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.

 Marsyas wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
1. Eldar
2. Daemons
3. Imperial Knights
4. Necrons
5. Space Marines
6. Tau
severe drop off in power level
7. Grey Knights
8. Tyranids
9. Space Wolves
10. Dark Eldar
11. Blood Angels
12. imperial guard
13. Sisters of Battle
14. Orks
15. Chaos Space Marines
16. Dark Angels
17. Harlequins

No clue where skitarii fall as I've yet to face them or see them in a tournament, probably low as they have very limited options and are extremely easy to counter.

I dunno about those rankings. For example: Harlequin general power level is low, but they have certain combos in their list that can allow them to punch WAY above their weight class in ways that, say, Orks and CSM just can't.

Is that why orks and chaos marines both had a primary detachment in the top 12 of Adepticon and harlequins didn't have a single detachment present anywhere in the top 32?

 Toofast wrote:

How many players were in those RTTs? Now how many of those were top players using the latest type of cheese? If dark eldar just require a good player to win tournaments, does that mean every player who's taken DE to a GT since 7th was released were just bad players? I haven't seen them finish in the top 3 of a GT in all of 7th except as eldar allies, mostly for baron when he still existed. I tend to put more faith in results from 200-300 person tournaments attended by top players from all over the country and the world than I do in results from 16 person tournaments at your local comic book store attended mostly by people just wanting to spend a day gaming with their fun/fluffy builds.

Don't get too spun up; he enjoys saying instigatory things to get a reaction.

But let me ask you a question. In 200-300 person GTs, do you think the top 25 finishers made it there because of their codex, or do you think most of those players would have been in the top 25 regardless of the codex they play?

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

How many players were in those RTTs? Now how many of those were top players using the latest type of cheese? If dark eldar just require a good player to win tournaments, does that mean every player who's taken DE to a GT since 7th was released were just bad players? I haven't seen them finish in the top 3 of a GT in all of 7th except as eldar allies, mostly for baron when he still existed. I tend to put more faith in results from 200-300 person tournaments attended by top players from all over the country and the world than I do in results from 16 person tournaments at your local comic book store attended mostly by people just wanting to spend a day gaming with their fun/fluffy builds.

Don't get too spun up; he enjoys saying instigatory things to get a reaction.

But let me ask you a question. In 200-300 person GTs, do you think the top 25 finishers made it there because of their codex, or do you think most of those players would have been in the top 25 regardless of the codex they play?

They play the books that give them the best chance to win. There's a reason most of the top players use the top 6 armies in my list, and some combination of those armies has won every GT since 7th was released with the exception of LVO 2015 which was won by 5 flyrants. No, I don't think those players would've made it to the top tables with chaos space marines. Nick Nanavati said he almost took pod marines to Adepticon but in hindsight he's glad he didn't because he would not have won the tournament without the list he brought. Yes, good players would do better with bad armies than bad players. However, even the best players can't overcome a crappy codex against a competent general with a better codex. That's why you often see an ork or CSM army doing well after day 1, but finish out of the top 12. Once they're put against players of equal skill using armies like eldar and daemons, they just can't overcome the limitations of the army any more.

On average I would say the RTTs were between 20-30 people.

I don't really do GTs as I have a newborn, but those tourneys I placed in were chick full of gravstar, serpent spam, tau , marine bike lists.

My Dark Eldar list is very perfected and since its a rare army, a lot of people don't know how to approach them.

Fair enough, just curious. Since it's completely unprovable, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Although I wish I had the time and money to waste on large tournaments. I'd happily pit a Freakshow list against any tourney winning army.

(Edited for smilies. Sorry, that came off way douchier than I meant it to.)

Tyranids aren't rock bottom anymore. Those new toys gave them quite the help.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Fair enough, just curious. Since it's completely unprovable, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Although I wish I had the time and money to waste on large tournaments. I'd happily pit a Freakshow list against any tourney winning army.

(Edited for smilies. Sorry, that came off way douchier than I meant it to.)

I don't need to prove my results to you, lol nor do I need to lie about winning a 25 man local tourney. I know how I did, and how sweet my 1850 list is.

I simply commented because too often Dark Eldar gets labeled as bad due to ignorance.


It's a very strong army. And has done me VERY well at the tourneys I take them to.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Fair enough, just curious. Since it's completely unprovable, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Although I wish I had the time and money to waste on large tournaments. I'd happily pit a Freakshow list against any tourney winning army.

