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.
sand.zzz wrote: Tyranids are junk status huh? Does anyone here even play 40k?
Triple flyrant lists are destroying nearly everything in sight.
with LoW being table legal now i can take a contempor mortis with tl kheres ASc's and blast him out of the sky. or you could play orks and force them to ground at -1. theres lots of nasty hard counters to flyers out now that 7th is letting us bring FW and all the new AAA tanks. flyrants are almost a non issue. tyranids face the issue of being a horde army loaded full of monstrous creatures in a BRB about MSU's and field armor. the nids need to basically play unbound or their going to get blasted apart/out maneuvered/ synapse exploited. and the second their synapse bubble is popped and their venomthropes are turned to ash all thats left is the crying. the nids codex is totally worthless, you couldnt pay me to field that book!
Amusingly completely false. But I'm obviously not going to convince you - I'm sure all the battle reports plus personal experience is just the opponent being a bad player.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
The last 2 comments summed it up perfectly. I beat my friends daemon factory last night with my Blood Angels at 1850. The internet apparently thinks this is impossible. There are a few armies that are OP right now, but in general 7th edition has balanced the game, cutting back on tau and eldar shinanigans, nerfing FMC spam a bit, and bringing other armies into the fold. If i absolutely HAD to rank it, this is how it would be.
Top tier: eldar, tau, daemons, astra militarium, necrons
Upper mid tier: space marines, tyranids, dark eldar, grey knights
Lower mid tier: dark angels, blood angels, orks, space wolves
Low tier: chaos space marines, sisters of battle
Edit: these are actually in order, left to right.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/23 17:43:35
th3maninblak wrote: The last 2 comments summed it up perfectly. I beat my friends daemon factory last night with my Blood Angels at 1850. The internet apparently thinks this is impossible. There are a few armies that are OP right now, but in general 7th edition has balanced the game, cutting back on tau and eldar shinanigans, nerfing FMC spam a bit, and bringing other armies into the fold. If i absolutely HAD to rank it, this is how it would be.
Top tier: eldar, tau, daemons, astra militarium, necrons
Upper mid tier: space marines, tyranids, dark eldar, grey knights
Lower mid tier: dark angels, blood angels, orks, space wolves
Low tier: chaos space marines, sisters of battle
Edit: these are actually in order, left to right.
I am not sure how orks get put where they are when the codex has been out on a week or two.
Yea, its too early to tell with orks.
I've played vs. the new otk book, couple things I took away:
the new walker with meks in it is near unkillable. you'd have to pour a lot of fire into it in one turn. and it killed a landraider in cc. it was some lucky dice but still.
th3maninblak wrote: The last 2 comments summed it up perfectly. I beat my friends daemon factory last night with my Blood Angels at 1850. The internet apparently thinks this is impossible. There are a few armies that are OP right now, but in general 7th edition has balanced the game, cutting back on tau and eldar shinanigans, nerfing FMC spam a bit, and bringing other armies into the fold. If i absolutely HAD to rank it, this is how it would be.
Top tier: eldar, tau, daemons, astra militarium, necrons
Upper mid tier: space marines, tyranids, dark eldar, grey knights
Lower mid tier: dark angels, blood angels, orks, space wolves
Low tier: chaos space marines, sisters of battle
Edit: these are actually in order, left to right.
not too far off, but id put daemons lower on the list, and orks much higher now with the new codex and supplement
I dont think "power levels" are the deciding factor at this point for anything, save BASW, and SOB
Yeah it probably is. That was more based off initial assessments than anything else. I do think that the game is balanced enough that anything down to the lower mid tier armies can compete with even top tier lists.
I do think that power levels matter, but not nearly as much as a sound list and good generalship. The only top tier armies that my BA and my friends DA ravenwing have trouble with are eldar and guard. Even those games are very winnable. CSM have taken a few lumps in the new edition, and sisters are all but forgotten, so those are the only 2 armies that really hamper your ability to win. And where does everyone think orks need to be?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/23 20:06:15
ionusx wrote: with LoW being table legal now i can take a contempor mortis
Contemptor Mortis is an Elites choice.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
I'd think we run into the problem of "not enough data with the new rules set" along with "every tournament is doing a different format" which would make crowning a top tier army (or bottom tier) rather difficult.
