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 do feel that this idea of tier being based on ease of play is correct. What else should it be based on? Someone at the very top levels can compete with just about anything, but they are outliers in the pool.

I just disagree with the whole tier thing its stupid.

What makes a winning army is player skill and list make up.

Thats it. If you have a good player playing a good list it will be competitive or if you have a very bad player playing an amazing list it will be competitive or if you have a Amazing player but a poor list you will be competitive.

Its tit for tat ; amazing players with amazing lists are the best.

This is offset with a armies ease of use.

I'll just classify this as ease of making a good list by ease of use.

Easy
Orks
Space Marine
Space Wolfs ( I knock them but it is a good list Im just not impressed by them)
Imperial Guard

Medium
Eldar
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Dark Angels ( specifically because the marine codex outshines it in its abilities to field a raven wing like army as well as abnormal point costs)
Dark Eldar ( people will fight about this but I dont find the list terrible at all Just say " How many raiders can i have)

Difficult
Sisters of Battle
greyknights
Tyranids
Necrons
Tau


Any of these lists are augmented by player skill.

A poor players who plays Easy set has a decent chance against a good player with a medium army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
edit:

I guess I should add in that really good Sister or Battle lists are difficult I mean as far as making a well balanced decent army that can handle most threats I find the army lacking in some respects and it is also reflected by the armies lack of support more than anything.

I dont think its a bad army but straight up vs. other MEQ it falls pretty short.

Hollismason wrote:I just disagree with the whole tier thing its stupid.
*posts a tier list*
*even says that the army choices can overcome skill differences*

I always assumed these debates assumed;

Comparable player skill
Standardized Scenarios (Mix of Objective/kill points)



With the above assumptions, a tier look at 40k is acceptable (Although not black/white).

Its not really a tier its just based on what armies are the easiest to create a balanced list that is easy to play with.

Tiers auto assume that one army is inherently better class than others its not A good sisters of battle army played by a good player can compete with what people call "top tier" lists like vulcan etc..


its just stupid to say these lists are the best lissts for making competitive lists.

Everything comes down to ultimatel player skill and luck recommending a new player to play a specific army because its " tiered way higher than the others is stupid

Instead say " these armies take a little bit more time to learn all of the nuances but are still just as competitive as these others as long as played properly."


Its why when someone asks " what should I play to be competitive?"

i say " Pick an army and learn how to play it because ultimately it doesnt matter"

Hollismason wrote:

Its why when someone asks " what should I play to be competitive?"

i say " Pick an army and learn how to play it because ultimately it doesnt matter"

QFT

AgeOfEgos wrote:The lack of Nob Bikers are likely attributed to one of the most popular armies gaining one of the best assault units in the game...that usually deploys out of a tank that Orks find neigh impossible to blow up;

TH/SS Terms storming out of a Land Raider

I think it is more likely that it is the psyker battle squad makes them run like pansies.

Lets get back on topic, instead of arguing about how to rank or list or tier the different armies. What are some of the most common competitive lists, what are their strengths and weaknesses?

murdog wrote:Lets get back on topic, instead of arguing about how to rank or list or tier the different armies. What are some of the most common competitive lists, what are their strengths and weaknesses?

Yeah, get back on topic.

Competitive lists are CSM (double lash, PM, Obliterators), Orks (Nobz Bikerz, Killa Kanz, many Boyz), and Nidzilla.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other hand, Eldar is not as competitive as it was in the 4th ed.
Also Nidzilla lost an edge.

I would expect Nids (perhaps Zilla) to get a huge boost whith their new codex though.
Eldar are a differant story.
After Nids, DE, Necrons... Eldar, Tau and Inquisition need updates IMO.

Space Marines appear not to be top tier despite some strong builds around special characters.
This was proved by results of several GT's (German, Irish, British heats).

wuestenfux wrote:Space Marines appear not to be top tier despite some strong builds around special characters.
This was proved by results of several GT's (German, Irish, British heats).

Yeah... I've also been noticing a lack of appearances of SM in the top results coming out some of the major tournaments.

I think its more to do with the fact that people expect to face Space Marines and compensate for it to degree when they are building a list.

I still think as for just absolute complete competitive sake Imperial guard can put out some devastating lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also orks are still one of the easiest armies to build a strong competitive build ,yet have a great ease of use to learning to play.

