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 keep looking at the wave serpent (upgraded to Scatter laser and underslung shuri-cannon) and thinking that it puts out an obscene amount of dakka. We're talking about 4 BS4 TL shots, which will almost inevitably lead to another 2 or 3 hits from the cannon, followed by another 3ish hits from the serpent cannon (shield is a misnomer for wargear that will 96.73% of the time used as a weapon) leads to an astonishing amount of reliable mid strength shooting from a basic transport.

I have a feeling Eldar will be making more of an appearance in the tournament scene as the months wear on.

I'm gonna say:
1) Tau
2) Eldar
3) Chaos Daemons
4) DA
5) CSM

As far as long-term projection goes, I predict that Chaos is probably going to slip towards mid-to-bottom tier eventually, but DA might actually end up as the overall worst when other Marine books get updated. At the moment, the DA book is pretty good... but mostly because it pays far less for core units and HQs than other Marine books do. Once other codices are brought in line with it and get better doodads, DA are going to feel about as flavourless as they felt throughout 5th edition. CSM are going to feel like 5th ed Nids, where they're overpriced across the board with a few practically compulsory units keeping them afloat.

Lots of people here picked up chaos and ran triple helldrakes, but then they dropped chaos quicker than they picked them up

Out of all the 6th books though, tau has undoubtedly gathered the most "band wagon" people, but they are probably the easiest point and click army of 6th so its not really surprising.

I picked up daemons, I quite like them, and will start Eldar, but that's because I have a lot of models hidden away that I am eager to bust out again.

Lol gt results ate "real evidence"

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
A lot of the people here need to take a peak at the majortourneys / gt results. Csm and daemons have been at the top of the list. I play both csm and daemons. I very rarely liar. Often times I ally them together in 1750 points I can bring 4 fmc with biomancy and two drakes. That craps on people. It's too overwhelming. I've yet to lose to DA... Both Raven wing and death wing. From my experience they're just not strong.

Um, no... in the last 6 months, CSM have been the most fielded of the GT armies (first round), yet come in 9th in top 5 finishes. Daemons are 11th in first round appearance, yet come in 6th in top 5 finishes... Eldar do the best, 12th in first round appearances and 5th in top 5. Dark angels are 10th in first round and finish 16th in top 5... so if your talking major tourneys, DA or CSM are the worst. Either Eldar or Tau (5th in first round, 2nd in top 5) are the best.

That being said, I don't think tourney results really do say which is best, but whatever


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Might I add, Eldar should only get better, everyone else, probably not so much.

I think part of the reason why Tau are more popular are that the release was about 50% larger than the other 2013 books, though about on par with CSM/DA if you include Dark Vengeance. Still, overall it had a bit more meat than the Eldar release and the Daemons release (though Daemons have been drip-fed releases for the past 3 years or so).

Tau = 5 new plastic kits + 4 FC blisters = 9 new releases
CSM = 4 new plastic kits + 4 FC blisters/boxes = 8 new releases (+ Dark Vengeance)
DA = 4 new plastic kits + 2 FC blisters = 6 new releases (+ Dark Vengeance)
Eldar = 4 new plastic kits + 2 FC blisters = 6 new releases
Daemons = 4 new plastic kits + 2 FC blisters = 6 new releases


They are about on par with the smallest releases of 5th Edition (Blood Angels, Grey Knights), which clock in at about 6 or 7 new releases, but they are obviously a far cry from the "big" entries into 5th Edition.

Dark Eldar = 10 new plastic kits + 17 FC (metal) blisters/boxes = 27 new releases
Necrons = 9 new plastic kits + 10 FC blisters/boxes = 19 new releases

Nobody_Holme wrote:
DA is the best book for gameplay I find.

It allows a lot of builds which are compettitive, if not amazing, and does so without introducing anything people call cheese on.

Find me another book that's in that same sweet spot.

It'll never be outstanding, but its very hard to obsolete, its a good book to carry a SM chapter through to 8th ed, leaving more time for GW to focus on other things, and I hope BT and BA get similar books, which would leave time for a much better chaos dex next edition as a headliner.

Given that GW is releasing a new codex every two months I doubt you'll ever see an army going an entire edition without a new book again.

Every codex has its ups and downs, usually its "bad" because the user hasnt figured out how to use it right.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Every codex has its ups and downs, usually its "bad" because the user hasnt figured out how to use it right.

So you're saying all Codexes are always equally good. No objective variance in quality? At all?

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
A lot of the people here need to take a peak at the majortourneys / gt results. Csm and daemons have been at the top of the list. I play both csm and daemons. I very rarely liar. Often times I ally them together in 1750 points I can bring 4 fmc with biomancy and two drakes. That craps on people. It's too overwhelming. I've yet to lose to DA... Both Raven wing and death wing. From my experience they're just not strong.


