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.

Research by Goonhammer led to the following competitive 40k Tier list (end of 2021):

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-2021-warhammer-40k-end-of-year-tier-list/



Druhkari, Orks, and GK are at the top.
But I'm surprised to see BT as Tier 1 as the BT codex is rather new.

Pretty much everything that is rather new gets quickly on top. People need to learn how to counter the flavour of the month, some may get completely gotchad. Maybe many competitive players don't really tailor against SM like they used to do more frequently in the past.

And BT supplement seems pretty strong to me.

I mostly agree with this. I wouldnt put deathwatch so high though. I've only played against them as Custodes and Tyranids though so cant say I see it from every angle.

Basically i'd put Custodes where they are at and drop them under Mechanicus.

 Blackie wrote:
Pretty much everything that is rather new gets quickly on top. People need to learn how to counter the flavour of the month, some may get completely gotchad. Maybe many competitive players don't really tailor against SM like they used to do more frequently in the past.

And BT supplement seems pretty strong to me.

I only ever looked in the armies presented by Goonhammer in their articles, but what I found interesting is that they only showcased / mentioned BT armies that made top 3 (or even just top 1?).
Were there no other BT players at the tournaments, or did none of them even place top 10?

Necrons haved dropped to Tier 4. Disappointing.
Looks like Necrons have a hard time to battle armies in the upper bracket.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I mostly agree with this. I wouldnt put deathwatch so high though. I've only played against them as Custodes and Tyranids though so cant say I see it from every angle.

Basically i'd put Custodes where they are at and drop them under Mechanicus.

I I followed their explanation, they rank so high on the back of still being able to run the classic iron hands dread style lists. Its quite possible that if this new tau railgun becomes a meta staple, they will suffer heavily (though they have seen success with the pure infantry kill team army of renown)

Space Wolves in the same tier as AdMech? How? What am I doing wrong?! XD

Covenant wrote:
Space Wolves in the same tier as AdMech? How? What am I doing wrong?! XD

Well post a list maybe we can find out.

Personally I've had no issues with my own wolves, they perform well against most things so long as I don't take too many primaris units.

What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

 Argive wrote:
What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

New supplement super boosted their shooting.

 Argive wrote:
What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

a subfaction they got during the octarius stuff, plus some new factionwide rules form the same. basically they have like one good build, but its really, really good.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Argive wrote:
What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

a subfaction they got during the octarius stuff, plus some new factionwide rules form the same. basically they have like one good build, but its really, really good.

Can you summarize ?

Yeah people have to remember this tier lists aren't measured by "My personal army made of the stuff I think looks cool" power level but by "The strongest lists each faction can put out and how they compete agaisnt each other" philosophy.

Interesting to see them say "Tier 3 lists are capable, but there are lists that do the same strategy better in Tiers 1 and 2"

Then they put the Daemons monster mash list in Tier 3...

What list is doing speedy melee monster mash better than Daemons in Tiers 1 and 2? Grey Knights?

 Argive wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Argive wrote:
What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

a subfaction they got during the octarius stuff, plus some new factionwide rules form the same. basically they have like one good build, but its really, really good.

Can you summarize ?

Leviathan extra rules from Octarius, army wide synapse link abilities (especially the one given by warriors, which is a +1 to hit), to a certain extent also the White Dwarf big bugs army of renown.
It all helps in turning impaler hive guard up to 11.

Interesting to see them say "Tier 3 lists are capable, but there are lists that do the same strategy better in Tiers 1 and 2"

Then they put the Daemons monster mash list in Tier 3...

What list is doing speedy melee monster mash better than Daemons in Tiers 1 and 2? Grey Knights?

Tyranids with Crusher Stampede. We haven't seen any placings from it yet, but it takes some already strong fast-ish things (Dimachaerons, Hierodules) and makes them stronger, plus gives them new toys to play with.

 Argive wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Argive wrote:
What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

a subfaction they got during the octarius stuff, plus some new factionwide rules form the same. basically they have like one good build, but its really, really good.

