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 started the hobby at the beginning of 7th so don’t have a lot of history of army power through the editions beside what I have read on old forum posts. But I been thinking is there armies that have always been good every edition and also some that always seem to fair badly (talking about mono codex”s)?

From my point of view Eldar always seem to be in a good spot. I also thought spacemarines would always be upper tier being the face of the 40k and also the models that generate the most revenue. But they don’t seem to be in a good place this edition as a whole.

As far as who’s always bad. Not sure on this one it seems like all that have been around awhile have had their time to shine in one edition or another.

Thoughts?

The function of an army “always” being good or bad is, in part, dependent on the support from GW: getting new models, updates, codices, etc. So armies like SM are always going to have some viability just because they’re such sellers.

Eldar have been at minimum "pretty good". It's disgusting, really.

For armies on the other end, I can probably say Orks are on the lower end overall.

I've played since 5th, and most armies have at least been middle of the road at some point or another, and usually had at least one competitive build that might not have won everything, but was at least a gatekeeper list that would be likely to place pretty high. I can't think of one that has always been terrible forever, but there are usually one or two each edition or so that are looked on as the worst.

There are armies that have always been somewhere barring brief blips; Grey Knights/Daemonhunters have been mediocre at best except for a brief period during 5e when they excelled, Eldar have always been fantastic except for a brief period during 5e under their 4e Codex where they were merely mediocre.

" I also thought spacemarines would always be upper tier being the face of the 40k and also the models that generate the most revenue."

This is not remotely true. Space marines have fluctuated wildly throughout the years. Probably the peak of overall marine effectiveness was 3rd edition. After that, gimmicks were necessary to make them strong because their basal units became more and more irrelevant.

Space Wolves were arguably #1 for most of 5th edition, but they were blatantly overpowered and did almost literally everything better than normal marines did. GK and BA were also quite good but GK were at the end of 5th. Normal marines were solid but boring compared to the super marines.

Space marines were poor in 5th, imo. They constantly lost to a 4th ed Ork codex because they didn't have shots to stop them They constantly lost to IG gunline, because they didn't have the durability or melee to kill the IG fast enough. They lost to the +1 marines like BA, SW, and GK. They lost to the Necrons too.

SW were very rough, because everyone had to learn to learn how to play against pods. And assaulting SW was suicidal.

What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I think, especially with 8th edition, we need to get out of the mindset of "Which armies have been good/bad" and get more into the "Which UNITS have been good/bad?".

Like it's been said, Grey Knights and Space Wolves ruled 5th Edition for a fairly long time. Orks have been poor to bad from early 5th edition to now. Eldar have usually been solid to amazing. Tau have been all over the place. Vanilla marines are usually really good for the ~4-5 months after an edition drops because they get the first new codex, and then drop off as everyone +1's them....etc

The real catch for these statements is that if an army has been good for a long time, or multiple times, it's not always the same units that make it good each time. Eldar were amazing because Wraith Knight/Lord spam, I hear they are good now because Dark Reapers? Space Wolves were amazing because Grey Hunters and rhino spam was incredibly hard to kill, or Thunder Wolf Calvary were practically indestructible. Winged Tyrant spam was the only way to play tyrants for a couple years, but before that, it was all about Tervigon spamming out free termigants.

I'd love to have an army that was always good, but even if you pick an army that has historically done very well, the units that make it good will likely change from year to year. I've taken to playing "Generic marines" the last 5 years, and just switching the codex I use based on what plays the best for me. Chaos marines, Space Wolves, Vanilla, Blood Angels.....etc. Power Armor is power armor, and a guy with a bolt gun can cover a dozen different units across 5+ codexes.

Grimlineman wrote:
As far as who’s always bad. Not sure on this one it seems like all that have been around awhile have had their time to shine in one edition or another.

I don't think the Inquisition has ever risen above 'ok' - and that was a parking lot of immolators and stormtroopers in 5th.

Sisters have had some good showings but have also been near enough discontinued at times (they went two years without a codex at one point, and three more after that with just a pdf dex - not counting their wait in 3rd edition).

GK as mentioned had one very strong edition and then faded. Prior to 5th they were a completely different army.

And Templars. There was a point in 5th where beneath the mountain of errata was a somewhat effective gunline/terminator force... then they got rolled into the marine dex as a particularly unflattering chapter tactic.

--------------------------

At the other end Eldar had huge firepower in 3rd, almost literally invulnerable tanks in 4th, a dip in 5th (old codex vs new ruleset), and then back to form in 6th.

