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.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
I thought Phil Kelly was the author of Nids 2013?

If it is, it'll be balanced, with one or two duff units.

If its a Wardian Dex... HERE COMETH THE DEVOURER, DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

More like:
Kelly - good internal balance/unit, abysmal external balance/unit, blank units/special rules turbo-boosted by weird conceptions, one or two "be all end all" list the rest of the book is just for giggles
Ward - excellent rules, horrible fluff, balances well with other Ward codices, OP against everyone else

Good internal balance? The guy who wrote Mandrakes, Incubus, Grotesques, Half the space wolf codex, More then half the CSM codex? He's not even good against keeping things balanced then!

And I would again point out that 4th ed Eldar wasn't entirely his fault, but apparently DakkaDakka requires people to record conversations with their friends in order to be believed...

Seeing as the only person here who claims that is you..Well it's kinda hard to believe otherwise seeing as it might be just him covering himself for what was shown to be a poorly made codex.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
I thought Phil Kelly was the author of Nids 2013?

If it is, it'll be balanced, with one or two duff units.

If its a Wardian Dex... HERE COMETH THE DEVOURER, DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

Kelly wrote 4th ed Eldar and the current Space Wolf Codex. Don't let that stop you though...

Space Wolves have always been considered the OP marine army, ever since their first full codex from back in 2nd edition. Don't let that stop you though...

And I would again point out that 4th ed Eldar wasn't entirely his fault, but apparently DakkaDakka requires people to record conversations with their friends in order to be believed...

So, because Space wolves have always been considered the "OP" Marine Army, that excuses Kelly for continuing the trend? No, I don't think so. The 5th Edition Space Wolf Codex is one of the worst, most OP pieces of junk every written, and it dominated 5th with IG for most of the edition.

You can spout all you want about "It wasn't his fault, He told you so!" but you are the only person on this forum who says it. That is not evidence. The fact is, you are so biased against Ward, and for Kelly, that there is no reason for anyone to believe this, and it just comes across as you trying to save face for your "Friend"

 Troike wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:

I think thats down to the SoB players being die hard fans who've learnt every inch of their rules.
They aren't exactly an easy to get hold of starter army.

As they're seen as a 'bad' army most of the time, if you take them to a tourney, you've got to be fairly serious about liking them.
Also, a lot of people won't have played against them either.

Don't think I agree with your main point. I mean, why would a hardcore SoB player be any more dedicated to mastering their army than a hardcore fan of any other army? Tournaments are full of people who are looking to win, and that usually means mastering your army's rules and playstyle. Personally, I'd say it's more a combination of them being geinuely competitive as well as, like you said, the average player not being used to facing them.

Its called "Lead disadvantage", when it is known that Tau and Eldar will have heavy presence around, the SoB "codex" suddenly turns into a good choice, despite being relatively weak, just because its few strengths happen to hit just the spot where Tau/Eldar feel the most pain.
HB in common use rip tau/eldar troops, exsorcists take down the heavy duty pullers of both armies, dominos can either go flamer-brake on them, or melta down the high threats, etc.

They are just naturally organised into the one build tau/eldar hate. even the big bad riptide does not like facing them, for him its a harder kill then regular marines due to the pesky 6+ invul stuck there, and for tiny less points-meaning they have a few more boots on the ground as well.
The sisters does not have fancy tricks, no "super units" (saint aside, and she is an awesome HQ in any case.), no obvious targets, they get into your face too quick for ranged superiority to cut their numbers before they get there, but don't have to actually charge you-so the precious overwatch buffs are not helping.
All the things tau/eldar gives no feth about, its just not there to begin with. they are beating them be being "too dumb to outsmart"

Things the sisters teach us:
Sometimes-less is more.
When you got no options-there are no mistakes to make.
Do not dismiss something because it used to be weak. meta changes can turn things from bad to good, despite they didn't change at all.

Jimsolo's Boilerplate #1:

For the most part, Games Workshop does a very good job of keeping the armies balanced. Skill with one's chosen army, adaptability, and experience will do more for you than any perceived difference in Codex power.

Some armies are easier to learn how to play than others, however, which leads to faster mastery over the most effective play styles for that codex, and is partially responsible for the misconception that some armies are more powerful. In addition, as a game which constantly grows and changes, 40k frequently sees alterations to an army's play style or to the rules in general, which require adaptation to successfully integrate or combat (as the case may be.) Players who are unable to find the new strategies that they need to use, or unwilling to change their tactics at all, can sometimes come to the erroneous conclusion that their codex is 'underpowered' because it is 'outdated.'