Can you summarize ?

hit buffs from synaps units to buff Hiveguard and 6's being 2 additional hits with Devilgaunt's obscene number of shots.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Interesting to see them say "Tier 3 lists are capable, but there are lists that do the same strategy better in Tiers 1 and 2"

Then they put the Daemons monster mash list in Tier 3...

What list is doing speedy melee monster mash better than Daemons in Tiers 1 and 2? Grey Knights?

Tyranids with Crusher Stampede. We haven't seen any placings from it yet, but it takes some already strong fast-ish things (Dimachaerons, Hierodules) and makes them stronger, plus gives them new toys to play with.

I did not know that was the tyranid list they were talking about when they put the tyranids in Tier 1.

Covenant wrote:
Space Wolves in the same tier as AdMech? How? What am I doing wrong?! XD

AdMech are garbage now GH nearly put them in tier 3, I think that's where they should have gone. The data shows they've gone a 60% win rate (obviously too high) to a 60% lose rate (also too high).

Blackie wrote:Pretty much everything that is rather new gets quickly on top. People need to learn how to counter the flavour of the month, some may get completely gotchad. Maybe many competitive players don't really tailor against SM like they used to do more frequently in the past.

And BT supplement seems pretty strong to me.

Sort of. Neither BA nor DW saw that effect when their supplements released and it's been seen to a much lesser degree by Death Gurad, for example, who were quickly pushed down the meta by the next new thing rather than hanging around. Thousand Sons haven't been at the top either and Drukhari have been out for a comparatively long time now and are clearly in a league of their own so I don't think the problem is people not learning how to counter it. The same could likely have been said of Orks and AdMech without GW's intervention.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Interesting to see them say "Tier 3 lists are capable, but there are lists that do the same strategy better in Tiers 1 and 2"

Then they put the Daemons monster mash list in Tier 3...

What list is doing speedy melee monster mash better than Daemons in Tiers 1 and 2? Grey Knights?

I don't think it's supposed to be an exhaustive list of reasons. Daemons seem to fit the "capable of doing well" criteria, but I'm not sure there's any lists that do the same thing better. Maybe similar things, like GK Dreadknight spam, but not the same.

Overall the tier list seems pretty accurate to me. With Custodes, GSC, Tau and CWE all due out relatively soon I'd be worried for any armies that are Tier 3 or lower that already have a 9th edition Codex. We still have January's points changes to try to fix things but some armies - notably Necrons - have issues that aren't entirely related to points.

I have a sneaking suspicion Deathwatch might start to climb a bit as the Army of Renown gets refined. A highly mobile and flexible army of 50 ObSec models, either loaded with Storm Shields or T5 3W Gravis marines is a tough nut for a lot of armies to crack.

 Ordana wrote:

 Argive wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Argive wrote:
What makes tyranids T1 ?

I have been out of the lop for ages but that seems impossible ?

a subfaction they got during the octarius stuff, plus some new factionwide rules form the same. basically they have like one good build, but its really, really good.

Can you summarize ?

hit buffs from synaps units to buff Hiveguard and 6's being 2 additional hits with Devilgaunt's obscene number of shots.

I've been on the receiving end of that from Hiveguard, it's very deadly and for that game I was lacking in units fast enough to reach them nor could I ignore them. Very potent combo.

Yeah they werent even talking about crusher stampede.

They were talking about 18 hive guard hitting on 2's.

Crusher stampede just solidifies them in A tier with a second winning build.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yeah they werent even talking about crusher stampede.

They were talking about 18 hive guard hitting on 2's.

Crusher stampede just solidifies them in A tier with a second winning build.

As a Tyranid player, I'd like to see a restriction of 1 unit of Tyrant Guard, ideally at the 2k level. Or maybe 2 at that level and 3 at more than 2k, similar to flyers.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yeah they werent even talking about crusher stampede.

They were talking about 18 hive guard hitting on 2's.

Crusher stampede just solidifies them in A tier with a second winning build.

TBF, it doesn't seem like 18 HG is even the optimal way to run Nids; John Lennon won New Orleans with just 6. Hive Guard are expensive and there's diminishing returns IMO. Not to say HG with all the buffs are not overtuned at the moment.

so silly that GH continues the dumb charade of pretending all the core codex: SM lists are dedicated, entirely separate armies.