Um, no... in the last 6 months, CSM have been the most fielded of the GT armies (first round), yet come in 9th in top 5 finishes. Daemons are 11th in first round appearance, yet come in 6th in top 5 finishes... Eldar do the best, 12th in first round appearances and 5th in top 5. Dark angels are 10th in first round and finish 16th in top 5... so if your talking major tourneys, DA or CSM are the worst. Either Eldar or Tau (5th in first round, 2nd in top 5) are the best.

Lobukia summed that up nicely, but I would also add that many of the "CSM" armies you 're seeing are really just Heldrake delivery systems along with the occasional Typhus build. When people are taking a codex but only regularly using one or two units from that codex it's a sign that it might not be the best codex.

I would say Daemons have the worst gameplay. All the randomness and chart rolling is tedious for both players(bogs the game down). The book seems to only have 2 effective builds that rely on spamming 2 units (FMCs and Khorne Flesh Hounds) with ubiquitous grimoire of true names and portalglyph wargear.

I think Eldar currently have the best gameplay as they can build more variety of lists that are still effective.

All this randomness people complain about in the daemon codex doesn't happen with fateweaver... It's really easy to stream line their randomness. They're a top three dex right now. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't see the actual data that's out there

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
All this randomness people complain about in the daemon codex doesn't happen with fateweaver... It's really easy to stream line their randomness. They're a top three dex right now. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't see the actual data that's out there

Considering the fact that you never looked at the actual lists that propagated that data considering your naive stance on CSM being a top tier...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Part of the issue with the CSM book is that it is in many ways multiple books that are only partially represented. A Thousand Sons player generally isn't going to include Plague Marines or Mark of Nurgle units out of theme, or really any other cult, cutting out a good chunk of the codex and/or options, while at the same time there may just not be thematically appropriate units in other slots so certain capabilities are overlooked. Now this doesn't apply to everything, but it does to certain fluff builds.

On the other hand, the army is still really built around 4E/5E mechanics. There's a lot of heavy CC stuff that still wants to act like a 4E consolidation machine, and a lot of reliance on mid-AV vehicles that were solid in 5E but not so much in 6E due to the introduction of HP's. Likewise, a lot of mechanics from the old book are no longer there, like the Deep Strike homer aspect of icons. Then we get some sillyness where stuff was changed just as an excuse to stuff in some 6E rules in order to claim its a 6E book, like Berzerkers going from A2 to A1 and instead gaining Rage and Counterattack.

The current CSM book would have been king of 4th edition, but just can't shake that paradigm.

I hate soulblaze with a firey passion that burns on to next turn only to do no real damage.

 Exergy wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Thoughts?

This us how I would rank the releases so far from best to worst:

Daemons
Tau
Chaos space marines (ones that include the heldrakes)
Eldar
Dark angels

CSM are by far the worst of the 6th edition codexes in terms of game play. The codex is choc full of terrible units that dont play well with each other. There are a few gems huddled in the fast attack section but that is it. All the viable CSM builds center around spamming the few units that arent terrible and then tactically try to mask or hide all the terribleness in the book.
It is a very unsatisfying army to play and to play against.

Tau I would rank as the best on the gameplay. Things work together, feel unique and allow you to really have fun. The codex has multiple viable builds.

DA have a bunch of possible builds that are all competitive and fun to play on the table top. There isnt much that is gamebreakingly powerful unless you really stretch the dakka banner but it's a complete codex.

Daemons are a bunch of craziness choc full together and from my exprience most daemon players havent yet figured out how to use their army, as it changed so much from 5th. I cant really comment on it being bad yet, but it is certainly looking that way.

Eldar are competitive again but I havent seen too many different types of armies. At least different parts of the army compliment each other.

I agree with you that CSM has the worst internal balance of any of the new releases but CSM definetly has highly competitive builds that can come out of it. The real issue is that all of the copetative builds out of CSM usually have almost no chaos space marines in it,

IMO from a competitive stand point i'd rank them:
1) Tau
2) Daemons (through they are becoming they counter to Tau)
3) Eldar (though it's too early to really tell)
4) CSM
5) DA

With that said I think every book is capable of building highly competitive lists that could win tournaments.

 Lobukia wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
A lot of the people here need to take a peak at the majortourneys / gt results. Csm and daemons have been at the top of the list. I play both csm and daemons. I very rarely liar. Often times I ally them together in 1750 points I can bring 4 fmc with biomancy and two drakes. That craps on people. It's too overwhelming. I've yet to lose to DA... Both Raven wing and death wing. From my experience they're just not strong.

Um, no... in the last 6 months, CSM have been the most fielded of the GT armies (first round), yet come in 9th in top 5 finishes. Daemons are 11th in first round appearance, yet come in 6th in top 5 finishes... Eldar do the best, 12th in first round appearances and 5th in top 5. Dark angels are 10th in first round and finish 16th in top 5... so if your talking major tourneys, DA or CSM are the worst. Either Eldar or Tau (5th in first round, 2nd in top 5) are the best.

