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.

Out of curiosity, what would players argue is currently the LEAST competitive army in 7th Edition, assuming no allies?

I recall playing 'Nids when the newest codex came out, and no formations, Etc... were in sight. I definitely had mountains of losses, but was also new to the faction, and was having fun with thematic/fluffy lists... so I didn't mind. Still, in retrospect, I realize that book came out and left 'Nids in a pretty rough place.

As of today... who holds the honor of "worst"?

Blood Angels.

/Thread.

Tyranids.

Imperial Guard

The are currently the worst performing army. The latest big GT had the best IG place 53rd.

At least Nids have a competitive list (FMC spam).

 CrownAxe wrote:
Imperial Guard

The are currently the worst performing army. The latest big GT had the best IG place 53rd.

At least Nids have a competitive list (FMC spam).

Aha... So both the top team countries who are avid users of either platoon death guard or tripple pask punishers with wyverns and conscript meatshields most be performing consistently bad then..

https://www.facebook.com/etchappenings/photos/a.626236024140332.1073741830.565658190198116/636829946414273/?type=1&theater
Oh wait!

Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

Nids are just bland as hell, but with Flyrants Mawlocs Biovores Venomthropes Exocrine and both the flyers before 7th nerfed them, we were never a bottom tier codex even before our formations (only one of which is even still viable), and anyone claiming we were on the level of BA Orks DA or CSM was failing at playing their dex right, which is no fault of the codex itself. Just because it's a challenge to play does not make it less competitive

 CrownAxe wrote:
Imperial Guard

The are currently the worst performing army. The latest big GT had the best IG place 53rd.

At least Nids have a competitive list (FMC spam).

Blood angels would like to have a few angry words with you. To be capable of winning, we have to play like space marines -1, and lose all our originality. We go to every game at a points handicap, combined with the fact our best units are all CC based make them start at even more of a handicap. What we do have thats doing well is everything marines have, but more expensive. I vould make identical lists from the two codicies and there will be a 2-300 point difference depending on units taken. Going into a game with a 10+% point handicap is never fun. I love BA. Always have. Started in 4th with eldar and BA, eventually Nids as well. Blood angels are the only one i have left, but honestly its frustrating to play at times. Ive defended them on many occasions but when i found out that Deldar release was out i just stopped. The oldest codex and its mose definately showing its age. Might not be as old as other codicies were when they finally got their update, but we;re in almost as bad a position as orks or-dare i say- Tyranids. Guard? Theyre lackluster. Thats all.

Also, sisters are doing better than we are. In the history of 40k how often could that be said of an army? Much less another Imperial army?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

May I ask if you know anything about ETC? Also, the teams have heavy users of IG.

 Zewrath wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

May I ask if you know anything about ETC? Also, the teams have heavy users of IG.

And how am i suppose to know those teams played IG in ETC? I'm a heavy user of Daemons but I play Necrons from time to time.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

May I ask if you know anything about ETC? Also, the teams have heavy users of IG.

And how am i suppose to know those teams played IG in ETC? I'm a heavy user of Daemons but I play Necrons from time to time.

So why exactly is it that you comment on IG in competitive performance when you don't provide anything to back your claims, other than a random GT with no reference? Meanwhile, the most competitive teams are consistently performing well, with several IG players on their team, scoring many points.

I now have posted evidence of IG's poor competitive standing (see below) but you still have yet to show the IG players were actually playing IG in tournaments either. A picture showing that Poland and Germany won isn't a picture showing that Poland and Germany played IG.

Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

Here was the tournament I was referring to for IG's poor competitive performance (BAO) http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

Blood Angels do pay more for their troops, but they can still kick ass. One of the top players we have at our store and he was the best on our ATC team is a Blood Angels players. He runs a full Drop Pod / Storm Raven army.
Their Dreadnaughts might be the best in the game. AV13, MM, Mag Grapple, Frag Cannons, DCCW. Drop 3 of those first turn in the backfield.
Then he runs Death Company in a Storm Raven.
Troop in a second Storm Raven.
Also they are next to get 7thed.

IG/AM can be very punishing.
AV12 Flyer with Lascannons and dirt cheap.
Troop Blob: 50 bodies, 5 SW, 5 HW, Priest, Commissar (or Lord). (Wolf Priest for S and Gs)
Tank Armies with gak tons of S8-10 Pie Plates, all at AV14.

 Sick Bag wrote:
Blood Angels do pay more for their troops, but they can still kick ass. One of the top players we have at our store and he was the best on our ATC team is a Blood Angels players. He runs a full Drop Pod / Storm Raven army.
Their Dreadnaughts might be the best in the game. AV13, MM, Mag Grapple, Frag Cannons, DCCW. Drop 3 of those first turn in the backfield.
Then he runs Death Company in a Storm Raven.
Troop in a second Storm Raven.
Also they are next to get 7thed.