I might be biased but SW are probably the most under rated army. Yes, it's a really old codex. No, we don't have access to some of the cool SM toys. However, I've only lost 5 league games in the last 2 months with my SW and I've been playing 2-3 games a week against good lists and experienced opponents. Tau beat me every time I play them, necrons have beat me once, and eldar beat me once. You just have to spam GH in pods, long fangs with missiles and a Lascannon to split fire at the heavy stuff, and rune priests. I would say eldar, tau and daemons are top tier with everything else having an equal chance to beat each other with tournament style lists and good generals.
Really the ranking lists shift and are subject to change, especially depending on what you're playing (Maelstrom and non-maelstrom). That said, I think the army with the most toys to deal with problems are probably Eldar. Still, it's hard to rank, because certain builds can be so very potent, depending on the army.
But in terms of powerful tools to work with, Eldar seem the army with the most options.
It might be of interest to this conversation. But basically, the data shows that the only statements that can be really supported with data are that "Grey Knights, Dark Angels, Tyranids, Eldar, Space Marines, and Necrons, are better than Orks and Imperial Guard". The rest of the Top 14 armies don't differ from one another. I also included my post in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
These results look quite cool. Unfortunately, I didn't attend the BAO this year. Too much going on and my army isn't even halfway painted yet.
I am currently working on my PhD in research psychology / cognitive neuroscience. When I see data I have unreasonable urges to do analyses. The Torrent of Fire database is too cool. I'd like to share a few analyses I ran on the games played today for fun. For my first pass, I decided to address the question of whether particular armies achieved more or less Battle-Points than each other. This is really an age old question in the gaming community. Are certain armies stronger than others? More likely to win games? To achieve more Battle-Points?
Methods
First, a bit about the methods I decided on. You are allowed to skip this part if you want. I included in my analyses every game (344 games) that was played today (3 games per individual). The structure of the data is nested and is therefore dependent. That is, one individual played three games and it is important that we maintain that information in our analyses and not collapse across individuals, or even avg. within an individual. This will allow us to account for some of the 'noise' between individuals. That is, some players might just be better than other players. The second consideration. was that my variable of interest was 'Battle-Points'. Battle points as a variable ranges from 0 to 10 (per game) and is therefore discrete (there are no values of 5.4 or 1.3 for example) and possibly non-normal. I thought it would be good to correct for the properties of this 'count-data' (that is, counts of battle points '1, 2, 3.. 5.. etc') using a Poisson distribution. In order to respect the structure of the data (mutli-level / nested) and the nature of the dependent variable (discrete values), I used a multi-level Poisson regression model estimated using maximum likelihood (estimated in SAS using PROC Glimmix).
Results
The first thing of note is that the random intercept was significant. σ02 = .06860, SE= 0.02021. What this means is that we can say that it is probably the case (in this data) that some individuals score more Battle-Points than others. This seems obvious on the one hand, but it could have been the case that something like player skill didn't matter - what mattered was the army you brought.
Now what is important is the estimates for each Army.
There was also a significant effect of 'Army'. That is, some armies did significantly better than others.
Here you can see the estimated Mean Battle Points a person is expected to achieve with a particular army on an average game during the BAO. The estimates are all significant, which is to say they are different than zero.
So, for example, if you played Grey Knights in the BAO, you are expected to achieve 5.923 Battle Points per game. If you played Orks, you are expected to only achieve 2.38 BP's per game.
Here are the plotted estimates. Unsurprisingly, the data is very similar to what chipstar1 posted.
Next, I ran mean comparisons between each of the armies to see whether some armies are expected to score more BP's than other armies. Given that is 120 different comparisons, I thought it was important to correct for multiple-comparisons because we are likely to have some significant differences between armies purely by chance. With the data 'thresholded' in this way, there are only a few significant differences between armies.
