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.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Eldar isn't a Codex. And the top tier part of Craftworlds involves Ynnari, which also isn't a Codex.

What are you talking about? The Eldar Codex came out months ago.

You are mistaken. There is no Codex Eldar.

Semantics. A top tier Eldar list includes units from the craftworld codex and ynnari stuff from the index.

Also, it’s normal shorthand to call craftworld Eldar just Eldar.

To be fair, the OP asks which codexes are most powerful. Most of the discussion here has been about which factions are most powerful - which is far more relevant in competition. Many, if not most of the top builds sample from across several sources.

Index Necrons are definitely bottom tier.

Karang029 wrote:
Not a single mention of space Wolves either sadday

Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Ok, thanks for the correction

I up the custodes, down the necrons, replace inari and eldars by craftworld and add in low tier: space wolfs and deathwatch

For the ork, someone says "mid tier". Do you agree?

Last tournament i went to, 108 people and orks came 6th.

Though was 134 or so storm boys, so hard to say if its the army which is good or the model spammed

No one owns 134 stormboyz though, maybe a few crazy guys in the world. If you have to proxy for having such a list I'd say that solution doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 petitflacheur wrote:
Ok, thanks for the correction

I up the custodes, down the necrons, replace inari and eldars by craftworld and add in low tier: space wolfs and deathwatch

For the ork, someone says "mid tier". Do you agree?

No, I think they're bottom tier. In the rock-paper-scissor game that 40k can be, they can win though. But if they do it's not because they're units are good and they have efficient combos but only because other lists weren't 100% TAC but focussed on countering the most competitive ones and don't expect to fight orks.

Armies that can't deal with ork hordes are only bottom tier ones, so I'd definitely consider them bottom tiers.

8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Yeah orks work by not doing what the meta does. People’s armies aren’t designed to take them on.

I’ve seen the stormboy swarm in the flesh at a practice tournament for the ETC. It’s reslly quite scary how fast it’s totally all over people. I don’t think there’s a lot that my marines could do to stop it - I’d have very little chance going second. His unit count actually isn’t crazy, so that’s a distinct possibility.

I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Yeah no joke. I was not motivated enough to compile that list, but thank you for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition Top 3 finishes by Ork armies at GT and Major events in the 2017 ITC season:

1st Overall Wet Coast GT 2017

3rd Overall Caledonian Revolution 2017

2nd Overall Rampager GT 2017

2nd Overall EastCon 2017

1st Overall Attack-X 2017

2nd Overall Warzone Atlanta 2017

That's more than Tyranids. And it's more than Tau, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons combined.

Orks are not low tier.

(Source: http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ )

Yeah no joke. I was not motivated enough to compile that list, but thank you for doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

I suppose you could make an argument for a codex with multiple tournament-winning builds being stronger than one that is a one-trick pony... both options seem reasonable, anyway.

Just going to chim in and say space marines are not mid teir. They belong with admech and greyknights. In a seperate - "to be excluded from any serious discussion about army power".

How can you honestly look at dark angels codex - read the strategems - the psychic powers - and rate them one army ahead of space marines in terms of power?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Karang029 wrote:
Not a single mention of space Wolves either sadday

Bottom tiers. It's an index army worse than regular SM. Less shooty but more choppy and the melee units are all quite expensive.

Space wolves are better than codex space marines.

 Tyr13 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

I suppose you could make an argument for a codex with multiple tournament-winning builds being stronger than one that is a one-trick pony... both options seem reasonable, anyway.

Lots of ways to respond to that.

Grey Knights have a lot of builds and they have won many smaller ITC tournaments (like the ones at a hobby shop where 8 players show up.) They're not going to win at a major, so I would not call them top tier.

Space Marine and IG soup lists consistently place in the top 10 at major tournaments, but not IG or Space Marines individually. The winning army combination is not from a Codex, it's from Codexes. Does that mean Codex armies are not top tier? Or maybe SM and IG should share the credit and both be second tier?

Eldar armies have a lot of troops from Index entries, for Ynarri and other units, and win a lot of tournaments. Does that mean Index + Codex armies are top tier? What tier is the index?

The more hairs we split, the less meaningful tiers become. 40k is a post-Codex game. You can combine detachments from different Codexes that outperform a straight Codex army. Which is absolutely great - you get to enjoy your models instead of being frustrated about the limitations of the old FOC.

I think we can all agree the higher the tier, the closer the armies would resemble an easy button. But Codex tiers don't really mean that much anymore, it's more about factions. The only real way to compare them is tournament results, and even that's horseshoes.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Usually, winning tournaments is what qualifies a Codex as top tier.

What other method are you suggesting? Losing?

I suppose you could make an argument for a codex with multiple tournament-winning builds being stronger than one that is a one-trick pony... both options seem reasonable, anyway.

Lots of ways to respond to that.

Grey Knights have a lot of builds and they have won many smaller ITC tournaments (like the ones at a hobby shop where 8 players show up.) They're not going to win at a major, so I would not call them top tier.