Imperial Guard lists are usually

Do you have more than 20 tanks? Yes No

If No ADD MORE TANKS

Do you have more than 150 men Yes No

if no ADD MORE MEN

Its hard to argue with a army that can put out

10 AV 12 transports w/ 100 guys w/ autocannons for 1000 points ugh so cheap

is a 4 or 6 space marine Dreadnought list competitive? Seems like a Tau player or any other faction with good ranged weapons wouldn't have too much trouble.

Beowulfen wrote:is a 4 or 6 space marine Dreadnought list competitive?

Well, this still need to be proved.

I don't think armies should be characterized by how easy or hard they can be played and created, but how they fit into the meta-game picture.

A "strong" codex is one that has a place in metagame when it is fully expected and significant tooling against them exists.

A "weak" codex is one that survives in the metagame because it is unexpected and people leave holes in both list and strategy against them.

A good player will figure out the metagame and win, but not with just any random army, but one that counters the meta. He can do this with strong or weak codeciis depending on the situation.

wuestenfux wrote:Space Marines appear not to be top tier despite some strong builds around special characters.
This was proved by results of several GT's (German, Irish, British heats).

The P1 at Heat 1 didn't have a special character.

As well as Heat 2, Orks just won Warfare and played off for 2nd as well. Orks also came 1st and 3rd at Open War 12.

I see alot of mechvet IG lists with chimeras/valks in the lists section. Opinions?

I have learned two things from reading this thread:

1) Competitive is relative to the field you are playing in. Lets say we can determine the "Best Army List" through some means. The BAL is able to win the majority of games assuming equal skill and even number of matches against different army types. There are however army lists that have an advantage over this BAL (under the assumption that every list has a weakness). At a tournament with the majority of the lists having an advantage against the BAL, the BAL will not rank very well.

2) From #1 I have decided that it is more productive to determine what is being played and design a list with the goal of placing highly against these armies. This list would be the "Most Competitive List" (where consistently ranking highly is how competitiveness is measured). Ranking a list on its ability to always have a chance does not make it competitive. I would say the MCL is one that loses to the least commonly played armies, but easily wins against the most commonly played armies. Not having a chance to win against a uncommon army does not hinder the MCL's ability to win the tournament. Having an answer to all opponents but not being able to easily win the most common match-ups can be a disadvantage.


Shortened version: You don't fold a pair of Aces in poker just because there exists a hand that can beat this pair. Having a weakness does not make something uncompetitive. Play the odds.

Shortened version: You don't fold a pair of Aces in poker just because there exists a hand that can beat this pair. Having a weakness does not make something uncompetitive. Play the odds.

My counterpoint, to build on your poker analogy:

If you could choose your hand, why would you ever build towards anything less than a royal flush? Your army isn't "dealt" to you. It's up to you to make it the best it can be.

grankobot wrote:

Shortened version: You don't fold a pair of Aces in poker just because there exists a hand that can beat this pair. Having a weakness does not make something uncompetitive. Play the odds.

My counterpoint, to build on your poker analogy:

If you could choose your hand, why would you ever build towards anything less than a royal flush? Your army isn't "dealt" to you. It's up to you to make it the best it can be.

Because there is no royal flush list! That is what everybody would play. My point is play the list that will will the most against the current group of opponents. So what if it has a hard counter that it can not defeat? It still wins more often than not.

Yes there is, it's just that poker isn't a very good analogy

There's at least one "royal flush" for every army in my first column back on page one, and many of those armies can do more than one. The thing is that 40k is different from poker in that there are list wins and generalship wins. You don't win by just putting your army down.

Say two players of equal skill throw down, Vulkan vs Necrons. You all know how that's going to end. That's a list win.

Same armies, different players. The Necron player this time has years of experience on the Vulkan player. That's a generalship win.

The "royal flush" armies are designed to eliminate list wins and leave it to player skill. Armies in the second column can't build one of these, and always have a chance of getting rolled by an inferior player with a superior list.

Make sense? That's what I've been trying to say this whole time. If a poor player can beat you by having an army that can counter yours, then your army isn't competitive. If you lose because your opponent outplayed you, that's a whole different story.

This is an excellent point! So often when someone posts up an army list that is not a certified metanet list someone else will post up another list specifically tailored to beat it and proclaim the new list is no good because the heavily tailored list will beat it more than 9 times out of 10. If you feel inspired by a new list you have developed there is no reason not to build it because there is a specifically tailored list that can table it based upon mathhammered conjecture.

G

scarab5 wrote:

grankobot wrote:

Shortened version: You don't fold a pair of Aces in poker just because there exists a hand that can beat this pair. Having a weakness does not make something uncompetitive. Play the odds.