With that being said, the armies which are the newest (and thus those your opponent is least likely to have learned to adapt to at this point) are Space Marines (coming out directly), Eldar, Dark Angels, and Tau.

If you are looking for an army with a play style which is easy to learn, I recommend Grey Knights, Chaos Daemons, or Orks. (The last of which should have a new codex soonishly, so it will fall into the above category as well.)

In any event, good luck, and I hope this helps!

 Sasori wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
I thought Phil Kelly was the author of Nids 2013?

If it is, it'll be balanced, with one or two duff units.

If its a Wardian Dex... HERE COMETH THE DEVOURER, DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

Kelly wrote 4th ed Eldar and the current Space Wolf Codex. Don't let that stop you though...

Space Wolves have always been considered the OP marine army, ever since their first full codex from back in 2nd edition. Don't let that stop you though...

And I would again point out that 4th ed Eldar wasn't entirely his fault, but apparently DakkaDakka requires people to record conversations with their friends in order to be believed...

So, because Space wolves have always been considered the "OP" Marine Army, that excuses Kelly for continuing the trend? No, I don't think so. The 5th Edition Space Wolf Codex is one of the worst, most OP pieces of junk every written, and it dominated 5th with IG for most of the edition.

It doesn't make it okay that SW's stayed above average, but people also seem to gloss over the fact that it's pretty much impossible to ever balance SW's due to their innate design; basically combining the strengths of Loyalist Marines with the aggressive tactics & similar basic gear of Chaos Marines.
Their basic concept itself leads them to be outright 'better' than both Vanillas & CSM's because GW has effectively blended the two to create a monster ever since 3rd edition. Remember True-Grit, & added perks like true hidden PF's/weapons, cheaper weapon upgrades, "broken" Scouts insta-frying your tank by showing up behind it with a melta, Fire-splitting Longfangs, etc... Kelly's 'dex didn't suddenly event these things.

Yes, Grey Hunters should likely be 16pts currently while Claws could do with dropping to 14pts a pop as an example of poor internal balance.
But seriously? SW's more OP than the likes of Grey Knights or Gunline IG or BA's or WD update Daemons?! Nope, they had their filthy list(s) just like most everyone else.
Other grievances like Jaws is more a result of GW half-arsing the implementation of Psychic abilities so that basically only half the armies in the game could counter them.

And contrary to popular belief, the only "stupid/silly" things Kelly added were Wolf Claws, Thunderwolf cav & Hienous-Canis. All the other "wolf-wolf-wolf" crap was already there thanks to Jervis & co. (yes, believe it or not, the OMG! OP!!1!!! 3rd ed Puppy 'dex was written by 'Mr.Nicer-than-Nice-Itself' Jervis...)


Basically, Space Wolves have *always* been that army, and until GW decides to change their actual design for them, they'll continue to cause butt-hurt.

 Kain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The only armies that are in a bad spot are getting updated relatively quickly.
I imagine, due to the high cost of entry to this hobby, you are trying to reduce the amount of dead weight you buy.

The best way to do this is to see what army appeals to you from a fluff/modeling/play style perspective, and figure out what units work within that specific army.

If you like zooming around the battlefield and bright colors, Eldar are amazing, of either flavor
If you love insects or the aliens movies, nids are in a interesting spot and getting updated soon. And by none other than Our spiritual liege, Matt Ward.
For massive hordes with guns, both IG and orks are good, though orks are a bit weak right now. This will be fixed relatively soon, and it's not really a big deal unless you play tourneys.
Robot lover? Necrons are amazing, with almost no dead weight and several wtf combos/abilities.
Like being the good guy, or have a strange attraction to gundams? Tau.
Space marines are harder to pick, but generally you can paint them black and proxy some dexes until you find one that you like. Vanilla looks really good, so custom chapters could be a thing now.

But to answer your original question, here are the tiers

Top)
Necrons
Tau
Eldar

Middle
Everyone else

Bottom
Certain builds (wych cult, 1k sons)

I'm sorry but this is very much worthy of this

That's...certainly unexpected.

Considering what Kelly did to my CSM, cruddance to my nids, and Ward to the crons...
It's accurate. He's easily the best codex writer GW has, even if he had a rocky start (WFB daemons).

