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 wonder

I'm not entirely sure, but I'd say if there was sort of tiers it would be

Top Tier: Eldar, Tau, AM. Demons
Mid Tier: Orks, Necrons, Dark Eldar, Vanilla SM, BA
Low Tier: DA, Tyranids, Sisters, CSM, SW
I play for fun tier: MT, IK

This is just conjecture as a Tau / Nid player in the Southern United States, plus reading various forums and tournament results. Obviously there's variance between allies, list types, etc.

The answer is no, no one knows.

Some people will lie to you and say that they do, but it's only to assert their own ego.

 victorydeluxe wrote:
I'm not entirely sure, but I'd say if there was sort of tiers it would be

Top Tier: Eldar, Tau, AM. Demons
Mid Tier: Orks, Necrons, Dark Eldar, Vanilla SM, BA
Low Tier: DA, Tyranids, Sisters, CSM, SW
I play for fun tier: MT, IK

This is just conjecture as a Tau / Nid player in the Southern United States, plus reading various forums and tournament results. Obviously there's variance between allies, list types, etc.

Lol you got that list horribly wrong. You would need to be mentally ill to rank nids book above junk status. Ba's lost their personal magics and are now pretty lousy. They badly need a new book. Space wolves are getting a new book in two weeks. So their in limbo:

Here's probably a more accurate list:

Top tier: am, daemons, eldar

Above average: sm (vanilla), gk, orks, crons

Average: da, de, sw (5th), sob

Below average: ba, imp knights, csm

Junk status: nids, militarium tempestus

The da's picked up some land raider shenanigans second only to gk's or klan are in potency, their lr's and ls's can now become scoring which is very nice to have.

The am became a very threatening book now thanks to changes to tanks and troops.

Imp knights just got two amazing dataslates in sanctus reach so they went from junk to below average.

Nids are a mob army with mc's. He has punished then horribly this brb. Unbound is basically mandatory for them to do well.

Blood angels are in need of a new dex so bad it's not even silly

Crons gonna cron

Mt is basically a junk book. It's more like a universal supplement for imperial armies rather than a proper codex.

Sw's are getting a new book soon. Their fate atm is in the middle, buts that's going to change Basically immediately.

Gk's got a little better but also a little worse.. They will still do well.

tau are in a bit of a grey area. their basic book is a lot less competitive. their stuck somehwere between above average and top tier now. their only top tier if your playing farsight encalve. otherwise they have no counters to the very powerful magic phase and good magic armies (eldar, daemons, gk) will simply eat them alive. and with all the new assault vehicles and heavy walkers coming out tau's riptide isnt looking so impressive anymore. we also run into the problem that people are discovering the counters to their tricks. and incorporating them into competitive lists has prooven to be rather easy. so generic tau arent as hard to fight now as their lost for good competitive tactics. but now their farsight encalve book is a bit better and will probably get used more

I didn't think Astra Militarum were that threatening... I've just never seen them do particularly well.

No one can fully "rank" the codexes because of how much playstyle, skill, and lists differ. But, if I had to rank the codexes I would do as follows:

Eldar
Necrons
Daemons
Marines
Tau
Astra Militarum
Orks
Grey Knights
Space Wolves
Tyranids
Dark Eldar
Chaos Marines
Blood Angels
Sisters of Battle

Of course, with Allied detachments this can change drastically. DEldar with allies become top tier, and I left Knights off because they're such a unique codex.

I don't see why you all seem to put Ork at average. They seem (and feel) sub-optimal in a lot of situation. Maybe I missed what make them great or maybe it's just the hype around a new codex.

I know the Forgotten Knight got a recent dataslate, what is the other Imperial Knight dataslate? Rules?

 jifel wrote:
I didn't think Astra Militarum were that threatening... I've just never seen them do particularly well.

No one can fully "rank" the codexes because of how much playstyle, skill, and lists differ. But, if I had to rank the codexes I would do as follows:

Eldar
Necrons
Daemons
Marines
Tau
Astra Militarum
Orks
Grey Knights
Space Wolves
Tyranids
Dark Eldar
Chaos Marines
Blood Angels
Sisters of Battle

Of course, with Allied detachments this can change drastically. DEldar with allies become top tier, and I left Knights off because they're such a unique codex.