My counterpoint, to build on your poker analogy:

If you could choose your hand, why would you ever build towards anything less than a royal flush? Your army isn't "dealt" to you. It's up to you to make it the best it can be.

Because there is no royal flush list! That is what everybody would play. My point is play the list that will will the most against the current group of opponents. So what if it has a hard counter that it can not defeat? It still wins more often than not.

grankobot wrote:Yes there is, it's just that poker isn't a very good analogy

There's at least one "royal flush" for every army in my first column back on page one, and many of those armies can do more than one. The thing is that 40k is different from poker in that there are list wins and generalship wins. You don't win by just putting your army down.

Say two players of equal skill throw down, Vulkan vs Necrons. You all know how that's going to end. That's a list win.

Same armies, different players. The Necron player this time has years of experience on the Vulkan player. That's a generalship win.

The "royal flush" armies are designed to eliminate list wins and leave it to player skill. Armies in the second column can't build one of these, and always have a chance of getting rolled by an inferior player with a superior list.

Make sense? That's what I've been trying to say this whole time. If a poor player can beat you by having an army that can counter yours, then your army isn't competitive. If you lose because your opponent outplayed you, that's a whole different story.

So the fundamental flaw lies in YOUR definition of competitive. If you define the fastest sprinter as one who has the greatest speed per cm height the person is, then many people will beat Usain Bolt.

Bear in mind, not everyone share your weird view of what IS competitive.

"The "royal flush" armies are designed to eliminate list wins and leave it to player skill. Armies in the second column can't build one of these, and always have a chance of getting rolled by an inferior player with a superior list."

This sums up the whole post brilliantly!! Well said!

Another topic worth discussion are wether SM are an easy army to play.

I feel you have to determine what is meant by 'play'.
SM are easy to do reasonably well in, the codex can be quite safe.
Yet SM are harder to do very well in.
I think there are two main reasons for this: firstly all units can do many things, but should really only do one thing well, and beginner players usually struggle with this concept, thus they tend to just throw the closest unit at the target, which can work with SM, but very often doesnt. Secondly, most metagames around the world are highly inclusive of SM, and most enemies know how to face them, and their list likely contains mechanisms of dealing with the MEQ.
If a marine player can overcome these two main set-backs, a truly strong force can be produced -As the
SM codex literally has so many options.

Thats just what i feel anyway.

Not to thread jack but why would a Vulkan list auto win Vs a Necron list. Melta is terrible vs a Nec army. Everyone can go back to the poker argument. I just think the newer codexs have units (in general) at a bit lower cost in points hence the earlier the codex usually to more over priced the unit. DE being real exception. The points cost is a small difference, 5-15% IMO. After that its how the armies match up both on paper and after deployement. Then its how they are run and how the dice fall. Thats the beauty of this game, the match ups are limitless and hence there is no perfect build. Even if there was a perfect build

Green Blow Fly wrote:This is an excellent point! So often when someone posts up an army list that is not a certified metanet list someone else will post up another list specifically tailored to beat it and proclaim the new list is no good because the heavily tailored list will beat it more than 9 times out of 10. If you feel inspired by a new list you have developed there is no reason not to build it because there is a specifically tailored list that can table it based upon mathhammered conjecture.

This is very true. Ive seen this happen all the time.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Not to thread jack but why would a Vulkan list auto win Vs a Necron list.

That is what I was thinking. When he said we all know who would win in a game with Vulkan vs. Necrons my first guess was necrons should win it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:This is an excellent point! So often when someone posts up an army list that is not a certified metanet list someone else will post up another list specifically tailored to beat it and proclaim the new list is no good because the heavily tailored list will beat it more than 9 times out of 10. If you feel inspired by a new list you have developed there is no reason not to build it because there is a specifically tailored list that can table it based upon mathhammered conjecture.

This is very true. Ive seen this happen all the time.

You see this all the time with units and armies.

You see people say things like Thunder hammer terminators are better that harlequins, because in assault with each others the terminators would win. There are so many things wrong with comparing the two like the fact that Eldar don't have terminators, and it does not take into a lot of factors like Harlies can't be targeted in over 2d6" and they move through cover, and they move faster. etc.

I have seen winning lists posted and others thinking that they could make better lists but they do not put a lot of thought into how they have to make compromises and sacrifice certain units to get others.

The specifics aren't important. If it helps the point, pretend it says "good list" and "bad list"