty sure I'm not playing with Orks. I'm gonna play with the army that gives me the best chance to win.

If someone tells me I'm playing for a million dollars, I guess first I'd think they're crazy. Then I'd get my orks. Not because I think they're the best, but because they're the army I know the best. And I think that's so much more important. When it comes down to it, knowing what it takes to win with the army you have is more important than having the best army.

My tournament record with orks vs. space wolves is 3-1 (with the loss when I was playing as the ringer at 'ard boyz, with a randomly thrown together list). Vs IG is 3-0-1. Does that mean orks are better? No. It means that I played my orks better than my opponents played their armies.

What're the 3 best armies? The ones played by Centurian99, DarthDiggler and InquisitorMalice.

OK fine. Granted knowing your army is better than playing a good army you don't know how to play.

But if I'm going to a tournament and a lot is on the line and I really want to win and I theoretically can take any army I wish.....I will learn to play SW and play that army.

I would definitely say SW and IG are two of the top three when it comes to the most consistent tournament armies.. The third, I have no idea. Probably Orks, they're pretty good.

As for the best, though, it comes down to the player. Sure, IG and SW are good, but CSM and Daemons won 'Ard Boyz in the East Coast and West Coast, respectively. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

Gavo wrote:I would definitely say SW and IG are two of the top three when it comes to the most consistent tournament armies.. The third, I have no idea. Probably Orks, they're pretty good.

As for the best, though, it comes down to the player. Sure, IG and SW are good, but CSM and Daemons won 'Ard Boyz in the East Coast and West Coast, respectively. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

And these results are good for the 40k....shows that the ball is still round, or more appropriately dice can still come up sixes for other armies out there...

freddieyu1 wrote:

Gavo wrote:I would definitely say SW and IG are two of the top three when it comes to the most consistent tournament armies.. The third, I have no idea. Probably Orks, they're pretty good.

As for the best, though, it comes down to the player. Sure, IG and SW are good, but CSM and Daemons won 'Ard Boyz in the East Coast and West Coast, respectively. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

And these results are good for the 40k....shows that the ball is still round, or more appropriately dice can still come up sixes for other armies out there...

CSMs and even Daemons aren't horrible armies. I think that as long as your army isn't completely devoid of possibility then it can still win. Personally I think the only entirely non-competitive armies are the very bottom tier. Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels. I know there are a few good Dark Eldar and Tau players out there but I don't think that can qualify them as being competitive. Everything else has at least some teeth.

jaweyermuller wrote:

CSMs and even Daemons aren't horrible armies.

Oh, by no means are they horrible armies, it's surprising that they won 'Ard Boyz, I thought all the SW and IG would come out on top. I don't think anyone saw them coming.

Completely agree. I expected SW and IG at the top too. I wasn't shocked by CSMs but I must admit, while I have respect for the Daemons I didn't expect them to come out on top either.

jaweyermuller wrote:Completely agree. I expected SW and IG at the top too. I wasn't shocked by CSMs but I must admit, while I have respect for the Daemons I didn't expect them to come out on top either.

Yeah, Daemons are good, but I thought they were too random for hyper-competitive play.

What about eldar? :O Seerbikes/mech good anymore?

jaweyermuller wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:

Gavo wrote:I would definitely say SW and IG are two of the top three when it comes to the most consistent tournament armies.. The third, I have no idea. Probably Orks, they're pretty good.

As for the best, though, it comes down to the player. Sure, IG and SW are good, but CSM and Daemons won 'Ard Boyz in the East Coast and West Coast, respectively. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

And these results are good for the 40k....shows that the ball is still round, or more appropriately dice can still come up sixes for other armies out there...

CSMs and even Daemons aren't horrible armies. I think that as long as your army isn't completely devoid of possibility then it can still win. Personally I think the only entirely non-competitive armies are the very bottom tier. Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels. I know there are a few good Dark Eldar and Tau players out there but I don't think that can qualify them as being competitive. Everything else has at least some teeth.

WH with sisters with or without inducted IG are not a weak build. Its not an army though for the faint hearted (and here I mean money wise..since that's a truly heavy metal army!), hence not many collect it to the fullest. If plastic sisters do come out, expect more WH armies to show up (in this case also because IF plastics do come out, it will be with a brand new WH codex)...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

amhhs wrote:What about eldar? :O Seerbikes/mech good anymore?

eldar did place 3rd in 1 of the hard boyz finals, and the list had a lot of wraithguard....at 2500 pts there is space for wraithguard, and those wraithguns can do absolute havoc to vehicles and monsters alike......

jaweyermuller wrote:

Personally I think the only entirely non-competitive armies are the very bottom tier. Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels. I know there are a few good Dark Eldar and Tau players out there but I don't think that can qualify them as being competitive. Everything else has at least some teeth.

I take offense at that. Seriously. There are only three armies out there that pose a credible threat to Dark Eldar, and then only in certain flavors, and primarily if they go first: SW, IG, Orks. Pretty much everything else can be safely laughed off the table....ESPECIALLY if the DE go first.

If you want to challenge my challenge of your assertion, feel free to meet on Vassal with your tournament list so that I can spank it down with my uncompetitive Dark Eldar. See my signature.

Daemons own DE. Going first or second

That is of course assuming you bring anything that can shoot in your daemon list

Also not Dash that he said there are some good players out there but that he doesn't feel it's competitive. Which to be honest I agree with in the current environment. Assuming you can duck well built IG/SW armies they'll do fine. But one player doing well with DE doesn't make them a competitive codex.

Dashofpepper wrote:

jaweyermuller wrote:

Personally I think the only entirely non-competitive armies are the very bottom tier. Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels. I know there are a few good Dark Eldar and Tau players out there but I don't think that can qualify them as being competitive. Everything else has at least some teeth.