Say, Goonhammer, what's the stats for Hive Fleets that aren't the one that just got all the strong competitive gak?

Oh, we dont have stats for that?

oh, itd be weird to track stats for that, as it would artificially make them appear weaker than maybe they actually are, because a player choosing to run a weaker subfaction would be a dedicated casual player of that subfaction, and would be more likely to go 0-5 in a tournament? Thus making the one competitive one appear artificially stronger, because youd be sorting only for the most competitive players of that faction?

Codex SM should be solidly mediocre middle of the road tier. Yet continuously we do this weird split thing holdover from the 6 months or so where theyw ere essentially the only faction, and SM builds simultaneously look stronger and weaker than they should.

 obsidianaura wrote:

Covenant wrote:
Space Wolves in the same tier as AdMech? How? What am I doing wrong?! XD

AdMech are garbage now GH nearly put them in tier 3, I think that's where they should have gone. The data shows they've gone a 60% win rate (obviously too high) to a 60% lose rate (also too high).

They has a 6 week win rate of 46% at year end, which isn't abysmal. What people fail to take into consideration is top players dropping the army for something more forgiving ( *cough* DE ).

Admech was 3% of the field and took 3% of top tables - a good ratio.
DE was 6% and 16% respectively - a ratio of 2.56.

Here's that ratio for the rest of the field. Now look at Death Guard. They also had a 46% 6WWR, but their top table showings are poor. They had way more players than AdMech. So the army is a mid-table gatekeeper that struggles against the better armies, there are fewer experienced pilots, or a combination of both.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
so silly that GH continues the dumb charade of pretending all the core codex: SM lists are dedicated, entirely separate armies.

Say, Goonhammer, what's the stats for Hive Fleets that aren't the one that just got all the strong competitive gak?

Oh, we dont have stats for that?

oh, itd be weird to track stats for that, as it would artificially make them appear weaker than maybe they actually are, because a player choosing to run a weaker subfaction would be a dedicated casual player of that subfaction, and would be more likely to go 0-5 in a tournament? Thus making the one competitive one appear artificially stronger, because youd be sorting only for the most competitive players of that faction?

Codex SM should be solidly mediocre middle of the road tier. Yet continuously we do this weird split thing holdover from the 6 months or so where theyw ere essentially the only faction, and SM builds simultaneously look stronger and weaker than they should.

I think part of the problem is that BCP doesn't consistently track fleets and it gets tough, because you can have multiple fleets where marines are less likely to mix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yeah they werent even talking about crusher stampede.

They were talking about 18 hive guard hitting on 2's.

Crusher stampede just solidifies them in A tier with a second winning build.

TBF, it doesn't seem like 18 HG is even the optimal way to run Nids; John Lennon won New Orleans with just 6. Hive Guard are expensive and there's diminishing returns IMO. Not to say HG with all the buffs are not overtuned at the moment.

Right - there's ONE unit that goes uber and the rest are just padding.

How is GK's not S tier and DE is? they are 0.4% difference in winrates and GK. This is a little missleading IMO. While DE are strong for sure you can not say GK's are not their equal when data says they are.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-2021-warhammer-40k-end-of-year-meta-analysis/

 Amishprn86 wrote:
How is GK's not S tier and DE is? they are 0.4% difference in winrates and GK. This is missleading IMO.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-2021-warhammer-40k-end-of-year-meta-analysis/

Yea I don't know, either. These aren't very useful anyway since we're headed into a lot of changes very soon.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
How is GK's not S tier and DE is? they are 0.4% difference in winrates and GK. This is a little missleading IMO. While DE are strong for sure you can not say GK's are not their equal when data says they are.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-2021-warhammer-40k-end-of-year-meta-analysis/

I think GK's don't have the amount of #1 spots that DE managed to get. That could be a difference.

DE has a good matchup in t1 armies.

GK doesn't. Especially against DE.

That's all the difference between a tier 1 and an S tier army.