(Edited for smilies. Sorry, that came off way douchier than I meant it to.)

I don't need to prove my results to you, lol nor do I need to lie about winning a 25 man local tourney. I know how I did, and how sweet my 1850 list is.

I simply commented because too often Dark Eldar gets labeled as bad due to ignorance.


It's a very strong army. And has done me VERY well at the tourneys I take them to.

Wasn't talking to you, dude. I was responding to Toofast, the dude who responded to me. Take a chill pill.

And I KNOW it's a strong army, bro. That's precisely what I've been saying.

I'm skeptical about everyone's placement of Daemons; they're so heavily dice-dependent they could be massively powerful or utterly useless depending on how well you roll.

Also Dark Angels probably belong above CSM, because of the interaction with other Imperial armies and IA2v2 being a little stronger than IA13.

Top Tier:
New Eldar
Necrons

High Tier:
Tyranids
Daemons
Space marines/Imperials (When detachments are not limited)

Mid Tier:
Daemonkin
Tau
Everyone else


Low Tier:
Orks
Dark Eldar
Harlequins
Admech
SIsters

I feel as if people don't take into consideration the player behind the models when it comes to theses "Rankings" I have lots of great strategists at my club and local(ish) tournaments who annihlate everything with Orks and Grey Knights. We even have a quite good Ravenwing(Couldn't bring myself to speak of the rest of that army.) player who also players Sister. I personally play 'Crons and 'Nids and like to think I'm competent at this game but I only do average.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm skeptical about everyone's placement of Daemons; they're so heavily dice-dependent they could be massively powerful or utterly useless depending on how well you roll.

Also Dark Angels probably belong above CSM, because of the interaction with other Imperial armies and IA2v2 being a little stronger than IA13.

When you play screamer star that barely depends on summoning and has 2 units that each require 864 wounds on average to remove from the table along with a 24" possible movement and AP2 melee attacks, it isn't very dice dependent. It's only dice dependent if you roll a 1 twice in a row. At that point your squad is down to only 23 wounds...

 Toofast wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm skeptical about everyone's placement of Daemons; they're so heavily dice-dependent they could be massively powerful or utterly useless depending on how well you roll.

Also Dark Angels probably belong above CSM, because of the interaction with other Imperial armies and IA2v2 being a little stronger than IA13.

When you play screamer star that barely depends on summoning and has 2 units that each require 864 wounds on average to remove from the table along with a 24" possible movement and AP2 melee attacks, it isn't very dice dependent. It's only dice dependent if you roll a 1 twice in a row. At that point your squad is down to only 23 wounds...

You still need the Grimoire and castings of Cursed Earth to go off for it to work.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm skeptical about everyone's placement of Daemons; they're so heavily dice-dependent they could be massively powerful or utterly useless depending on how well you roll.

Also Dark Angels probably belong above CSM, because of the interaction with other Imperial armies and IA2v2 being a little stronger than IA13.

When you play screamer star that barely depends on summoning and has 2 units that each require 864 wounds on average to remove from the table along with a 24" possible movement and AP2 melee attacks, it isn't very dice dependent. It's only dice dependent if you roll a 1 twice in a row. At that point your squad is down to only 23 wounds...

You still need the Grimoire and castings of Cursed Earth to go off for it to work.

Both of which have above a 50% chance to go off and 1 can be re rolled with Kairos. When I face that list, they have the 2++ re rollable 75% of the time. Not exactly a shot in the dark there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and if they don't get the 2++ with re rolls they have a 3++ re rolling 1s. Not exactly a giant step down in durability.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:


I don't need to prove my results to you, lol nor do I need to lie about winning a 25 man local tourney. I know how I did, and how sweet my 1850 list is.

I simply commented because too often Dark Eldar gets labeled as bad due to ignorance.


It's a very strong army. And has done me VERY well at the tourneys I take them to.

Good for you. Now that we know DE are the best at some random store in the middle of nowhere we can get back to actual power standings.

At present, I think people overestimate the importance of the "general" in 40k.

The current level of imbalance means player skill only comes into effect in games where the armies are of roughly comparable power levels. Eldar versus Marines or non-flyrant Tyranids isn't a scenario where player skill matters much - merely determining when the non-Eldar gets tabled - turn 3, 4 or 5.