I take offense at that. Seriously. There are only three armies out there that pose a credible threat to Dark Eldar, and then only in certain flavors, and primarily if they go first: SW, IG, Orks. Pretty much everything else can be safely laughed off the table....ESPECIALLY if the DE go first.

If you want to challenge my challenge of your assertion, feel free to meet on Vassal with your tournament list so that I can spank it down with my uncompetitive Dark Eldar. See my signature.

Its funny that in almost every thread I read on here, you find a way to pat yourself on the back . (not a slam, just an observation)

Grimgob....I only step in when people make wide ranging assertions like, "Orks suck," or "DE suck," or "Dashofpepper has no idea what he's talking about."

Dashofpepper wrote:

jaweyermuller wrote:

Personally I think the only entirely non-competitive armies are the very bottom tier. Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels. I know there are a few good Dark Eldar and Tau players out there but I don't think that can qualify them as being competitive. Everything else has at least some teeth.

I take offense at that. Seriously. There are only three armies out there that pose a credible threat to Dark Eldar, and then only in certain flavors, and primarily if they go first: SW, IG, Orks. Pretty much everything else can be safely laughed off the table....ESPECIALLY if the DE go first.

If you want to challenge my challenge of your assertion, feel free to meet on Vassal with your tournament list so that I can spank it down with my uncompetitive Dark Eldar. See my signature.

Why would you take any offense? You didn't write the codex. That's silly.

Your success with DE is not relevant to the conversation here. Your tabling of necrons in comp tournaments doesn't validate dark eldar either. You readily admit they lose the 3 most popular and or best codices in the metagame. We're talking about the best codices, all generalship being equal, not who can beat who with what sometimes.

My DE have never faced Necrons in a tournament. Hey now.

And I'm not taking offense that someone would not include them in the top 3, but rather that they would stand up and assert that they are at the very bottom. Because they aren't.

Top 3: SW, IG, Orks.


And Hulk, daemons don't scare me unless you're fielding them. =p But then, anything you field scares whatever I'm playing.

An army that struggles against SW, IG and Orks has a hard claim to being all that great. If you can't make a serious run at the top two armies, and three of the top five, I think there is an upper limit as to how great the army is.

Also, the claim put DE in the "very bottom" with five other codices, out of 16 total books. I think there are pretty solid claims that WH and Tau are not in the same class as Necrons, DA, and DH.

Hmmm....well I think Eldar when played correctly are a huge problem for Dark Eldar, as are Marines......

But that's just me.....

Dark Angels aren't even really a bad army, they're just more constrained than Space Marines. I honestly think Dark Angels can be competitive with the right focus.

From my more limited experience I would say IG, SW, and Orks... in that order. I don't have any of those armies...

To be quite honest id have to agree with IG being at top along with SW and Orks following behind as well.

i think it should be
1)ig
2)sm
3)sw

purely because with a teammate of ig and my army being sm we versed space wolves twice and smashed both times in a tourneyment

Dashofpepper wrote:

jaweyermuller wrote:

Personally I think the only entirely non-competitive armies are the very bottom tier. Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Dark Angels. I know there are a few good Dark Eldar and Tau players out there but I don't think that can qualify them as being competitive. Everything else has at least some teeth.

I take offense at that. Seriously. There are only three armies out there that pose a credible threat to Dark Eldar, and then only in certain flavors, and primarily if they go first: SW, IG, Orks. Pretty much everything else can be safely laughed off the table....ESPECIALLY if the DE go first.

If you want to challenge my challenge of your assertion, feel free to meet on Vassal with your tournament list so that I can spank it down with my uncompetitive Dark Eldar. See my signature.

I know I am new to Dakka but I can't get behind this challenge. Vassal isn't 40k. If you want to prove your statement then a series of live games of 40k using two fully built lists (no proxies) and all the mission possibilities from the rule book would settle the matter in a more convincing way. Although from what I gather you live in Florida and JAWeyermuller is listed as living in Los Angeles, which probably makes that unlikely unless someone travels...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:Daemons own DE. Going first or second

That is of course assuming you bring anything that can shoot in your daemon list

Also not Dash that he said there are some good players out there but that he doesn't feel it's competitive. Which to be honest I agree with in the current environment. Assuming you can duck well built IG/SW armies they'll do fine. But one player doing well with DE doesn't make them a competitive codex.

I concur. Daemons FTW.

Well I don't think the live game to settle the DE dispute would happen I don't completely agree that Vassal is a completely terrible way to test 40k. But I agree that real 40k is played with actual miniatures on real tables across from a real opponent. That being said I don't begrudge anyone playing vassal, some of my friends love playing 40k on Vassal.

I have been owning hard with Blood Angels, but I'm playing a list that is a lot different than what I've seen from most other players. And I think that's a major factor in all the differing opinions on that codex. There is so much variety in it that different players will get vastly different results. It isn't immediately obvious which units are good, and there a bunch of traps in it where you can sink a ton of points on things that really aren't that great.

I put together a list of army results for our tournaments. I thought the data was interesting. Note the results are a very small sample size (4 tourneys, 40 or so armies) but it's interesting data none the less. For the record I don't think Nids are the best army, but the general who pilots them at our tourneys has done very well with them.

Poor Necrons, never getting any love. I recently won a 2k point level league at my store with Necrons, though I had a fair amount of luck in the finals. There were about 14-16 people in the league and I had something like 5 wins, 2 ties, 1 loss before the finals. It's definitely an uphill battle with Necrons, but they still have some solid tricks they can use. 5th edition nerfed everything with the Necron special rule and boosted evertything without it in that codex.

I've always had fun playing against Dark Eldar. I am about 50/50 against them, and I like having T3 bodies and kites to shoot at... it makes me feel like my gauss bullets are effective in this edition.