8th edition Competitive Tiers (As February 2018- Post LVO)

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.

**Galas**

Hi all!

I know that we don't have all the Codexs yet, but I wanted to share my impresion right now of the competitive tiers that we have in 8th as now. I will let out Thousand Sons and Custodes because they are too recent to know where they are gonna end. And I'm not sure where to put Codex: Chaos Daemons because I haven't seem how pure daemon list do. All the daemons I see are in Soup lists.
I'll add that right now, in 8th, the difference in power inside-tiers is much lower than previous editions, and the difference in power bewteen the tiers, barring the top ones in the High Tier, is much more similar. (For example, the low High Tier armies aren't that much more powerfull than nearly all Mid Tier armies)

So yeah, this are my tiers (The higher one army is in one tier, the more competitive it is). Feel free to discuss, to post your own tiers, etc... this is a open debate!:

High Tier:
-Soup: Aeldari (Craftworld+Ynnari)
-Codex: Craftworld Eldar
-Soup: Imperial/Chaos soup.
-Codex: Astra Militarum
-Codex: Tyranids
-Codex: Blood Angels
-Codex: Heretic Astartes

Mid Tier:
-Codex: Dark Angels
-Codex: Adeptus Astartes
-Codex: Death Guard
-Index: T'au Empire
-Index: Orks
-Index: Sisters of Battle /Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus

Low Tier:
-Index: Space Wolves.
-Index: Genestealer Cults
-Index: Arlequins
-Codex: Grey Knights
-Index: Drukhari/ Index: Necrons
-Index: Deathwatch
I'll put a * besides Low Tier because to be honest I think they are all more or less equal footing. so is hard to put really a ranking between them, and they aren't all that diferent in power with Sisters of Battle or Adeptus Mechanicus.

EDIT: Moved Codex: Death Guard from below Index: Orks to below Adeptus Astartes. After thinking more about it, even if Mortarion isn't as powerfull in 100% Death Guard lists and he is normally used in soup armies, in a 100% DG list Mortarion is still more powerfull that what Orks and T'au can bring to the table (IMO)

**Hoodwink**

I feel Space Wolves are too low and Dark Angels are too high. I've seen some good showings by the wolves but practically "meh" at best by the Dark Angels.

**Galas**

Hoodwink wrote:
I feel Space Wolves are too low and Dark Angels are too high. I've seen some good showings by the wolves but practically "meh" at best by the Dark Angels.

Yeah, as I said, I feel the diference between Mid and Low Tier isn't that big really. Dark Angels, I have seen pretty good lists with a very strong core of Ravenwing do the work, with supports elements of greenwing. But you could be perfectly correct and I'm overestimating the power of the Ravenwing, at the same time that underestimating Space Wolves.

Dark Angels could go as down as behind Index: Orks but really, the diference wouldn't be that big even going down 4 "ranks"

**Unit1126PLL**

I can generally agree with this, I think.

**Audustum**

I agree with this. Good work!

**LunarSol**

Seems about right.

I do think its probably time to start understanding soup better. If soup is the way forward (and it probably is) then the tiers are a lot flatter than they appear when you take out soup ingrediants:

High Tier:
-Soup: Aeldari
-Soup: Imperial
-Soup: Chaos
-Soup: Tyranids

Mid Tier:
-Index: T'au Empire
-Index: Orks

Low Tier:
-Index: Necrons

So, the game starts being less about how strong a codex is and more about how well that codex contributes to their respective soup. You can actually get to the point where you're tiering components within the soup and which ingredients are best to include. Basically you can start talking about armies the way people currently do about units.

**Galas**

Thats another way to see it, LunarSol. But right now I believe that most people still plays and sees the game in rewards to mono-factions, with Soup being "another thing".

Maybe in 2-3 years things will be measured as you say, but I believe is still to early for that vision of the competitive scene, at least in a general sense. We have seen some mono-faction armies do good job in LVO, so is obvious that competitive players haven't jumped all in the soup-cauldron, and people still wants to play mono-armies.

**Unit1126PLL**

I actually think soup is one of the ways forward, but will not be exclusively so.

I think that soup will require the same cost-benefit analysis that codexes do - is a unit worth the points to replace a similar unit in ones own codex? Is it worth the detachment slot if you want to dodge penalties?

For example: I could run 3 Elites techpriest enginseers from the IG codex, or 3 HQ techpriest enginseers from codex Cult Mechanicus.