IG/AM can be very punishing.
AV12 Flyer with Lascannons and dirt cheap.
Troop Blob: 50 bodies, 5 SW, 5 HW, Priest, Commissar (or Lord). (Wolf Priest for S and Gs)
Tank Armies with gak tons of S8-10 Pie Plates, all at AV14.

Hey lets be fair here. The vendetta stopped being cheap with the new codex and LR spam armies aren't great because blasts suck against vehicles and MCs, and are too slow to play objectives well.

Blobs though are still strong though.

 CrownAxe wrote:
I now have posted evidence of IG's poor competitive standing (see below) but you still have yet to show the IG players were actually playing IG in tournaments either. A picture showing that Poland and Germany won isn't a picture showing that Poland and Germany played IG.

He is basically telling you to look up the ETC tournament that happened around July time frame. That is the results of it.

ETC is pretty big tourny in Euro that attracts most of the worlds best players including some big names from the USA. A lot of the top teams had IG lists that preformed well and if I remember correctly Poland have a few IG players.

One of the more interesting things about this is that Torrent of Fire posted an article after yours basically talking about how Punisher Pask is awesome as hell, which honestly was kind of a no gak.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/5576/pask-bringing-the-punishment

It also highlights possibility of why US IG has been doing poorly is that everyone was using lists that were focused on huge blobs in the US. Maybe a stuck in the past mentality, but that is just speculation. I am by no means a tournament player so I don't have much comment on what works best in the power gaming side.


I am not siding with either of you or anything just pointing out he may have a point. While they have to been not doing very well in the a few tournaments, doesn't mean they are not competitive. Also it may indicate that they suffer worse than other armies from things like serpent spam that negates cover etc etc.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

Good one.

The two armies that I play are Blood Angels, and Imperial Guard. So far ( I don't play competitivly) my guardsmen have come out on top at least 3 times more often then my Angels.

But hey, one is a shooty army in a shooty edition, and the other is assault. Also, the Angel CC characters (like Dante and Mephiston) seem to be lacking in insta-death protection which is very annoying.

But eh, that's just another opinion for the fire.

No allies? I would say BA or DA mix. RW DA are pretty strong, but that's really the only tournament level competitive. BA are strong, but I think they do better as allies for their CC capabilities

 Zewrath wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

May I ask if you know anything about ETC? Also, the teams have heavy users of IG.

I think etc is a specific format and shouldn't be compared with normal rtts or gts.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

+1 to this. Although it's more like 15-20 years. Squats were axed when 3rd came out. Maybe before...

I don't play in tournaments, but for this edition I guess the worst faring armies would be the ones dedicated to CC? 7th seems to be all about the guns. So 'Nids, BA, and others whose best units are CC based.

As for Squats, well I'm planning on getting a small force to use in my 2nd Ed games. 500-750(ish) should suffice.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

May I ask if you know anything about ETC? Also, the teams have heavy users of IG.

I think etc is a specific format and shouldn't be compared with normal rtts or gts.

How come? In my opinion it's a benchmark of 40k competitive environment and has the least amount of AS I've ever seen in a major tournament.

Most games out and in tournaments are played ETC style, WFB even more then w40k.

 Zewrath wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Nothing in that picture says anything about them playing any army let alone IG

May I ask if you know anything about ETC? Also, the teams have heavy users of IG.

I think etc is a specific format and shouldn't be compared with normal rtts or gts.

How come? In my opinion it's a benchmark of 40k competitive environment and has the least amount of AS I've ever seen in a major tournament.

1. Army selection limitations.
There are 8 players on each team, and each of them must take a different primary faction. In normal tournaments, you are not prevented from taking SW just because your friend took them.

2. Pairings.
In normal tournaments you have no control over who you face. In the ETC, your captain (if he knows what he's doing) will be able to engineer favourable match-ups. This means that a lot of builds that are one bad match-up away from being tabled at a regular tournament, are suddenly viable at the ETC because the bad match-ups can be avoided.

3. Missions.
Love them or hate them (I, personally adore them), but the ETC missions strongly favour flexible armies with a lot of units. A lot of regular tournament missions (as well as the book missions) are more one-dimensional and thus more favourable to very aggressive or extremely passive builds, not the inbetween tactical build that IG does very well.

I don't think anyone is saying ETC is a bad set up, just that there is a lot of different variables for it to be enough to compare to standard 40k, different things might see much better luck there

Regardless, its a really small sample even if that wasnt the case so meh

 Thud wrote:

1. Army selection limitations.
There are 8 players on each team, and each of them must take a different primary faction. In normal tournaments, you are not prevented from taking SW just because your friend took them.