What this tells us is that Tyranids, Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Grey Knights, did better than Orks and Guard. What this also tells us, just as importantly, is that there is no statistical difference between the top 14 armies. This is good news and suggests that some semblance of balance exists between armies (poor Guard and Orks :( What happened to you guys today?). Now, with more data, there may actually exist differences between a wider range of armies, but at least in the BAO, there was no statistical difference. So what this tells us is that it is unreasonable to say that Grey Knights are the best, or Tyranids, or that Blood Angels suck, or whatever, even though they scored the highest amount of Battle-Points.
Anyway, for next steps, I want to see if there are differences between using Battle-Points versus Win-Loss-Draw. Some armies might be favored by the Battle-Points format.
My fantasy is to get information about the lists used in tournaments such as these. That would allow us to see whether taking lots of Obj. Sec. troops helps you win games, or spending lots of points in Heavy Support is good, for example.
Hope you enjoyed the minor breakdown. I really should be working on my dissertation proposal instead, but it's too easy to procrastinate.
next gen marines wrote: Elder
Necrons
Tau
Grey Knights
Space Marines
Astra militarum
Daemons
Space wolves
Tyranids
Orks
Chaos
Dark Eldar
Dark Angels
1. It's spelled Eldar 2. RW makes DA pretty much top tier 3. this was a dead thread and you brought it back to life. Necromancy is heresy and you know what happens to heretics, don't you?
7000 pts 1000 pts 2000 pts 500 pts 3000 pts
Crimson Devil wrote: 7th edition 40k is a lot like BDSM these days. Only play with people you know and develop a safe word for when things get too intense. And It doesn't hurt to be a sadist or masochist as well.
xSoulgrinderx wrote: No. but jink is cover and if the barrage its center they wont be getting cover
It's a necro however it's good to see how things change in a year. IMHO the current rankings are
Tier 1
Eldar- because IA 11 just gave them a huge bump with things like 185 point warp hunters dropping 3d+1 str d blast barrage all over the place on an AV12 fast skimmer with cover and invul saves and doesn't require line of sight to fire. And that's just one of several wtf moments from that book.
Tau- depending on how the community rules coordinated fire, if they don't get crazy special rule shenanigans for the whole army then they are a solid tier 2.
Demons- because they still pretty much control the psychic phase and have the most potential freebies
Space marines- MSU with free transports and librarian conclave or white scars bikers with new and improved cover ignoring grav command squads
Dark Angels- because rerolling biker cover saves (until they run into cover ignoring tau)
Space wolves- wolf riders still punch in the taint
Tier 2
As mech/skitari/knight- seriously only this one detachment is competitive and really only with a delivery system like drop pod ally, throw in a culexus assassin for every imperium players answer to psychic armies
Necrons- strong army with a decent decorian however they haven't really placed well or won anything significant
Tyranids- flyrants
Demonkin- more freebie units
Grey Knights- all is well and good until they die horribly in a gate and mishap
Tier 3
Everyone else
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/10/29 16:07:26
gungo wrote: It's a necro however it's good to see how things change in a year. IMHO the current rankings are
Tier 1
Eldar- because IA 11 just gave them a huge bump with things like 185 point warp hunters dropping 3d+1 str d blast barrage all over the place on an AV12 fast skimmer with cover and invul saves and doesn't require line of sight to fire. And that's just one of several wtf moments from that book.
Tau- depending on how the community rules coordinated fire
Demons- because they still pretty much control the psychic phase and have the most potential freebies
Space marines- MSU with free transports and librarian conclave or white scars bikers with new and improved cover ignoring grav command squads
Dark Angels- because rerolling biker cover saves (until they run into cover ignoring tau)
Space wolves- wolf riders still punch in the taint
Tier 2
As mech/skitari/knight- seriously only this one detachment is competitive and really only with a delivery system like drop pod ally, throw in a culexus assassin for every imperium players answer to psychic armies
Necrons- strong army with a decent decorian however they haven't really placed well or won anything significant
Tyranids- flyrants
Demonkin- more freebie units
Grey Knights- all is well and good until they die horribly in a gate and mishap
Tier 3
Everyone else
Switch Necrons and daemons and your right.