Using the best list I can think of from each codex, no allies other than their own related supplements.
Top: Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Daemons
2: Grey Knights, vanilla marines, Astra Militarum, orks
3: Tyranids, dark eldar, space wolves, sisters
4: BA, chaos space marines

From my experiences:

Top Tier: Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Space Marines, Daemons
Mid Tier: Grey Knights, Orks, AM, Dark Angels, Space Wolves
Low Tier: Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Chaos Space Marines

? Sisters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PandaHero wrote:
I don't see why you all seem to put Ork at average. They seem (and feel) sub-optimal in a lot of situation. Maybe I missed what make them great or maybe it's just the hype around a new codex.

I've actually thought of setting aside money to start up Orks as a fun, third army, mainly because from what I've seen, they've gotten pretty good. No the best, but decent.

I don't have much experience, but i get the feeling you people are seriously under-ranking sisters. I'm a Tau player, and my record is worse against them than any other army except Eldar. Eldar and Sisters are the only two armies I actually have losing records against (Although I haven't played Demons).

 jifel wrote:
I didn't think Astra Militarum were that threatening... I've just never seen them do particularly well.

No one can fully "rank" the codexes because of how much playstyle, skill, and lists differ. But, if I had to rank the codexes I would do as follows:

Eldar
Necrons
Daemons
Marines
Tau
Astra Militarum
Orks
Grey Knights
Space Wolves
Tyranids
Dark Eldar
Chaos Marines
Blood Angels
Sisters of Battle

Of course, with Allied detachments this can change drastically. DEldar with allies become top tier, and I left Knights off because they're such a unique codex.

Seconded.

Short answer, no there is no ranking with 7th.
Long answer, this is a bad question to ask, as everyone will have a different opinion. A good player can do well with any army over a given period of time, but this requires the good player to know how to play their army/list well. Nothing is autowin, some are just easier to play and requires less thinking/strategy.

Tyranids are junk status huh? Does anyone here even play 40k?
Triple flyrant lists are destroying nearly everything in sight.

why does everybody think CSM's are so bad?

I haven't lost a game with mine, beaten GK, ELdar, BA, CSM's

Things like the Jugger lord are very nasty now with challenges spilling over.
?

sand.zzz wrote:
Tyranids are junk status huh? Does anyone here even play 40k?
Triple flyrant lists are destroying nearly everything in sight.

Tyranids are far from junk, they're just not one of the "competitive" codexes unless you literally spam Flyrants, and even then, meh. They're good, don't get me wrong, but they're harder to play (anyway other than flyrant spam, mind you), and still be decent. Plus, they have lot more weaknesses that a lot of other codexes. I still consider them a lower tier army just because of this.

Man people really cry about these types of posts, im gonna post my list, I guess my ego is just so large the internet cannot contain it.. What ever will I do with personal experience of several hundreds of games, tournament results, and math on my side..

I digress..

Eldar, necrons, Daemons, tau

I would consider the top 4 armies, as do most everyone else that doesn't have downs. Since this is likely the only information the op was actually seeking this thread is entirely valid (directed at douche#2) as almost everybody is in agreement with at least 3 out of 4.

Everything else under it has a chance to beat everything else basically equally depending on list/skill/mission

 mipevo6 wrote:
why does everybody think CSM's are so bad?

People want an excuse to explain why they are bad at something instead of getting better at that thing.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 mipevo6 wrote:
why does everybody think CSM's are so bad?

People want an excuse to explain why they are bad at something instead of getting better at that thing.

The CSM codex has a couple glaring issues: poor internal balance and overcosted units. The elite slot is near useless, and CSM units generally cost more than their counterparts that fill the same role. When the codex was written, the availability of high strength/high ap weapons wasn't as pervasive as it is now - so their durability is vastly overstated.

CSM can still work, but there's no room for fun/fluff lists if you don't want to get rolled. FW units and Daemon
allies help a lot, as does wise use of the supplements.

But yea, they aren't garbage, just more difficult to find success with than most of the other books.

It is still very early but the winning %'s for 7ed so far are;
http://www.torrentoffire.com/5087/early-7th-edition-win-rates-are-in

This indicates that CSM is the only army they have stats for so far that is significantly below the others. So far there are 6 armies all contending for the top position.

A number of armies don't have enough stats yet to make even a guess. I have a feeling though that only SW and BA will not have a top contender list until they get updated. All the other codices have at least one list to bring to top tables and some have 3-4 lists (SM and CWE). With allies in the mix this entire discussion becomes essentially impossible as the list is so long.

 ionusx wrote:
You would need to be mentally ill to rank nids book above junk status.

And with that your post was rendered irrelevant.