Mostly it was a reference to d4chan

 sing your life wrote:
personally I'd say [in order from most to least competative]:

Necrons
Tau
Grey knights
Eldar
Imperial Guard
Space wolves
Dark Angels
Space marines
Daemons
Orks
Chaos space marines
Blood angels
Dark eldar
Tyranids
Sisters of battle

With respect, in my opinion this list is way off. Look at the results of Nova, necrons got trashed, tau and eldar dominated..

Sisters are NOT bottom of the pile, either. They're far from top-tier, but as mentioned, their toolkit is directly counter to the current top lists, which boosts them, while their kit (cheap PA troops with totallynotmagic) is reasonable even with heldrakes on the table.

Sure, they lack AA and have limited list options, and most games with them are very bloody affairs, but they're still staunchly mid-tier. Also, frankly, rather dull in the current "dex" but, well, GW hates sisters players, etc.

Nobody_Holme wrote:
they lack AA

I don't know about that, we can take a quad gun and make it rending.

And yeah, I'm not sure that they belong at the bottom either. They certainly seem to do pretty well in tournaments, which are gruelling tests in their own right. But not having the necessary knowledge of all the other armies and how they play, I'm not able to judge properly, so I'll hold off on outright disagreeing. Though I'd be interested to hear the reasoning of the people who rank them last.

It could be that puting armies in ranked lists like this doesn't really work. Every army can counter something, and all can be pretty tough for anything if they're played smart.

Does anyone think that as they rework the codices for 6th Ed, individual army lists get nerfed or buffed down/up respectively,
in order to boost sales over certain other WH40K MODELS? Just curious.

I personally will not put much faith in Tournament results as to what codex army list is better than another.

 Troike wrote:

Nobody_Holme wrote:
they lack AA

I don't know about that, we can take a quad gun and make it rending.

Are there any AV13/14 or higher flyers out there for the rending to matter on S7?
You pen on a 6 as it is of AV12-rending or not.

Er, a caestus? They're AV 13/13/13, are they not?

Rending, emplaced HB from a bastion with sisters on top firing the quadgun is better, frankly, than any retributor quadgun shenanigans. Sisters can jump off to score lategame.

SYKOJAK wrote:
Does anyone think that as they rework the codices for 6th Ed, individual army lists get nerfed or buffed down/up respectively,
in order to boost sales over certain other WH40K MODELS? Just curious.

You're only just realizing this? GW have been doing exactly that ever since there have been share holders to appease.

SYKOJAK wrote:
Does anyone think that as they rework the codices for 6th Ed, individual army lists get nerfed or buffed down/up respectively,
in order to boost sales over certain other WH40K MODELS? Just curious.

I personally will not put much faith in Tournament results as to what codex army list is better than another.

I disagree with your second point. Tournaments such as Nova are probably the best proving grounds for army lists.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
Does anyone think that as they rework the codices for 6th Ed, individual army lists get nerfed or buffed down/up respectively,
in order to boost sales over certain other WH40K MODELS? Just curious.

I personally will not put much faith in Tournament results as to what codex army list is better than another.

I disagree with your second point. Tournaments such as Nova are probably the best proving grounds for army lists.

Tournaments are only valuable for showing us which armies tend to have the most efficient power lists...

Outside of aiming purely to stomp your opponent into the ground, you open up a lot more variety in lists. Blood Claws for example are still perfectly capable units, and become especially mean when you slap a Wolf Priest in with them.
But if the only objective is to purely "win above all else", then why would you use them over the more TAC's Grey Hunters?

 BoomWolf wrote:
You pen on a 6 as it is of AV12-rending or not.

Huh. The internet was so enthusiastic about rending quad guns. Guess they meant for fighting tanks instead.

If the nova tournament was 1000pt instead of 1500pt, how different would the result have been? I feel tournaments should play 1000pt games instead because of time constraints.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Troike wrote:

Nobody_Holme wrote:
they lack AA

I don't know about that, we can take a quad gun and make it rending.

Are there any AV13/14 or higher flyers out there for the rending to matter on S7?
You pen on a 6 as it is of AV12-rending or not.

Ever heard of a flying monstrous creature?