IG enginseer pros vs cons: They can be taken in an existing AM detachment, meaning they don't take up one of my detachment slots. They also have the Astra Militarum keyword and can ride in AM transports and benefit from AM stratagems (Vengeance for Cadia is especially funny to use on a single Enginseer), relics (lol Death Mask of Ollanius enginseer) and warlord traits (Voice of Command Enginseer!

). Cons: Lack of access to Mechanicus stratagems and warlord traits, which makes them better at their jobs.

AM Enginseer pros vs cons: They gain access to the Tech-Adept stratagem and Necromechanic warlord trait, allowing them to repair the same thing twice with a +1 to both rolls. This does, however, have the opportunity cost of using both the warlord and the real cost of a CP. Cons: They cost +15 points cumulatively, use up a detachment slot, and lose access to AM stratagems and warlord traits. Their relics also aren't very helpful. They also cannot ride in AM transports, meaning they wander around lost and alone.

**LunarSol**

Galas wrote:
Thats another way to see it, LunarSol. But right now I believe that most people still plays and sees the game in rewards to mono-factions, with Soup being "another thing".

Maybe in 2-3 years things will be measured as you say, but I believe is still to early for that vision of the competitive scene, at least in a general sense. We have seen some mono-faction armies do good job in LVO, so is obvious that competitive players haven't jumped all in the soup-cauldron, and people still wants to play mono-armies.

That's just a question of labeling though. Arguably, one could argue that Blood Angels are the tomato variation of "Imperial Soup". It's still soup, just without much variety in ingredients. Astra Militarum might be the chicken broth; maybe its fine on its own; maybe its better with another ingredient? Still soup and I'm fine with that personally. If the game is better balanced by embracing the direction its moving rather than fighting to hold it in place, I think its wise to go with the flow.

**Primark G**

I thinks it’s a good spread. Da and Sm at top of mid tier seems right.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I thinks it’s a good spread. Da and Sm at top of mid tier seems right.

**NoiseMarine with Tinnitus**

In the grim darkness of the 42nd millenium there is only 'soup'.

Thanks for the appraisal OP. Seems about right at the moment.

Where are Ad Mech though?

DOH! Just found them.

**Marmatag**

Since this is a discussion of competitive tiers - which includes consistent performance - and not what armies are most diverse / fun to play, it should look like this (adjustments in red):

High Tier:
-Soup: Aeldari (Craftworld+Ynnari)
-Codex: Craftworld Eldar
-Soup: Imperial/Chaos soup. - note. this includes BA + Guard, and Ultramarines + Guard
-Codex: Astra Militarum

Mid Tier:
-Codex: Heretic Astartes
-Index: Sisters of Battle
-Index: T'au Empire
-Codex: Tyranids
-Codex: Dark Angels
-Index: Orks
-Codex: Death Guard
-Codex: Blood Angels
-Codex: Adeptus Astartes
-Index: Genestealer Cults
-Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus

Low Tier:
-Index: Space Wolves.
-Index: Harlequins
-Codex: Grey Knights
-Index: Drukhari
-Index: Necrons
-Index: Deathwatch

**Galas**

Is really Index: Sisters of Battle and Index: T'au Empire more competitive powerfull than Dark Angels (Specially Ravenwing), Tyranids and Blood Angels?

I haven't seen any tournament results that puts SoB and T'au in better places, at least in a consistent way than BA or DA (Tyranids maybe, they really did pretty poor at LVO, but I don't know why)

But even then as I said, at least in my opinion, the differences between the armies I put in the low half of High Tier, and Mid Tier armies, don't have that big of a difference in power so you can move them ranks up or ranks down and they are all in some form true. Maybe your ranking is more accurate and the armies I did put in High Tier below Astra Militarum have really a bigger competitive difference with Astra Militarum than with Mid Tier armies, so they should be Mid Tier.

And yeah right now I believe the best kind of Imperial Soup is BA+Guard and Ultramarines+Guard. But after the nerfs to Imperial Soup (Ultramarines nerfs+Imperial Guard nerfs) and Chaos Soup, with how busted Dark Reapers (And it appears that Shinning Spears too) are, IMO they make Codex: Craftworlds even better than both kinds of soups. Using the Ynnary trick for the Aeldari soup is just the cherry on top.

**Marmatag**

Galas wrote:
Is really Index: Sisters of Battle and Index: T'au Empire more competitive powerfull than Dark Angels (Specially Ravenwing), Tyranids and Blood Angels?

