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.

While Nids beat IG a decent portion of the time, DE beat Nids. No one is claiming DE are above nids tho. Each army has some counter with lists in armies below them. For example, Nids can eat crons pretty easily. However, crons win all the major tourneys or comprise most of the top 5.

The meta is shifting towards more anti-MC. Nids can only run MC spam at this point. Therefore nids are becoming easier and easier to counter. Because of the anti-MC shift, guard are getting better since people are bringing less to counter AV14. Nids have no real way to adapt to this in a manner that keeps them in line to beat the armies they are currently strong against. Biovore spam is food to crons but is necessary to deal with tau. Currently nids are getting smashed between a changing meta and the necessity to compete against new armies. They just dont have the versatility to adapt, ironically, because of the horribly written codex.

IG trumps nids in the power scale

If we take only the strongest build, then I think the list should look like this:
1. Necrons
2. Tau (chance to take #1 over time)
4. Nurgle & Baledrakes
5. Grey Knights
6. Chaos Daemons (with the Flying Monster Circus)
7. Tyranids (with Biomancy Spam)
8. Imperial Guard
9. Dark Eldar
10. Orks
11. Dark Angels
12. Space Wolves
13. Blood Angles
14. Space Marines
15. Sisters of Battle
16. Black Templars
X+1. Eldar (too early to rank - probably around 7-8)

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
Wooa, woooa, I play crons and they are no way 1st unless you are playing with the bakery of death list and that shouldn't count!

Tell that to just about every tournament winner in the last year...they almost all play necrons with an ally, the ally varies, the necrons don't.

 zephoid wrote:
While Nids beat IG a decent portion of the time, DE beat Nids. No one is claiming DE are above nids tho. Each army has some counter with lists in armies below them. For example, Nids can eat crons pretty easily. However, crons win all the major tourneys or comprise most of the top 5.

The meta is shifting towards more anti-MC. Nids can only run MC spam at this point. Therefore nids are becoming easier and easier to counter. Because of the anti-MC shift, guard are getting better since people are bringing less to counter AV14. Nids have no real way to adapt to this in a manner that keeps them in line to beat the armies they are currently strong against. Biovore spam is food to crons but is necessary to deal with tau. Currently nids are getting smashed between a changing meta and the necessity to compete against new armies. They just dont have the versatility to adapt, ironically, because of the horribly written codex.

IG trumps nids in the power scale

Agreed. Tau kicked Nids in their manly parts, then Eldar rubbed their face in the dirt.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, wait, wait, wait... CD are worse than BT AND SoB...

wow, the Daemon players in your area must be really bad, I win most my games with the new 'dex.

Same here, just won a tournament last saturday. I tabled a CSM/Ork army, and made a Mech IG player quit before he got tabled. Out of all the games i've played with the new book i have lost maybe 3 times

I seriously wish threads like this would be on the ban list. They all start wirh pleas for objectivity, and then disintegrate into subjecrive arguments. Rarely does any good discussion start with "which is best?"

What's up with everyone ranking Blood Angels lower than Black Templars? Have they looked at what's in the BT Codex?

16 point marines with 1 point frag grenades and 2 point krak grenades.

Also, no whirlwinds, devastators, scouts, thunderfire cannons, psychers, or psychic defenses worth a damn.

Yep. Sounds legit.

 kronk wrote:
16 point marines with 1 point frag grenades and 2 point krak grenades.

Also, no whirlwinds, devastators, scouts, thunderfire cannons, psychers, or psychic defenses worth a damn.

Yep. Sounds legit.

But Terminators!!!!!1111!!!!oneoneeleventyone

They're good, but they can't make scout moves with fast tanks and lay down S6AP3 flame templates...

Nor can they deepstrike without scatter while carrying mini-meltas and such.

 kronk wrote:
They're good, but they can't make scout moves with fast tanks and lay down S6AP3 flame templates...

Nor can they deepstrike without scatter while carrying mini-meltas and such.

How about 70 points AV 10 skimmers with 2 HPs with CMLs? Best thing since sliced bread, right?!



We should probably stop this now, though, I think we've made our point.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What's up with everyone ranking Blood Angels lower than Black Templars? Have they looked at what's in the BT Codex?

You gotta remember, most threads like this are responded to by people with limited contact with some armies, and assuming that not seeing those armies equates to inferiority.

I'm just going to list the army strength between players at my local meta:
Sisters of Battle
Orks
Necrons
Tyranids
Space Wolves
Chaos Space Marines
Blood Angels
Dark Angels
Eldar
Black Templar

To clarify: Necrons and Black Templar have only shown up a couple times, Eldar hasn't been here since the update, and Sisters of Battle haven't lost a game yet that I've seen. (But are only played by me...)

I think that Codexes should not be based on tournament results. There are three reasons for this assertion:

One, is that 40k is a much better game at throwing dice with a friend than as a tournament game. Warmachine is built to be a great tournament game, but at times is a little wanting on the having a friend over for a beer and an epic battle. This is where 40k and FoW really find their mark.

Two, most 40k players don't play in tournaments or at least highly competitive events.

Three, spamming three Heldrakes and making lists based around that doesn't make a Codex good. It means they have a powerful model and their other options in that slot are clearly not as good. That is lackluster design.

My point is that a good Codex has solid units, that work well together, with flexibility, has few underpowered, uncompetitive units & a few shining stars. The Eldar Codex is a good example of a diverse Codex with lots of options. Banshees are the only unit that are really bad, whereas, it's debatable what is the best unit at the moment.

Daner0023 wrote:
I think that Codexes should not be based on tournament results. There are three reasons for this assertion:

One, is that 40k is a much better game at throwing dice with a friend than as a tournament game. Warmachine is built to be a great tournament game, but at times is a little wanting on the having a friend over for a beer and an epic battle. This is where 40k and FoW really find their mark.

Two, most 40k players don't play in tournaments or at least highly competitive events.

Three, spamming three Heldrakes and making lists based around that doesn't make a Codex good. It means they have a powerful model and there other options in that slot are clearly not as good. That is lackluster design.

My point is that a good Codex has solid units, that work well together, with flexibility, has few underpowered, uncompetitive units & a few shining stars. The Eldar Codex is a good example of a diverse Codex with lots of options. Banshees are the only unit that are really bad, whereas, it's debatable what is the best unit at the moment.

Don't forget point four: a good player can make a usable list from a poor codex better than a poor player can make one from an "ohmygawshhowawesomeisthis!" codex. And threads like this are usually digging for which books are considered easy winning lists.