Sisters players won so much because there were, I've been told, only two or three of us. And when there are only a couple of representatives, you'll get a lot of variance in how well they do; a few lucky/unlucky rolls changes the overall Sisters' players win percentages in a way that other armies aren't susceptible to. Similarly, any factor external to the army (skill of the general, good/bad matchups, and so forth) is going to have an outsized effect when there were only a couple of us.

 PredaKhaine wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:

I think thats down to the SoB players being die hard fans who've learnt every inch of their rules.
They aren't exactly an easy to get hold of starter army.

As they're seen as a 'bad' army most of the time, if you take them to a tourney, you've got to be fairly serious about liking them.
Also, a lot of people won't have played against them either.

Don't think I agree with your main point. I mean, why would a hardcore SoB player be any more dedicated to mastering their army than a hardcore fan of any other army? Tournaments are full of people who are looking to win, and that usually means mastering your army's rules and playstyle. Personally, I'd say it's more a combination of them being geinuely competitive as well as, like you said, the average player not being used to facing them.

Fair enough
I know they kicked my face in with st10 cover ignoring exorcists in one game...That was definitely due to me not knowing their rules.

And possibly some cheating on your opponent's part.

I don't know how the heck an Exorcist can ignore cover OR shoot S10 missiles.

Puscifer wrote:
I thought Phil Kelly was the author of Nids 2013?

If it is, it'll be balanced, with one or two duff units.

If its a Wardian Dex... HERE COMETH THE DEVOURER, DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

You mean it will be balanced like codex: Chaos space marines?

Two effective units and a whole load of garbage and mediocrity?

And not like Necrons or Grey Knights. With effective, useful units?

 Pouncey wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:

I think thats down to the SoB players being die hard fans who've learnt every inch of their rules.
They aren't exactly an easy to get hold of starter army.

As they're seen as a 'bad' army most of the time, if you take them to a tourney, you've got to be fairly serious about liking them.
Also, a lot of people won't have played against them either.

Don't think I agree with your main point. I mean, why would a hardcore SoB player be any more dedicated to mastering their army than a hardcore fan of any other army? Tournaments are full of people who are looking to win, and that usually means mastering your army's rules and playstyle. Personally, I'd say it's more a combination of them being geinuely competitive as well as, like you said, the average player not being used to facing them.

Fair enough
I know they kicked my face in with st10 cover ignoring exorcists in one game...That was definitely due to me not knowing their rules.

And possibly some cheating on your opponent's part.

I don't know how the heck an Exorcist can ignore cover OR shoot S10 missiles.

I didn't know the guys rules and he had both st10 exorcists that could ignore cover and a straight face...

I know better now

Akiasura wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The only armies that are in a bad spot are getting updated relatively quickly.
I imagine, due to the high cost of entry to this hobby, you are trying to reduce the amount of dead weight you buy.

The best way to do this is to see what army appeals to you from a fluff/modeling/play style perspective, and figure out what units work within that specific army.

If you like zooming around the battlefield and bright colors, Eldar are amazing, of either flavor
If you love insects or the aliens movies, nids are in a interesting spot and getting updated soon. And by none other than Our spiritual liege, Matt Ward.
For massive hordes with guns, both IG and orks are good, though orks are a bit weak right now. This will be fixed relatively soon, and it's not really a big deal unless you play tourneys.
Robot lover? Necrons are amazing, with almost no dead weight and several wtf combos/abilities.
Like being the good guy, or have a strange attraction to gundams? Tau.
Space marines are harder to pick, but generally you can paint them black and proxy some dexes until you find one that you like. Vanilla looks really good, so custom chapters could be a thing now.

But to answer your original question, here are the tiers

Top)
Necrons
Tau
Eldar

Middle
Everyone else

Bottom
Certain builds (wych cult, 1k sons)

I'm sorry but this is very much worthy of this

That's...certainly unexpected.

Considering what Kelly did to my CSM, cruddance to my nids, and Ward to the crons...
It's accurate. He's easily the best codex writer GW has, even if he had a rocky start (WFB daemons).

Mostly it was a reference to d4chan

Kelly is an unabashed Tyranid fanboy (he likes them even more than the Eldar) and Ward doesn't have any indication of caring much for the army.

Tier 1
Eldar
Tau
Necrons


Tier 2
Daemons
Tyranids
Dark Eldar


Tier 3
Dark Angels
Imperial Guard
Grey knights
Space wolves
Chaos space marines


Tier 4
Orks
Blood angels
Sisters of battle


Unknown
Space marines

Edit : Don't rush out and buy an army based upon this. It will change in another 4-6 months. Buy what you think is cool and what you want to play.