I'll put my list in here. This based on bat reps I've Watched and games I've played.
Top tier: eldar, tau, daemons
Upper middle: AM, marines, Necrons, grey knights
Lower middle: Orks, blood angels, dark eldar
Lower tier, nids, dark angles, space wolves, CSM, sisters, imperial knights

This is all opinion I just feel tau work best with the new editon, eldar took a hit but still have an amazing codex, and daemons have a lot of competitve builds.

As for the op's subject line, my $.02 is:

IG, Eldar, Tau at the top

Space Wolves, BA, CSM at the bottom.

Everything else in between and pretty well balanced imo. I can see Tyranids possibly making it into top tier with the ridiculous strength of their dakka FMC's. I've played vs. the new Ork units and the new walker with meks inside is pretty much unkillable. That and their AA is now on par with IG and Tau. SW and BA will likely fall somewhere on the strong end of the spectrum - if they follow suit with the last few codex releases. Looks like the majority of Chaos players are going to be doormats for a few years.

With all the superheavy, FW, unbound, etc options though, there's still fun to be had for everyone.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ionusx wrote:
You would need to be mentally ill to rank nids book above junk status.

And with that your post was rendered irrelevant.

Hahaha, I knew these forums still were worth reading. Thanks internet.

Strictly speaking, according to the bloke who coined the tier system, they should go:

God tier
Top tier
Mid tier
Bottom tier
Trash

And, in theory, there should be nothing in God or Trash by the time your game makes it to the public...

Top tier is the few armies that an experienced player will usually go for due to having a slightly higher chance to beat another experienced player. Bottom tier, an experienced player can still win with this one against another experienced player, but will struggle.

I'm not convinced 40K has a god tier or a trash tier, despite people's worries... although Knights are SO different to any other army that I could be convinced they make it to Trash.

From wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ionusx wrote:
You would need to be mentally ill to rank nids book above junk status.

And with that your post was rendered irrelevant.

Hahaha, I knew these forums still were worth reading. Thanks internet.

Someone hasn't played the triple flyrant or air nid formation lists yet. You might wanna check some recent tournament results too. The Tyranid codex pity party ended a while ago. Nids have been cleaning house lately.

sand.zzz wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 mipevo6 wrote:
why does everybody think CSM's are so bad?

People want an excuse to explain why they are bad at something instead of getting better at that thing.

The CSM codex has a couple glaring issues: poor internal balance and overcosted units. The elite slot is near useless, and CSM units generally cost more than their counterparts that fill the same role. When the codex was written, the availability of high strength/high ap weapons wasn't as pervasive as it is now - so their durability is vastly overstated.

CSM can still work, but there's no room for fun/fluff lists if you don't want to get rolled. FW units and Daemon
allies help a lot, as does wise use of the supplements.

But yea, they aren't garbage, just more difficult to find success with than most of the other books.

I agree with your points , I have to manage my lists quite carefully around the restrictions you mention.

I am looking forward to trying Orks and hope they can be a little more fun and effective although the HS slot is way over populated.

It's so dependant on what restrictions are put upon the various lists. Best example is probably Tyranids, out of the book with all options (multi CAD, formations, come the apoc allies etc) available to them they are not bad at all. Put Tyranids into a single CAD allowed, no formations, no come the apoc allies tournie tho and they are indeed terrible. Same with Orks, they're designed to have access to all these new formation options and detachment types. Elbowing them into a 6th ed set of restrictions makes them pretty poor.

The problem tyranids have is they have horrible internal balance. Its in such a way that most of their units are terrible. But they have enough amazing units that they still have a really strong lists that can keep up with the powerful armies. But if you don't run those strong units (or a lot of them) for the most part its very underwhelming army and that is what a lot of players have to go off of

sand.zzz wrote:
Tyranids are junk status huh? Does anyone here even play 40k?
Triple flyrant lists are destroying nearly everything in sight.

with LoW being table legal now i can take a contempor mortis with tl kheres ASc's and blast him out of the sky. or you could play orks and force them to ground at -1. theres lots of nasty hard counters to flyers out now that 7th is letting us bring FW and all the new AAA tanks. flyrants are almost a non issue. tyranids face the issue of being a horde army loaded full of monstrous creatures in a BRB about MSU's and field armor. the nids need to basically play unbound or their going to get blasted apart/out maneuvered/ synapse exploited. and the second their synapse bubble is popped and their venomthropes are turned to ash all thats left is the crying. the nids codex is totally worthless, you couldnt pay me to field that book!

1. Eldar
2. Others