I haven't seen any tournament results that puts SoB and T'au in better places, at least in a consistent way than BA or DA (Tyranids maybe, they really did pretty poor at LVO, but I don't know why)

Yes, because you're carving those out as non-soup. Imperium soup is better than Tau. But pure Tau is better than pure BA, for example. And pure Tau is consistently finishing ahead of Tyranids at major events. Commander + drone spam is, and has been, one of the best lists in 40k that isn't soup since the jump. People know exactly what is in it, exactly how it plays, and it still always does well.

**Backspacehacker**

I would not have a problem with soup if it was not for the fact I would need like 2 or 3 books just for the army. If they did it like sigmar where they say here is your warscroll for your units fine. But as it stands you need a dick ton of books

**Galas**

Why Tyranids, having what it appears at first glance is a very powerfull and competitive codex, are strugling so much in the high end competitive scenes? Do Dark Reapers shut them down so hard? Maybe the "meta" in those tournaments doesn't favour them? (ITC missions, etc... I dont know) Or maybe is just that people hasn't yet encountered the most optimal lists in the book, because they have so many viable combinations, even if they don't are all of equal power?

**TwinPoleTheory**

Galas wrote:
Why Tyranids, having what it appears at first glance is a very powerfull and competitive codex, are strugling so much in the high end competitive scenes? Do Dark Reapers shut them down so hard?

Reapers wreck Tyranids, this is known.

Galas wrote:
Maybe the "meta" in those tournaments doesn't favour them? (ITC missions, etc... I dont know) Or maybe is just that people hasn't yet encountered the most optimal lists in the book, because they have so many viable combinations, even if they don't are all of equal power?

The meta at LVO seemed to consistently involve a lot of Biovores and Spore Mines, which despite their simplification slows the game down a bit. Almost every Tyranid player I spoke to complained about not having enough time to get beyond turn 2 or 3 in the game. I think if the games weren't as constrained by time or Tyranids didn't have one of the most mechanically complex hordes in the game the story would be different. However, I think for a 2.5 hour game, they are a complex horde army and that just spells problems.

**Galas**

Yeah, thats why I'm asking, because at least in my opinion the problems of Tyranids are not with his codex but with a busted unit that really hurts them hard, and then a TON of "out of the battle" (For calling them something) problems that don't have anything to do really with the balance of the Codex.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE AHEAD: In local and regional tournaments where we have plenty of time to play games to his conclusion I have found that Tyranids are one of the best armies in the long run. Where many other armies lost their punch in the round 2-3, Tyranids can go to round 5 with a good bunch of their forces still doing the job, when his opponent has nearly nothing left in the battle anymore. And in those last rounds Tyranids gain a ton of Victory Points.

**An Actual Englishman**

Index sisters, Tau and Orks are not more competitive than codex astartes, death guard, blood angels or ad mech, imo.

Not sure why index space wolves is so low either.

**Galas**

My reasoning to put so low space wolves is that the lack of Codex hurts them pretty bad. At the same time they are an assault army without really oustanding meele units (I know they have some good meele units) or delivery metods like BA have. And their shooting is normal Space Marine Shooting, that its not really that great without powerhouses like Guilliman or Azrael. Hellblasters entering with the CA stratagem can be nasty but... I don't know.
Of course, I could be completely wrong, I don't have much knowledge of how Space Wolves are doing in 8th edition.

**HuskyWarhammer**

Marmatag wrote:
Galas wrote:
Is really Index: Sisters of Battle and Index: T'au Empire more competitive powerfull than Dark Angels (Specially Ravenwing), Tyranids and Blood Angels?

I haven't seen any tournament results that puts SoB and T'au in better places, at least in a consistent way than BA or DA (Tyranids maybe, they really did pretty poor at LVO, but I don't know why)

But pure Tau is better than pure BA, for example.

Recent evidence disagrees.

**Marmatag**

Tyranids, in order to compete, must have a strong presence in all 3 offensive phases of the game: Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This will take time, but that's not the bigger issue. My opponents generally use more time than i do, because they spend a lot of time shooting and killing my models straight from turn 1 on. Tyranids face the same time problems as Tau do, or Death Guard, or any army that has a lot of models for your opponent to kill.

I dominate in RTTs but that's largely because you get a wider variety of players and lists. Throw that out the window at bigger events. Ultimately it boils down to meta lists, and meta lists have built-in strengths against Flyrant spam or horde. Because you have to be able to address armies that spam chaff that's more durable than Tyranids, and you have to be able to address tougher targets than Flyrants.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Galas wrote:
Is really Index: Sisters of Battle and Index: T'au Empire more competitive powerfull than Dark Angels (Specially Ravenwing), Tyranids and Blood Angels?