I think it's pretty much down to the units. Even Eldar, which have always had solid options, have units which fluctuate tremendously each edition - mainly due to the nature of things like Aspect Warriors. Rules are either good or bad.

Look at Shining Spears...been around since 2nd edition, and probably never ever seen the table before 8th. In 8th they're arguably one of the best units in the book. Wraithknights were apparently balls-amazing in 7th and are terribly overpriced junk in 8th. Guardians have fluctuated a ton each edition. Rangers likewise. Aspect Warriors are the hardest to categorize, but many of them are sub-par at the moment with a couple being tremendously good.

Eldar started out strong in 8th, but have been hemmed back slowly and the slight power creep in each codex means that things like Dark Eldar wildly out-Eldar the Eldar.

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I would guess you play eldar

To answer the OP question.

Armies that have almost always been on the better half of the competitive spectrum? Space Marines and Eldar hands down.

Armies that have been crap for the longest? Orkz, Dark Eldar and Chaos Space Marines.

Now all 3 have had there moments, but those were 3+ editions ago. Orkz were pretty darn good in 4th, Chaos in 3rd and Dark Eldar were pretty good even recently. But those 3 have usually been best friends hanging out on the bottom tier.

A.T. wrote:

Grimlineman wrote:
As far as who’s always bad. Not sure on this one it seems like all that have been around awhile have had their time to shine in one edition or another.

I don't think the Inquisition has ever risen above 'ok' - and that was a parking lot of immolators and stormtroopers in 5th.

Sisters have had some good showings but have also been near enough discontinued at times (they went two years without a codex at one point, and three more after that with just a pdf dex - not counting their wait in 3rd edition).

GK as mentioned had one very strong edition and then faded. Prior to 5th they were a completely different army.

And Templars. There was a point in 5th where beneath the mountain of errata was a somewhat effective gunline/terminator force... then they got rolled into the marine dex as a particularly unflattering chapter tactic.

--------------------------

At the other end Eldar had huge firepower in 3rd, almost literally invulnerable tanks in 4th, a dip in 5th (old codex vs new ruleset), and then back to form in 6th.

To be fair that Witch Hunters codex was beastly, probably the best Sisters have ever been.

SemperMortis wrote:
Now all 3 have had there moments, but those were 3+ editions ago. Orkz were pretty darn good in 4th, Chaos in 3rd and Dark Eldar were pretty good even recently. But those 3 have usually been best friends hanging out on the bottom tier.

Chaos have fluctuated back and forth. The 4e lash prince, troops, and other units were all very solid but caught between the pure cheese of 3.5 and the escalation of 5e marine books like wolves. Then 6e came in and helldrakes lit up the tournaments until again overtaken by power creep elsewhere. Now primarchs, deathguard, and chaos back up again for now.

3e Dark Eldar were half and half IMO. At low points you'd drown your opponent in lances and dissies, at higher points you'd be padding.

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I would guess you play eldar
.

WRONG! Chaos and Tau. I played against Eldar a lot and I think that a lot of Eldar players have a valid complaint that a lot of their units aren't worth taking. Most I have played would rather a solid codex over a few really powerful options. Having played Chaos on both sides of the 3.5 dex, I know what it's like to be called a power gamer because my army got a poorly thought out codex. The point is powerful =/= good.

Skaorn wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I would guess you play eldar
.

WRONG! Chaos and Tau. I played against Eldar a lot and I think that a lot of Eldar players have a valid complaint that a lot of their units aren't worth taking. Most I have played would rather a solid codex over a few really powerful options. Having played Chaos on both sides of the 3.5 dex, I know what it's like to be called a power gamer because my army got a poorly thought out codex. The point is powerful =/= good.

Last edition you had Warp Spiders, Scat Bikes, Wraith Knights, Farseers, invisible death stars, D-Cannons, Fire Dragons, dark Reapers and the list goes on. So yeah...They had a very powerful codex, and it wasn't mono build LOL. If you are going to say no Army is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other then literally ZERO armies have ever been "good".

Crons have always been 'decent' apart from way way back as far as I know.

Things fluctuate though.

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I would guess you play eldar
.

WRONG! Chaos and Tau. I played against Eldar a lot and I think that a lot of Eldar players have a valid complaint that a lot of their units aren't worth taking. Most I have played would rather a solid codex over a few really powerful options. Having played Chaos on both sides of the 3.5 dex, I know what it's like to be called a power gamer because my army got a poorly thought out codex. The point is powerful =/= good.

Last edition you had Warp Spiders, Scat Bikes, Wraith Knights, Farseers, invisible death stars, D-Cannons, Fire Dragons, dark Reapers and the list goes on. So yeah...They had a very powerful codex, and it wasn't mono build LOL. If you are going to say no Army is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other then literally ZERO armies have ever been "good".