That being said, I don't think tourney results really do say which is best, but whatever
.

When I read "Game Play" I think fun to play and ability to play in fun and interesting ways.
When I read "Competitive" I think of an army that is powerful and place at the top of tournaments

 Exergy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Part of the issue with the CSM book is that it is in many ways multiple books that are only partially represented. A Thousand Sons player generally isn't going to include Plague Marines or Mark of Nurgle units out of theme, or really any other cult, cutting out a good chunk of the codex and/or options, while at the same time there may just not be thematically appropriate units in other slots so certain capabilities are overlooked. Now this doesn't apply to everything, but it does to certain fluff builds.

On the other hand, the army is still really built around 4E/5E mechanics. There's a lot of heavy CC stuff that still wants to act like a 4E consolidation machine, and a lot of reliance on mid-AV vehicles that were solid in 5E but not so much in 6E due to the introduction of HP's. Likewise, a lot of mechanics from the old book are no longer there, like the Deep Strike homer aspect of icons. Then we get some sillyness where stuff was changed just as an excuse to stuff in some 6E rules in order to claim its a 6E book, like Berzerkers going from A2 to A1 and instead gaining Rage and Counterattack.

The current CSM book would have been king of 4th edition, but just can't shake that paradigm.

I hate soulblaze with a firey passion that burns on to next turn only to do no real damage.

Hah!

 Zweischneid wrote:

Dark Eldar = 10 new plastic kits + 17 FC (metal) blisters/boxes = 27 new releases

After being left out in the cold since the beginning of 3rd edition it was due. The 3rd edition codex didnt even have vehicle upgrades.

OPs view is terribly off, which is probably why he didn't back it up...since it was just to get responses. Forum trolling hard at work. He states gameplay then goes into 'tournament rankings'. That isn't gameplay, that's power level....

Here is a list with reasoning and thought:

DA: Probably the best Codex for internal balance (aside from the flyers). The only issue is the slight overall playability of the army in the current Meta. Should go up as more Codexes come out in 6ED.
Eldar: The most styles of play allowed out of a single Codex makes this one a close second. The only issue is slightly worse internal balance than the DA and the ball being dropped on CC ability.
Tau: Some of the power-levels of certain units make armies that were playable before...now completely unplayable until they get their 6ED Codex. Will go up the list as more Codexes get updated.
Daemons: Allowing this much randomness to affect the game takes the strategy and tactics required and throws it out the window. Not good for gameplay.
CSM: Terrible internal balance and the Hellturkey, enough said. The bottom very easily.

I'd rank the 6th edition codex's like this:

Tau
Dark angels
Daemons
Eldar
Chaos space marines

I think when Codex Orks comes out there powerlevel will be between Daemons and Angels.

As a DA player, the words I'd use to describe the 6th edition codex would be overcautious or overbalanced.

So, overcautious or overbalanced: When you casually flicked through codex Tau, Eldar or CSM for the first time, I'm sure some of your attention was given to the new powerhouse units or major updates of the codex. (Riptide & range 6 overwatch/ Wraithknights & bladestorm/ Heldrake). Many of these things have been called (Correctly or not, this is not the place for discussing them) 'overpowered' or 'game-changing'. Now think back to when you first saw the new DA codex, what things stood out?
For me the answer would have been:

DW Knights
Dark Knights
New flyers
Land speeder vengeance
Power Field Generator
Standard of devastation.

So quite a few new units, but how many are game changing or bring something new to the table? This is where overbalance comes in.
DW knights are good but, at slightly more points than a base terminator, that cannot score and have no ranged attack, they are glorified assault terminators with less utility.
Dark knights are fantastic, no doubt about this. But at such a high cost they should be. A great unit IMO but very balanced. Also GK did the -1 toughness thing already
The flyers - Great models that attracted much attention before release....and then lost it all after the stats were released. Over balanced come to mind here.
Vengeance - Expensive flying vindicator, with a lower str attack that glances itself to death. massive disappointment with IMO a terrible model.
PFG - Blanced, Ok this probably did need it.
SoD - One of the few parts of the codex that actually raised the bar and presented something game changing.

To summarize, DA were lucky to get new models and an update when other codices more sorely needed it. However the changes they have received just did not set the bar high enough, and they have already been eclipsed by newer codices which in many places offer direct counters the DA codex. The new additions to the codex for the most part did the job of an existing unit, or simply did not have the stats needed to make it a competitive choice now that allies open up many other options. Codex DA seemed to lack the courage to bring something like the Heldrake or the riptide to the table and because of this is viewed as one of the weaker 6th Ed codices.

I believe CSM suffers a similar problem, though the heldrake diverts attention away from it somewhat.

I dont know enough about Codex daemons to place it in a list, but in no particular order I would put CSM and DA below Tau and Eldar.
This is not to say either codex is useless or not viable - I still enjoy playing games with my DA - however newever codices so far seem to overshadow both of them.