I haven't seen any tournament results that puts SoB and T'au in better places, at least in a consistent way than BA or DA (Tyranids maybe, they really did pretty poor at LVO, but I don't know why)

But pure Tau is better than pure BA, for example.

Recent evidence disagrees.

This was one isolated case, wherein:

1. The BA player misused the Descent of Angels stratagem. He was caught later in the event when people start paying attention.
2. He got incredibly lucky pairings. He fell to his first meta list.

**Galas**

We had 6 BA players in the top 100 of LVO. Of those how many where pure BA? I think two?

**Marmatag**

Galas wrote:
We had 6 BA players in the top 100 of LVO. Of those how many where pure BA? I think two?

It was the one, who misused the descent of angels stratagem.

But that's neither here nor there. Pretty much everyone soups anyway. Which is also part of the problem, it makes it hard to balance these codexes when everyone is souping.

**DarknessEternal**

Everything about who placed where in LVO is irrelevant when you factor in most games went 2 turns.

**Grimgold**

DarknessEternal wrote:
Everything about who placed where in LVO is irrelevant when you factor in most games went 2 turns.

The average was actually four turns assuming scoring at 80% of the max rate, and assuming max scoring every turn the games would have lasted just over three turns. It's not ideal, but the perception is worse than reality, thanks to players like Tony. Games should probably average 5 turns for a two hour window, but that's another discussion.

**niv-mizzet**

Marmatag wrote:
Galas wrote:
We had 6 BA players in the top 100 of LVO. Of those how many where pure BA? I think two?
It was the one, who misused the descent of angels stratagem.

This is correct, the highest placing pure BA list was illegally using DoA strat.

Out of top 100, there were 2 pure BA, one >75% BA that just had some guard infantry, and 3 that were technically BA but had significant amounts of other forces.

My personal favorite (and arguably the best placing pure BA list considering the actual top placer's rules mistake,) is placer #36, who had a brigade of captain hammer, Lemmy, Sangy, SG, SG ancient, 3x devs, 3x scout bikes, DC, and scout troops.

**Marmatag**

Grimgold wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
Everything about who placed where in LVO is irrelevant when you factor in most games went 2 turns.

The average was actually four turns assuming scoring at 80% of the max rate, and assuming max scoring every turn the games would have lasted just over three turns. It's not ideal, but the perception is worse than reality, thanks to players like Tony. Games should probably average 5 turns for a two hour window, but that's another discussion.

There is no way to average 5 games. that means logically either:

(a) every single game goes to exactly turn 5
or
(b) about half the games go beyond turn 5.

It's more realistic to hope for an average of 3.5 games. Which is what we effectively have now. And most games are already very clearly decided by turn 3, and turn 4 just allows more scoring for the winner.

Remember, some of the ties you'll see are because people are playing their squad mates. You take a high point or max point tie, and you both aren't knocked out of the top x.

**tneva82**

Assuming by game you mean turn 3.5 turns is ridiculously little for 40k. Default is 6 turn game. 5 turns means already shorter than what default is. 3.5 turns would be atrocious showing there's something seriously wrong with the game or tournament rules(if time limit is so low you can barely finish half the game...)

With 3.5 turns barely worth bringing out models as they would be little more than glorified wound markers. Turns 1 and often turn 2 you don't even really NEED models so basically one turn where actually having models on table would be useful.

**Blackie**

tneva82 wrote:
Assuming by game you mean turn 3.5 turns is ridiculously little for 40k. Default is 6 turn game. 5 turns means already shorter than what default is. 3.5 turns would be atrocious showing there's something seriously wrong with the game or tournament rules(if time limit is so low you can barely finish half the game...)

With 3.5 turns barely worth bringing out models as they would be little more than glorified wound markers. Turns 1 and often turn 2 you don't even really NEED models so basically one turn where actually having models on table would be useful.

I agree, but unfortunately only balanced matches last 5+ turns. And TAC games are 99% very far from being unbalanced.

I play in a group of friends and we always tailor our lists in order to have fair games and I enjoy that. In fact if the game is over by turn 3 I feel like I've wasted my time.

I also agree with the ranking, at tournaments levels it's pretty much that. In real competitive metas, where people bring optimized lists but usually not the most overpowered ones since proxying isn't allowed and not everyone is willing to spam the new hotness (that would last only a few months before getting a nerf), things are a bit different but not that much. I think drukhari and SW could be mid tiers in a typical competitive but realistic meta.