I didn't have any of these, I have never played Eldar as one of my armies. I never said or implied that an army "...is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other...". The point I made was a powerful army does not equal a good army. A good army would have good internal balance and be balanced well against other armies. The Eldar have had a long history of units that aren't worth taking compared to the flavor that currently al the rage. For instance Swooping Hawks and Shining Spears used to be the butts of everyone's jokes about Eldar internal codex balance but now Shining Spears are king and the hawks are now joined by the Striking Scorpions. Wouldn't it be better if Shining Spears weren't as good but Swooping Hawks and Striking Scorpions worth considering to take place along side the spears? To me, the answer is yes.

Hmm always been bad, only one i can think of is pure Deathwing, they have never actually been a top tier army, at best they have been mid and mostly lower tier, currently I would put them at above grey knights but thats about it.

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I think the Eldar's strength has always been the specialised nature of their units and the wide range of units they have access too, with multiple unit options for each role. Regardless of how the game changes and codexes shift they've always had access to at least one solid build that works with the current meta, even if what works changes wildly between editions.

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I would guess you play eldar
.

WRONG! Chaos and Tau. I played against Eldar a lot and I think that a lot of Eldar players have a valid complaint that a lot of their units aren't worth taking. Most I have played would rather a solid codex over a few really powerful options. Having played Chaos on both sides of the 3.5 dex, I know what it's like to be called a power gamer because my army got a poorly thought out codex. The point is powerful =/= good.

Last edition you had Warp Spiders, Scat Bikes, Wraith Knights, Farseers, invisible death stars, D-Cannons, Fire Dragons, dark Reapers and the list goes on. So yeah...They had a very powerful codex, and it wasn't mono build LOL. If you are going to say no Army is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other then literally ZERO armies have ever been "good".

Invisible Deathstars was an Imperial thing last edition, not Eldar, Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers were decent but not amazing and don't use D Cannons as a catch all since Wraithguard weren't that great, and Support Batteries were very short ranged for artillery. In a competetive setting it largely was very mono build (Scattpacks, a few Farseers and a Wraithknight was pretty much universally most of the army unless you went FW and felt like adding in Warp Hunters) but in a more friendly setting it was pretty easy to lower the power level. This edition the internal balance is even worse, 2/3rds of the codex is pure trash whilst the other 3rd is very competitive, since I don't run or have large Guardian blobs or Dark Reapers I've shelved the army as the rest of it is very unfun to play and not very strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unknown_Lifeform wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I think the Eldar's strength has always been the specialised nature of their units and the wide range of units they have access too, with multiple unit options for each role. Regardless of how the game changes and codexes shift they've always had access to at least one solid build that works with the current meta, even if what works changes wildly between editions.

I would actually say that was their weakness, most of the times those specialisations don't work (Banshees can't kill elites, Scorpions can't kill hordes, Dire Avengers are terrible troops), instead it's the units that by accident or design end up being a great jack of all trades that are the go to choices. Last edition it was Windriders with Scatterlasers that had mid strength, high rate of fire and a low enough cost to take excessive amounts of them that they could and did kill everything better than the specialists. This edition it's the Guardian blob who with the right buffs will drop pretty much anything, or Dark Reapers who can be useful at taking out any type of target.

Ironically it's the Drukhari who are better at the specialisation thing since the nature of our weapons and units means we've never had anything that could be used as a jack of all trades unit (at least not with the same load out).

Martel732 wrote:
" I also thought spacemarines would always be upper tier being the face of the 40k and also the models that generate the most revenue."

This is not remotely true. Space marines have fluctuated wildly throughout the years. Probably the peak of overall marine effectiveness was 3rd edition. After that, gimmicks were necessary to make them strong because their basal units became more and more irrelevant.

White Scars Gladius was a top tier list through most of 7th. Space marines ended 7th edition with the 3rd highest overall number of GT wins behind Eldar and Chaos Daemons.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbeil wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Grimlineman wrote:
As far as who’s always bad. Not sure on this one it seems like all that have been around awhile have had their time to shine in one edition or another.

I don't think the Inquisition has ever risen above 'ok' - and that was a parking lot of immolators and stormtroopers in 5th.

Sisters have had some good showings but have also been near enough discontinued at times (they went two years without a codex at one point, and three more after that with just a pdf dex - not counting their wait in 3rd edition).

GK as mentioned had one very strong edition and then faded. Prior to 5th they were a completely different army.