Do you know roughly what else the Sisters' player had in his list? I may know him.

Banosby wrote:
Do you know roughly what else the Sisters' player had in his list? I may know him.

Your flag says you're american - I'm in the uk.

I havent got a clue what the rest of his list was, I didn't survive long enough to find out

@Labmouse42

Are those tiers in comp order too or are they just sorted by tier?

(Do you think the eldar are the best in the game or just one of the better armies?)

PS:What happened to Labmice 1 - 41?

Experiment 626 wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
Does anyone think that as they rework the codices for 6th Ed, individual army lists get nerfed or buffed down/up respectively,
in order to boost sales over certain other WH40K MODELS? Just curious.

I personally will not put much faith in Tournament results as to what codex army list is better than another.

I disagree with your second point. Tournaments such as Nova are probably the best proving grounds for army lists.

Tournaments are only valuable for showing us which armies tend to have the most efficient power lists...

Outside of aiming purely to stomp your opponent into the ground, you open up a lot more variety in lists. Blood Claws for example are still perfectly capable units, and become especially mean when you slap a Wolf Priest in with them.
But if the only objective is to purely "win above all else", then why would you use them over the more TAC's Grey Hunters?

Then the solution to me is quite clear. If one is a casual player, you play what you want to and do not worry about lists, combos,
or victory, just have fun with the game. If one is a competitive player, then you can expect to revamp, rechoose, resale, and rebuild your tournament army(ies), every few months. As GW releases a new codex every few months, new combinations of troop
choices will become available to overpower another army list. A person can pick thier style according to thier own
time/monetary commitment to the hobby in general.

 PredaKhaine wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:

I think thats down to the SoB players being die hard fans who've learnt every inch of their rules.
They aren't exactly an easy to get hold of starter army.

As they're seen as a 'bad' army most of the time, if you take them to a tourney, you've got to be fairly serious about liking them.
Also, a lot of people won't have played against them either.

Don't think I agree with your main point. I mean, why would a hardcore SoB player be any more dedicated to mastering their army than a hardcore fan of any other army? Tournaments are full of people who are looking to win, and that usually means mastering your army's rules and playstyle. Personally, I'd say it's more a combination of them being geinuely competitive as well as, like you said, the average player not being used to facing them.

Fair enough
I know they kicked my face in with st10 cover ignoring exorcists in one game...That was definitely due to me not knowing their rules.

 Kain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The only armies that are in a bad spot are getting updated relatively quickly.
I imagine, due to the high cost of entry to this hobby, you are trying to reduce the amount of dead weight you buy.

The best way to do this is to see what army appeals to you from a fluff/modeling/play style perspective, and figure out what units work within that specific army.

If you like zooming around the battlefield and bright colors, Eldar are amazing, of either flavor
If you love insects or the aliens movies, nids are in a interesting spot and getting updated soon. And by none other than Our spiritual liege, Matt Ward.
For massive hordes with guns, both IG and orks are good, though orks are a bit weak right now. This will be fixed relatively soon, and it's not really a big deal unless you play tourneys.
Robot lover? Necrons are amazing, with almost no dead weight and several wtf combos/abilities.
Like being the good guy, or have a strange attraction to gundams? Tau.
Space marines are harder to pick, but generally you can paint them black and proxy some dexes until you find one that you like. Vanilla looks really good, so custom chapters could be a thing now.

But to answer your original question, here are the tiers

Top)
Necrons
Tau
Eldar

Middle
Everyone else

Bottom
Certain builds (wych cult, 1k sons)

I'm sorry but this is very much worthy of this

That's...certainly unexpected.

Considering what Kelly did to my CSM, cruddance to my nids, and Ward to the crons...
It's accurate. He's easily the best codex writer GW has, even if he had a rocky start (WFB daemons).

Mostly it was a reference to d4chan

Kelly is an unabashed Tyranid fanboy (he likes them even more than the Eldar) and Ward doesn't have any indication of caring much for the army.

So? Ward isn't a known necron fanboy and they are amazing, even after a few releases.
Kelly can't design melee units to save his life, or do internal balance, fan of the army or no. Look at eldar, dark or craftworld, and wolves.
He's a gak codex writer. Period