2. Pairings.
In normal tournaments you have no control over who you face. In the ETC, your captain (if he knows what he's doing) will be able to engineer favourable match-ups. This means that a lot of builds that are one bad match-up away from being tabled at a regular tournament, are suddenly viable at the ETC because the bad match-ups can be avoided.

3. Missions.
Love them or hate them (I, personally adore them), but the ETC missions strongly favour flexible armies with a lot of units. A lot of regular tournament missions (as well as the book missions) are more one-dimensional and thus more favourable to very aggressive or extremely passive builds, not the inbetween tactical build that IG does very well.

Hmm.. Does are indeed valid points. However, I still hold ETC in high regard, because I think their overall system puts the most amount of tactical play into 40K that I ever thought was possible.

I don't think the problem with IG is the inbetween build. IMO, IG suffers in tournament play from either:

A) IG player spams metal bawkses in order to become mobile and scoring in Maelstrom mission based tournaments. This hurts the IG player from sacrificing an enormous amount of firepower, because the metal bawks spam is expensive, the side armor is easy to hit for many of the mobile armies (hell, the front profile is so small that in most cases, you don't really need to be that mobile) and since GW decided they wanted to sell Tauroxes, they crippled the capacity of the once mobile pillbox and even upped the price for good measure. This metal bawks playstyle sacrifices a lot of your points that you could be spending on heavy support and gives you a relative small model count (for an IG army) that doesn't take a lot casualties before they starts to get crippled and lose their offensive capabilities.

B) IG player goes hardcore platoons of death and invests both in psychic and senior officer support. This expensive as hell and has the massive issue of wasting guns. Shooting vs tanks -> Lasguns wasted. Shooting vs infantry -> Lascanons wasted. The platoon(s) also requires leadership support, so there's the tax of Priest+Psyker+Senior officer AND THEN we can talk about the cost of 5x10 men with heavy weapons (with an additional tax of a PCS that you need to kit out, in order to not make them a waste of points). This also has the opposite problem of example A) in that it isn't able to score anything than what it isn't sitting on. This was strong in 6th, but took a fatal blow in 7th, mostly due to most tournament missions requires mobilty but also because the dirt cheap psyker became much, much, much less reliable and is now very easy to dispell.

C) Anti Air. Both A) and B) has these issues. Before anyone screams "VENDETTA!!!!" Consider the following:
A) Needs anti air, so they have the option of spending 340 points from a list requires them to spend a mandatory 815-1000 points in metal bawkes + special weapons ALONE. And that's a light version of metal bawkses, that gives you around 5-6 metal bawkes, and you need more AV 12 targets for target saturation. So you need your 800-1000 points of core bawkses, you need to deal with anti-air, the cheaper alternative lies in a crowded section and the expensive one lies in the fast attack option, but makes you crimininally short on points you need to spend on wyverns, manticores or other things to support your bawks spam with.
B) has a similar issue with costs. Those 1 or 2 plattons aren't cheap. In addition to buffing support to your platoons, you also need heavy support. You need wyverns for what your men can't reach (or wasting their shots vs tanks). You need the manticore for reasons that requires little explanation, so using Heavy support is out of the question. Quad-Gun? Who can fire them? You can only issue 1 order to a unit, so are you going to use the split-fire order on your expensive platoon or the ignore cover/monster hunter/tank hunter? What about mobile scoring units that can rush ahead, while your platoon(s) stay behind? Well, that checks in easily at 120+ points per choice. What about the conscripts that you also need in order to tie up units that wants to charge your expensive platoon(s), that unit also needs a priest, right?
So that leaves B) with expensive as gak platoons, expensive support, added with all the extra support you need in form of multiple priests, psykers and a unit of conscripts, added with the fact that the army needs expensive firepower support sitting in the heavy support section, which cockblocks your cheap AA unit, unless you want to cripple your army's firepower, so add in ALL those thing AND THEN realise that you're looking to invest 340 points worth of AA or leave it out and hope for a good matchup.

This doesn't make me hate playing IG as I'm a believer of the philosophy that all armies need weaknesses that you need to play around, it's just hard. The army is absurdly unforgiving but also very rewarding. My experience is that most tournament armies don't actually rely on mathhammer (despite popular belief) but on synergies and combos. IG usually just have loads of dice and little else, this isn't as bad a handicap as one would think but it tends to be a draining experience to play versus competetive lists as an IG player and even when you're winning you mostly never when by a major margin, which excludes many well performing IG lists from the top ladder tables.

Tyranids.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tyranids.

Wrong.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tyranids.

You know nothing Jim Solo.

I'd say blood angels, if only for the points handicap of the units. Once they get a new codex that will balance out