And Templars. There was a point in 5th where beneath the mountain of errata was a somewhat effective gunline/terminator force... then they got rolled into the marine dex as a particularly unflattering chapter tactic.

--------------------------

At the other end Eldar had huge firepower in 3rd, almost literally invulnerable tanks in 4th, a dip in 5th (old codex vs new ruleset), and then back to form in 6th.

To be fair that Witch Hunters codex was beastly, probably the best Sisters have ever been.

When everyone was in the indexes, SoB were quietly in the top few armies in the game. They just got crowded out a bit by the sheer level of bullgak that was Index guilliRavens.

Eldar to my knowledge have generally been above average all the time (except for maybe one part of one edition but im not sure on that).

Orks have generally been below average unless there is some rules loophole for Orks to exploit like wound shuffling with Nob Bikers or a Greentide conga line to benefit from a void shield generator despite being half way across the board.

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

Not sure about 8th, but in 6th/7th every unit was worth taking.

"White Scars Gladius was a top tier list through most of 7th. "

Yeah. A gimmick.

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Crons have always been 'decent' apart from way way back as far as I know.

Things fluctuate though.

Through most of 5th, they were arguably the worst army in the game until they got their codex update at the end.

Martel732 wrote:
"White Scars Gladius was a top tier list through most of 7th. "

Yeah. A gimmick.

Firstly, you're not the one that decides what 'a gimmick' is. The white scars gladius was no more of a gimmick than wraithknights, or Decurions, or 2++ invuls, or any of the other crazy powerful things that were standard issue, garden variety army construction in 7th.

Secondly, there were MANY other lists that were EXTREMELY good that the marines could play. The droppod list that finished 10th at Adepticon AFTER Magnus came in, or any of the insane number of deathstars marines could run, the other versions of gladius, or centurion star, Librarius conclave daemon batteries, etc, etc, etc.

YOU might have been bad in 7th, marines were OBJECTIVELY great.

 greyknight12 wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

Not sure about 8th, but in 6th/7th every unit was worth taking.

Rangers, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians, Illic Nightspear, Wraithlords, Wraithblades. All of those weren't worthwhile in either 6th, 7th or both. Eldar in 6th was based hugely on Wave Serpents and 7th was largely WK, Scatbikes and Warp Spiders with another two units being swapped around.

Skaorn wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

I would guess you play eldar
.

WRONG! Chaos and Tau. I played against Eldar a lot and I think that a lot of Eldar players have a valid complaint that a lot of their units aren't worth taking. Most I have played would rather a solid codex over a few really powerful options. Having played Chaos on both sides of the 3.5 dex, I know what it's like to be called a power gamer because my army got a poorly thought out codex. The point is powerful =/= good.

Last edition you had Warp Spiders, Scat Bikes, Wraith Knights, Farseers, invisible death stars, D-Cannons, Fire Dragons, dark Reapers and the list goes on. So yeah...They had a very powerful codex, and it wasn't mono build LOL. If you are going to say no Army is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other then literally ZERO armies have ever been "good".

I didn't have any of these, I have never played Eldar as one of my armies. I never said or implied that an army "...is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other...". The point I made was a powerful army does not equal a good army. A good army would have good internal balance and be balanced well against other armies. The Eldar have had a long history of units that aren't worth taking compared to the flavor that currently al the rage. For instance Swooping Hawks and Shining Spears used to be the butts of everyone's jokes about Eldar internal codex balance but now Shining Spears are king and the hawks are now joined by the Striking Scorpions. Wouldn't it be better if Shining Spears weren't as good but Swooping Hawks and Striking Scorpions worth considering to take place along side the spears? To me, the answer is yes.

Didn't mean you specifically, was referring to the community at large. But you just said "I never implied that an army is powerful unless every unit is almost on par with each other" but you also said the post before "Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use." So you just contradicted yourself.

Furthermore, in 7th almost every unit in the Eldar codex was good, the difference was you had a couple that were unbelievably amazing like wraithknights, scat bikes, warp spiders and Farseers. Wraithguard and Wraithblades weren't considered the best units but in several codexs they would have been auto-includes. Wave Serpeants weren't considered great but again in other armies they would have been the premier transports and gunboats. Fire Dragons weren't the best Anti-armor option for eldar but in almost every other army they would have been the absolute pinnacle (+3 to explode, +4 against Open topped). The average foot slogging guardian had a PLETHORA of rules and formations that made them go from average to better then most standard infantry in the game. SO yes, Eldar were and have almost always been in the top 3 and have had by far the most powerful codex which is proven by the fact that at LVO Eldar had something like 3 of the top 5 places.