The game rewards lists and codex/detachment choice, and at certain levels the game can reward player choice - strictly structured games, tournaments where everyone is using the best cheese they can get their hands on, these are scenarios which enable player skill to matter, but at the end of the day that's totally secondary in 7th edition.

People put Dark Eldar low not because they don't know how to use them, but when pitting their best against others best, it rarely goes well for them. The firepower available in most competitive armies will blow Dark Eldar off the table with near impunity - they're an army which rewards tactical finesse in a wider game which doesn't, hence being rather unpopular. Their whole design doesn't mesh with this edition, and everything they do Craftworld Eldar do flatly better (and cheaper in many cases).That's the reason people rate SM quite high; most of that codex is not anywhere near the same tier as Daemons, Eldar, Tau and so on, but they have a few very potent deathstars they can make; their absolute best against someone else's remain effective. I rated them lower than most myself as without Centurions or Tigurius/Loth the power level drops dramatically - and I never use either, so personal bias entered the equation.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
At present, I think people overestimate the importance of the "general" in 40k.

The current level of imbalance means player skill only comes into effect in games where the armies are of roughly comparable power levels. Eldar versus Marines or non-flyrant Tyranids isn't a scenario where player skill matters much - merely determining when the non-Eldar gets tabled - turn 3, 4 or 5.

The game rewards lists and codex/detachment choice, and at certain levels the game can reward player choice - strictly structured games, tournaments where everyone is using the best cheese they can get their hands on, these are scenarios which enable player skill to matter, but at the end of the day that's totally secondary in 7th edition.

People put Dark Eldar low not because they don't know how to use them, but when pitting their best against others best, it rarely goes well for them. The firepower available in most competitive armies will blow Dark Eldar off the table with near impunity - they're an army which rewards tactical finesse in a wider game which doesn't, hence being rather unpopular. Their whole design doesn't mesh with this edition, and everything they do Craftworld Eldar do flatly better (and cheaper in many cases).That's the reason people rate SM quite high; most of that codex is not anywhere near the same tier as Daemons, Eldar, Tau and so on, but they have a few very potent deathstars they can make; their absolute best against someone else's remain effective. I rated them lower than most myself as without Centurions or Tigurius/Loth the power level drops dramatically - and I never use either, so personal bias entered the equation.

I think I get what you're saying. Essentially, people are basing their rankings on the cheesiest build they know of? (Not trying to be insulting. That is what you're saying in a nutshell, yeah? Or did I misinterpret?)

I factored in overall power level of everything in the codex along with the cheesiest build possible from each book. Eldar clearly win out in both aspects. Using only the second criteria, Tyranids for example would be higher as 5 flyrants is difficult to deal with. Using only the first criteria they would've placed much lower as running nids without dakka flyrants is a good way to get tabled. I also looked at 7th edition tournament win % after I made my initial list to see if anything was way above or below where I had them. Unsurprisingly, the list I came up with matches up very closely with tournament win %.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, using 1 tournament alone is a bad indicator of an army because certain tournaments have FAQs or ban lists that can end up heavily skewing the numbers. For example an invisibility nerf can really hurt SM because they rely on it so heavily. Armies like daemons give no feths about invisibility because they all have an invuln save and at high levels of play usually a higher, re rollable invuln.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

A.) don't play them

Feels like the same issue as Sisters. People think they are weak because no one plays them, and the people that do and post on here (me among others) cry about them. What they are missing is that we're not crying that our codex is weak as a whole. We're crying about those plastics and the fact that the sisters codex has no diversity as everything is a bolter nun with different points cost, so you might as well take the cheapest one.

But the lists that we can build are not bad.

I generally consider a codex's strength by the number of powerful builds it can make versus the number of non-competetively viable builds it has as well as how powerful its best builds are.

Very monobuild codexes are considered to be weak even if they have that one great build because there's no versatlity; if someone can counter that one trick you're screwed.

Meanwhile armies with options flying out the arse like the Imperium of Man (if taken as essentially a megacodex due to everyone being battle brothers) and the Eldar (particularly with allies) can make lots and lots and lots of very potent builds, and even the Necrons who don't have any battle brothers are still very flexible, versatile, and of course have great power builds.

Tyranids don't get any allies worth a damn and don't synergize with anyone at all so they kind of lose the versatility contest by default once allies enter the picture.

I play in New England, which tends to hae a very competitive meta.

