Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So the other day i started a thread about a blood angel's army, and a post came up by GhostfaceKillah, that he thought that the 3 most competitive races were IG, BA, Eldar, in 5th edition all because they could go all mech, so that got me thinking, what do YOU think is the most competitive army?

Wrong forum.

IMO, they are all able to be competitive, with the exception of Necrons.

Shouldn't this be in general discussions?

OT now.... IG I would say is the most competitive army, mostly because they have very good units and are kinda point and click.

Next would be any kind of SM army, Except BT and DA.

Eldar pretty much have one build... unless you're Blackmoor, but he's the exception.

EDIT: Darn, got ninja'd by 39 seconds.

In order I would say the most competitive are:

1. Space Wolves
2. IG
3. Chaos Marines / Blood Angels


The Space Wolf codex is full of very cool and game winning stuff. IG is well IG always competitive. And I still think CSM are good in the right hands and BA's can be deadly if put together right.

I play Dark Angels and find that they can be competitve as well, they are not top three but I win more than I lose with them and I play some pretty competent players.

Guard (Amazing, really. Just everything about them oozes awesome.)
Blood Angels (deep striking land raiders...)
Space Wolves (wulfen and other wolf things.)
Tyranids (just because of the DoM)

I'm having a hard time choosing between Space wolves and Blood Angels, Both are VERY competitive, but BA have the ability to go 100% mech, and their assault sqauds get a 35 pt discount on Dedicated Transports. While Space Wolves have a bunch of sweet perks that are often over looked

Samus_aran115 wrote:Guard (Amazing, really. Just everything about them oozes awesome.)
Blood Angels (deep striking land raiders...)
Space Wolves (wulfen and other wolf things.)
Tyranids (just because of the DoM)

1. Imperial guard do well because; They are all mech, vendettas are significantly under-priced, and they can stack the hell out of melta-weapons and 5" templates. They are a very solid mech/anti-mech army. Half of their codex isn't even considered in competitive play.

2. You won't find many competitive BA armies using a land raider, nice try. They are typically razorback assault squad meltas-gun/infernus pistol spam with mephiston or a librarian leading them. Add Baal preds and some heavy weapons/speeders for flavor.

3. Wulfen don't even exist anymore? Thunder Wolf Cav you mean? They are decent because they are resilient and can play with wound allocation shenanigans. The rest of the army is typically a Wolf lord on thunderwolf, 3-6 5 man grey hunter packs with melta-guns led by a wolf guard with combi-melta and powerfist in razorbacks, and 2-3 long fang squads all with missile launchers. Fill the rest of the army out with land speeders with multi-meltas and maybe a rune priest.

4. Tyranids are a mid tier list, down with normal space marines, eldar and the majority of the rest of the armies. And just because of DoM? Really? You realize they nerfed him pretty bad with the Faq right? I've not seen a tyranid army list that was trying to be serious with DoM in it in 3 months.

Bigyounk had it right though;

1. Space Wolves
2. IG
3. Chaos Marines / Blood Angels

Mech/melta spam with minimum squad sizes, aiming for tabling their opponent first, completing the mission second.

Every army has the potential to be competitive, depending on what it's up against and how well the player understands his army.

It's about the player, not the army, and to say that you lose because your army is not competitive is nothing more than an excuse.

That's why I win with my Tau, and my buddy wins with his Necrons.

There is no such thing as a weak army, only weak players.

SaintHazard wrote:Every army has the potential to be competitive depending on what it's up against and how well the player understands his army.

False, look up some tournament results for proof. You will see exactly zero Tau, Necron and Demon Hunter armies

It's about the player, not the army, and to say that you lose because your army is not competitive is nothing more than an excuse.

True, good player with bad army > bad player with good army.

That's why I win with my Tau, and my buddy wins with his Necrons.

This is called "Clubbing baby seals". You are beating worse players, or are obscenely lucky. eg. Recent tourny i played in I went 3-0 by clubbing baby seal. 2 of the worst players i have ever played (lol @ footslogging 500 point nob squad in a 1000 point game?). I only had 1 decent game in the finals against a demon army that I straight up out played. I'd say my army was weaker in 1 out of the 3 games but i was a better player in all of them.

There is no such thing as a weak army, only weak players.

There is both actually, saying every army is balanced and fine is like sticking your head in the sand or plugging your ears and shouting "lalaala". It's childish and not true.

This is how i look at it. Lets say we assigned a "power" rating to a particular player. 100 being the best player ever, 50 being random average Joe, and 1 being someone who's never read the book and is getting a tutorial game. A better general will usually beat a worse general all things being average, but all things are NOT average. Someone's "power" can be modified by the army they play by a small amount, some of the best lists giving +10 or so, and the worst giving -10. So the best players even with a weak army will still probably clobber your average player, but it gets really interesting when you give the BEST players the BEST armies. It's almost impossible to beat them with anything else, because not only are they as good or better then you, their army is as good or better as well and the game is decided by who makes fewer mistakes and the randomness of the dice.