Space Marines: Jacks of all trades yet masters of GRAV CANNONS!!!.
My Star Wars Imperial Codex Project: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641831.page It has 7 HQs, 2 Troop types with Dedicated Transports, 5 Elite units, 5 Fast Attack units, 6 Heavy Support units, 2 Formations with unique units not in the rest of the codex, and 2 LOW choices.
‘I do not care who knows the truth now, tomorrow, or in ten thousand years. Loyalty is its own reward.’ -Lion El' Jonson
gungo wrote: It's a necro however it's good to see how things change in a year. IMHO the current rankings are
Tier 1
Eldar- because IA 11 just gave them a huge bump with things like 185 point warp hunters dropping 3d+1 str d blast barrage all over the place on an AV12 fast skimmer with cover and invul saves and doesn't require line of sight to fire. And that's just one of several wtf moments from that book.
Tau- depending on how the community rules coordinated fire
Demons- because they still pretty much control the psychic phase and have the most potential freebies
Space marines- MSU with free transports and librarian conclave or white scars bikers with new and improved cover ignoring grav command squads
Dark Angels- because rerolling biker cover saves (until they run into cover ignoring tau)
Space wolves- wolf riders still punch in the taint
Tier 2
As mech/skitari/knight- seriously only this one detachment is competitive and really only with a delivery system like drop pod ally, throw in a culexus assassin for every imperium players answer to psychic armies
Necrons- strong army with a decent decorian however they haven't really placed well or won anything significant
Tyranids- flyrants
Demonkin- more freebie units
Grey Knights- all is well and good until they die horribly in a gate and mishap
Tier 3
Everyone else
Switch Necrons and daemons and your right.
For beer and pretzel players at your local club yes for winning tournaments nope.
Necrons are easy to play because the units are so extremely durable naturally but haven't placed well or won anything of note however demons are very dominant in a good players hand.
Within each tier, these are in no particular order.
Top Tier: Daemons, Eldar, Space Marines
Upper Mid Tier: Dark Angels, Tau, Necrons, Tyranids
Lower Mid Tier: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Orks, Astra Militarium
Bottom Tier: Chaos Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar
It seems that a lot of these ranking list, created by people are based on one or 2 high powered, eye catching units like thunderwolf cavalry.
Spam units, and deathstars, don't indicate a decent codex.
If you can build a solid TAC list, that is able to cope with pretty much anything that's put down, in eternal war or maelstrom, then you have a decent codex.
Raw killing power is not game winning anymore.
For example Ork MANZ in the Bully Boyz formation, combined with the blitz brigade, giving 5 scouting battle wagons, 15 meganobz with killsaws, chucking out 45 ws5, str 9, ap2, armourbane attacks on the charge, with a mega armoured big mek for 4++ for everything within 6" will take down everything on the table, upto and including full sized Titans.
That's a helluva deathstar that is often overlooked, as it's not often played.
But that's not the be all and end all of orks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/31 09:05:00
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: It seems that a lot of these ranking list, created by people are based on one or 2 high powered, eye catching units like thunderwolf cavalry.
Spam units, and deathstars, don't indicate a decent codex.
If you can build a solid TAC list, that is able to cope with pretty much anything that's put down, in eternal war or maelstrom, then you have a decent codex.
Raw killing power is not game winning anymore.
For example Ork MANZ in the Bully Boyz formation, combined with the blitz brigade, giving 5 scouting battle wagons, 15 meganobz with killsaws, chucking out 45 ws5, str 9, ap2, armourbane attacks on the charge, with a mega armoured big mek for 4++ for everything within 6" will take down everything on the table, upto and including full sized Titans.
That's a helluva deathstar that is often overlooked, as it's not often played.
But that's not the be all and end all of orks.
By your reckoning, only Eldar and White Scar SM are top tier, as those are the only codexes that can stand alone while still providing a viable TAC list. Which means everything else not consider garbage is 2nd tier,
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
If you think that only Eldar and WS can field a viable TAC list, that's upto you.