I tend to out class in all phases of the game my opponents with Dark Eldar. They're extremely good.

I wouldn't put them at top 3, but I would place them 4-6 of the top armies.

That's based on 2 years of playing the army with less than 10 losses.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I play in New England, which tends to hae a very competitive meta.

I tend to out class in all phases of the game my opponents with Dark Eldar. They're extremely good.

I wouldn't put them at top 3, but I would place them 4-6 of the top armies.

That's based on 2 years of playing the army with less than 10 losses.

No offense, but you pretty much just described the opposite of a competitive meta.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

I tend to out class in all phases of the game my opponents with Dark Eldar. They're extremely good.

Even the psychic phase?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Dark Eldar are a tricky army, and when played well, will win a lot of games, just from the "Oh crap! They are already in my deployment zone?" panic they can cause.
They are my main army.
I play them all the time, and win all the time.

that being said, saying they are top 6 is laughable.

Any Dark Eldar player that constantly takes top 3-4 in tournaments would consistantly take top 1-2 with Eldar or Crons.
It is the player, not the army.

Dark Eldar generals apply a handicap to themselves just by picking up the codex and saying "I like these guys!"

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
While I'm more than willing to admit there's a huge power boost to the new Eldar, and the latest 'nid dex was a nerfbat to the gonads, I think these lists are pretty good evidence that most people interpret how easy an army is to master as being the same as how powerful it is.

Really? I think it shows how many people never think about allies when doing these lists (probably because it's too complicated).

I play tyranid, I have no allies other then other tyranid

 Anglacon wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

I tend to out class in all phases of the game my opponents with Dark Eldar. They're extremely good.

Even the psychic phase?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Dark Eldar are a tricky army, and when played well, will win a lot of games, just from the "Oh crap! They are already in my deployment zone?" panic they can cause.
They are my main army.
I play them all the time, and win all the time.

that being said, saying they are top 6 is laughable.

Any Dark Eldar player that constantly takes top 3-4 in tournaments would consistantly take top 1-2 with Eldar or Crons.
It is the player, not the army.

Dark Eldar generals apply a handicap to themselves just by picking up the codex and saying "I like these guys!"

Sad to say, but I agree. Dark Eldar just don't have enough umph in their book. They have some nice stuff, sure, but all their good stuff is pretty much Coven now, which sucks for the other units that people like.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think its a matter of people playing them wrong, but I think a lot of people look at the codex and aren't sure how to go about it (and so don't start) or have a couple bad experiences and quit. Alternately, they see someone learning the army and assume all those losses mean it's bad. God knows I had a couple months when I first started where I lost almost every initial game, horribly. (Since they were small games I usually asked for a rematch, and oddly enough won almost every time.) It's a very unforgiving army that can feel underpowered when you're mastering it.

But every list that puts Tyranids ahead of Dark Eldar has me making that raised-eyebrow-lemon-mouth face of confusion.

People that say Tyranids are awful are just jealous that we get to eat everyone when End Times happens and the rest of the fleets finally get here. Just sayin.

I'm laughing at the underestimation of sisters. Just helps me out at events all the more.

Top:

Eldar

Upper-Mid:

Necrons
Space Marines
Tau
Tyranids (Flyrants, yes)
Daemons

Mid

Blood Angels
Imperial Knights


Low-Mid

IG/AM
Tyranids (non-Flyrants)
GK
Dark Eldar
Orks
Sisters


The suck

CSM
Dark Angels

Also, haven't Tyranids been doing really well at competitive events?

Sorris wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think its a matter of people playing them wrong, but I think a lot of people look at the codex and aren't sure how to go about it (and so don't start) or have a couple bad experiences and quit. Alternately, they see someone learning the army and assume all those losses mean it's bad. God knows I had a couple months when I first started where I lost almost every initial game, horribly. (Since they were small games I usually asked for a rematch, and oddly enough won almost every time.) It's a very unforgiving army that can feel underpowered when you're mastering it.

But every list that puts Tyranids ahead of Dark Eldar has me making that raised-eyebrow-lemon-mouth face of confusion.

People that say Tyranids are awful are just jealous that we get to eat everyone when End Times happens and the rest of the fleets finally get here. Just sayin.

They aren't awful, though. Flyrants are absolutely incredible. With FW stuff, they become a real issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Also, haven't Tyranids been doing really well at competitive events?

Very much so. The builds with the Flyrants are nuts.