Overall I'd say it's 90% player, 10% army.

I'd say that guard are first for being generally under priced, Space wolfs second for having a bunch of really cheesy options (rune priest, I'm looking at you) and Blood angels for some really hard (if gimmicky) stuff. Ork barely drag themselves into fourth.

Carnage43 wrote:False, look up some tournament results for proof. You will see exactly zero Tau, Necron and Demon Hunter armies

Oh? Is that why I win tournaments with my Tau?

This is called "Clubbing baby seals". You are beating worse players, or are obscenely lucky. eg. Recent tourny i played in I went 3-0 by clubbing baby seal. 2 of the worst players i have ever played (lol @ footslogging 500 point nob squad in a 1000 point game?). I only had 1 decent game in the finals against a demon army that I straight up out played. I'd say my army was weaker in 1 out of the 3 games but i was a better player in all of them.

See above.

There is both actually, saying every army is balanced and fine is like sticking your head in the sand or plugging your ears and shouting "lalaala". It's childish and not true.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Saying that you continually lose because something is wrong with the army, and not you, is like saying that you keep falling off bridges because those goddamn bridges aren't built wide enough. Make some effort to not jump off of bridges, or at the very least keep your balance when there's fifty feet of asphalt to your right and to your left, and you'll be fine.

This is how i look at it. Lets say we assigned a "power" rating to a particular player. 100 being the best player ever, 50 being random average Joe, and 1 being someone who's never read the book and is getting a tutorial game. A better general will usually beat a worse general all things being average, but all things are NOT average. Someone's "power" can be modified by the army they play by a small amount, some of the best lists giving +10 or so, and the worst giving -10. So the best players even with a weak army will still probably clobber your average player, but it gets really interesting when you give the BEST players the BEST armies. It's almost impossible to beat them with anything else, because not only are they as good or better then you, their army is as good or better as well and the game is decided by who makes fewer mistakes and the randomness of the dice.

Overall I'd say it's 90% player, 10% army.

That's a gross oversimplification of the most complicated element we could possibly bring into this: humans. Attitude, skill, tactical acumen, quick thinking, critical thinking, mathematical acuity, observational skills, and so on cannot simply be rolled into 90% of a 100 point list. On the other hand, an army that is built with basic arithmetic and statistics can.

So if we're comparing the complexity of a 40k army to the complexity of a human being, it'd be similar to comparing a 100-foot stetch of beach in the Ivory Coast to the entire continent of Africa.

It's more like 99.9998% player and .0002% army.

SaintHazard wrote:
Oh? Is that why I win tournaments with my Tau?

You are playing people that are worse then you or you are obscenely lucky. Probably a smallish touny at a FLGS where you are a 'big fish in a small pond'. Same as me really, I constantly beat everyone in my area, but I've played people outside my gaming group that have schooled me as badly as I school my group.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Saying that you continually lose because something is wrong with the army, and not you, is like saying that you keep falling off bridges because those goddamn bridges aren't built wide enough. Make some effort to not jump off of bridges, or at the very least keep your balance when there's fifty feet of asphalt to your right and to your left, and you'll be fine.

Matter of opinion then. You say all the armies are balanced, I say they aren't. Probably a matter of degrees. Can the 'worst' army beat the 'best'? Yes. In your mind that makes it balanced? That's just player skill overcoming a handicap. I'd say that the difference between the worst and the best is less then 15%, but it's still not as close to balanced as I'd like.

That's a gross oversimplification of the most complicated element we could possibly bring into this: humans. Attitude, skill, tactical acumen, quick thinking, critical thinking, mathematical acuity, observational skills, and so on cannot simply be rolled into 90% of a 100 point list. On the other hand, an army that is built with basic arithmetic and statistics can.

So if we're comparing the complexity of a 40k army to the complexity of a human being, it'd be similar to comparing a 100-foot stetch of beach in the Ivory Coast to the entire continent of Africa.

It was meant to be a gross oversimplification .

It's more like 99.9998% player and .0002% army.

Not likely. The bigger tounys (Nova, the GTs, 'ard Boyz, etc) showed trends of some armies straight up doing better then others. Do you think it's lkely that all the 'good' players just HAPPEN to pick the same army, or is it more likely that army choice has some impact on how well you do overall. Of course, it IS likely that the best players will be able to figure out mathematically which is the stronger armies, and are more likely to play them over something weaker.

I think it's a matter of easy armies, not good ones.

Is it easier to come up with a good all-comers list with IG than it is for Tau? Yes.

Does that mean they're unbalanced? Yes and no, because "balance" simply does not exist in this world. This is a game of chance. Balance is a pipe dream.

But can a skilled player easily kick the crap out of a so-so player if the skilled player is playing Tau against the so-so player's IG?

Absolutely.

Even Pure Grey Knights can win.

If they have Loaded Dice. :p

Gwar! wrote:Even Pure Grey Knights can win.