How do you score the codexs then, and why?
What's the non-subjective scale used to rank them? Because theoretically you should be able to work it out, otherwise it's just subjective opinion and personal preference.
I was just pointing out that most armies can put out a deathstar/ or can spam powerful units if they like. It shouldn't be the only method to assess the power level of a codex.
Synergy is also very important, and often overlooked in favour of raw power.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I'm ranking each army based on standard tournament winning including all available sources including campaigns, supplements, fw, and any available dataslate that's allowed in standard tournaments.
If I were ranking an army just on its codex only that would be a different list and not very useful. Pretty much everything is allowed in tournaments now up to Titan class Superheavies.
I'm also basing that list on any top tier list those armies can create with thier books. This is why I said war convocation is a tier 2 list whereas ad mech or skitari by itself are not very good.
My listing is tier 1 armies who win tournaments regularly, tier 2 armies who place well in tournaments and win occassionally, tier 3 armies armies who don't place well normally. As a person who plays orks, yes bike star and mega nobs do well in beer and pretzel clubs but they don't win tournaments normally without crazy luck on the ork players side including bad opponents dice, favorable match ups, etc. not saying they can't win tournaments it's just not a reliable army list.
r_squared wrote: If you think that only Eldar and WS can field a viable TAC list, that's upto you.
How do you score the codexs then, and why?
What's the non-subjective scale used to rank them? Because theoretically you should be able to work it out, otherwise it's just subjective opinion and personal preference.
I was just pointing out that most armies can put out a deathstar/ or can spam powerful units if they like. It shouldn't be the only method to assess the power level of a codex.
Synergy is also very important, and often overlooked in favour of raw power.
You said, "if you can build a solid TAC list". Their are only two armies that can build solid TAC lists, all other armies have to specialize or ally to achieve a decent "Take All Comers" list.
If you feel different, despite your statement, please post the armies by tier you feel are tier 1, 2, and 3.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Out of curiosity, what do you guys consider the "Daemon Top Tier armies"? I always see them being ranked highly, but I feel like their Deathstars are becoming less good thanks to more D and Stomps, and they don't really have a MSU list that works. Sure, Summoning is a big thing, but I don't really know any tourney players that utilize it all that much.
The only Daemon list I've seen topping recently has been the D-Thirster with Psychic Support (Invis/Grim/Endurance), but that's honestly a gimmick and once people start accounting for it I don't see it going much farther.
What I've found is that Daemon armies are really effective in smaller games, especially when SM armies and their variants are the most popular. Playing with my BA at 1,250pts and under, I'd get creamed every time. Up the points to 1,850 and it becomes a lot less one sided. I've found this with Orks, too.
Horrors are always going to be a pain to deal with, and the amount of buffs that can be put on some of the Greater Daemons makes them very hard to put down.
That's just my experience though. I'm sure there's more opinions and answers out there from more knowledgeable players.
3,500 (and building) ASM 3,000 Blood Angels 1500 Eldar (abandoned)
AoS - Beastclaw Raiders, Ironjawz, Night Goblins, and Ogors - Destruction remains unvanquished!
5,000
I included in my analyses every game (344 games) that was played today (3 games per individual). The structure of the data is nested and is therefore dependent. That is, one individual played three games and it is important that we maintain that information in our analyses and not collapse across individuals, or even avg. within an individual. This will allow us to account for some of the 'noise' between individuals. That is, some players might just be better than other players. The second consideration. was that my variable of interest was 'Battle-Points'. Battle points as a variable ranges from 0 to 10 (per game) and is therefore discrete (there are no values of 5.4 or 1.3 for example) and possibly non-normal. I thought it would be good to correct for the properties of this 'count-data' (that is, counts of battle points '1, 2, 3.. 5.. etc') using a Poisson distribution. In order to respect the structure of the data (mutli-level / nested) and the nature of the dependent variable (discrete values), I used a multi-level Poisson regression model estimated using maximum likelihood (estimated in 
7000 pts 
1000 pts 
3000 pts