If they have Loaded Dice. :p

To be fair, as much as I rant and rave about the nonexistence of unbalanced and uncompetitive armies, I have never seen GK win, ever.

So, fine, I'll concede to there being one unplayable army.

Carnage43 wrote:


Overall I'd say it's 90% player, 10% army.

No way more like 75% player 25 % army
When I played Grey knights I won 1 in 4 games, now I play BA I win 95 % of games, sure ive improved as a player, but what codex limits what you can take, how you can play.....good luck against mech eldar with Grey knights...

That being said I agree great player, great army.....good luck!
My friend no longer plays me because he says he cant win, yet his army build is really good against me, bad player, good army.

I would also say it is difficult to pick a top three, each army is good against certain other armies builds.
For instance my BA army destroys, marines, nids, tau, necrons, WH and DH, chaos - yes the lash, blits, vindi list. Can do well against eldar, orks and space wolves, but really struggles against Dark eldar and Daemons.

If I had to pick based on my own store and personal tournament experience I would pick. (in no order)

Daemons,
Dark Eldar - dark lance, ravager spam.
Eldar, mech.

I remember seeing in the thread about whether or not CSM was a 2nd tier army and as a kind rebuttal was the results of one GT.

IIRC, 1st and 2nd were CSM, 3rd was necrons of all things. 4th was Vanilla marines, and that's all I remember

Carnage43 wrote:False, look up some tournament results for proof. You will see exactly zero Tau, Necron and Demon Hunter armies

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:I remember seeing in the thread about whether or not CSM was a 2nd tier army and as a kind rebuttal was the results of one GT.

IIRC, 1st and 2nd were CSM, 3rd was necrons of all things. 4th was Vanilla marines, and that's all I remember

Can you cite some sources?

I want to prove Carnage wrong with cited sources.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282668.page

Though, the tourney results are buried in there...

But it makes for a good read.

And note, it was before BA, but it is still 5th edition with space puppies and mechanized flashlight wielding men in t-shirts.

digging up recent (April +) touny results for comparison sake.

Nova;

1. Space Wolves
2. Blood angels
3. Space Wolves
4. Orks
5. Space Wolves
6. Space Wolves
7. Blood angels
8. Demon of Chaos (Was supposed to be a mono-nurgle CSM, but he couldn't make the second day, and had to drop out for the demon player)

No trends there <cough>. Suspicious lack of imperial guard though.

For the 'Ard boyz these are people that won 6 games in a row to get this far.

'Ard boyz finals LA

1. Demons of Chaos
2. Space Wolves
3. Eldar

The field consisted of;
1 Eldar (Wraithdar Mech hybrid- Mortvie)
3 Tyranids
1 Mech Vulcan List
1 Ghazwagon
1 Tau
5 Blood Angels (nearly all with Mephiston)
5 Wolves (nearly all razor-longwang spam)

More wolves and demons!

'Ard boyz finals Chicago.

1. Imp Guard
2. Orks
3. Space Wolves

I went Chicago with a friend who played elder and got 12th. Almost all the top dozen were IG, wolves, Nids, orks. Out of the 46 there I saw...no crons,no tau,no dark elves. Probably 10 IG, 8 wolves ,7 Nids ,6 orks a mix of SM, 2 demons, 3 CSM,2 blood angels, 3 eldar.

Break down.

9 IG
7 Space Marines (4 salmanders) (1 Khan list) (1 Shrike list) (1 Ultra marine list)
7 Tyrnids
6 Orks
6 Space Wolves (4 with Thundercav, 2 w/o)
3 Eldar
3 Chaos Marines
2 Demons
2 Blood Angles (one was a counts as BA)
1 Black Templar

'Ard Boyz finals PA

4 Chaos Space Marines
3 Space Wolves
3 Blood Angels
3 Orks
2 Imperial Guard
1 Space Marines
1 Chaos Daemons
1 Necrons
1 Sisters of Battle
1 Tyranids

1. Chaos
2. Space Wolves
3. Blood Angels

I leave you to draw your own conclusions on comparative army strength, but it's clear some lists are better then others, and I never said a list CANNOT win, just it's significantly less likely.

Some codexes ARE weaker than others, but player skill/instict/list building skills are FAR more important than codex strength.

The main difference between the better and worse codexes is whether they force the player to run a mono-build where every player has a clone army, just like everyone else. It's these armies that don't sell well, because the player is pidgeonholed into using the 3-4 only 'good' choices in the list, thus never need to buy anything else.

Then they buy space marines lol

I think it goes:

Imperial guard
All 5th edition space marine chapters. (Vanilla, Blood Vampires, Space Puppehs.)
Tyranids
Chaos.

Eldar have no place in tier 1 competitiveness IMO.

I'm so glad I play at least three armies that consider to do well in tournaments and I don't use any of these awful cookie cutter lists.

The one used by the best player regardless of its perception of competitiveness.

Gwar! wrote:Wrong forum.

IMO, they are all able to be competitive, with the exception of Necrons.

Wait a second earlier this week didn't you....