Space Marine and IG soup lists consistently place in the top 10 at major tournaments, but not IG or Space Marines individually. The winning army combination is not from a Codex, it's from Codexes. Does that mean Codex armies are not top tier? Or maybe SM and IG should share the credit and both be second tier?

Eldar armies have a lot of troops from Index entries, for Ynarri and other units, and win a lot of tournaments. Does that mean Index + Codex armies are top tier? What tier is the index?

The more hairs we split, the less meaningful tiers become. 40k is a post-Codex game. You can combine detachments from different Codexes that outperform a straight Codex army. Which is absolutely great - you get to enjoy your models instead of being frustrated about the limitations of the old FOC.

I think we can all agree the higher the tier, the closer the armies would resemble an easy button. But Codex tiers don't really mean that much anymore, it's more about factions. The only real way to compare them is tournament results, and even that's horseshoes.

Thats definitely true... though personally, I despise soup. Anything beyond an assassin or Inquisitor just feels... wrong to me. But then, I dont really play competitively either, so I dont really have much to add in that regard anyway.

My suggestion isn't losing but how about I can play with everything listed in the codex and not one build. Maybe I as a player and personal. Who's invested so much have a winning chance with other units. To be honest I doubt that's an unreasonable request to me orks aren't top tier cause I play them differently

 Tyr13 wrote:
Thats definitely true... though personally, I despise soup. Anything beyond an assassin or Inquisitor just feels... wrong to me. But then, I dont really play competitively either, so I dont really have much to add in that regard anyway.

You would hate the Inquisition / Deathwatch / Grey Knights / Sisters / Astra Militarum army I am working on right now.

So thick with fluff one must call it a stew. Will compete with pure Grey Knights for least useful, but it features the Throne of Judgement as a centerpiece.

ballzonya wrote:
My suggestion isn't losing but how about I can play with everything listed in the codex and not one build. Maybe I as a player and personal. Who's invested so much have a winning chance with other units. To be honest I doubt that's an unreasonable request to me orks aren't top tier cause I play them differently

I think this is fair, but it applies to almost everything anyone talks about when they talk about "top tier codexes". Like, there's a lot of crap in the Eldar codex. Mostly this idea of codex tiers is kind of silly in a world where GW is willing to buff and nerf individual units and rules. And I mean that it's silly for reasons beyond what techsoldaten points out -- that it should be super-factions like "IMPERIUM" and not codices we care about if we're going to care about anything like this at all.

Mostly I feel like people fight about codex tiers because they want there to be a perception that their faction needs buffing, or because they want to push back against a perception that their faction needs nerfing. One hopes that no one with any power over the process is paying any attention to this at all. This is obviously an unhelpful oversimplification of the state of the game.

There's just no reason to talk about Codex: Asuryani or whatever it's called as a "top tier codex". What people need to understand is just that Dark Reapers are incredibly good, especially in combination with certain stratagems and the Ynnari rules. That should be fixed, specifically. It's not "Eldar" warping tournaments, it's Ynnari with Dark Reapers. There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so, and which perhaps ought to be pushed in order to create a sense of faction identity (it's obviously a very Eldar-y unit). One could talk about the extent to which Alatoic and its ability to stack hit modifiers on Rangers and flyers and advancing grav tanks is unfair to gunline armies. That's all fair game, but it just seems not at all helpful to take all of that and then have an argument over whether it means that the codex is "top tier". Dark Reapers should be fixed and the other stuff should at least be looked at. But on the other hand there are a lot of things in the codex that badly need some love. Most of the unit choices are still pretty awful. Beyond points, three of the Craftworlds have pretty terrible traits and the Warlord Traits and Relics are unexciting to say the least. One hopes that if GW does a balance pass and hits Dark Reapers, they also lift up Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions. It's not actually a good codex, just a powerful one, and it's powerful on the back of a very small number of units and rules interactions.

I think I've pretty fairly summed up most of what's going on with the Eldar codex in a paragraph -- it's not hard. Surely anyone who cares enough about the game to be talking about it on a forum cares enough to understand this much about every codex that they want to argue about. But given that you have some concept of a codex that's merely as detailed as that, what's the point of trying to work out a tier for it? Lists might be top-tier, sure, and it's worth talking about exactly which lists are performing best. I feel like you'll actually get a lot more consensus doing this too -- I bet a lot more Eldar players will agree that Ynnari Dark Reapers is top tier than will agree that "Eldar" are top tier. Likewise you'll see a lot more Guard players willing to agree that Guardsmen are a problematic component of Imperial soup lists than will agree that "Guard" are too strong.

Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

ballzonya wrote:
I play orks and they are not top tier. Its on ongoing debate as to playing one build makes you top tier. 90% of their models are not good does that make it top tier no it doesn't.

Yes it does. 90% of the faction being trash doesn't matter if one unit is all it needs to crush everything else. If that was the case, Eldar wouldn't be high on anyone's lists either. Tier lists are concerned with factions being run at their absolute peak efficiency and at the highest skill levels. As poorly as they may be designed overall right now, they're still one of the best competitive forces right now.

 meleti wrote:
Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

I don't understand who you think you're arguing with. I don't see how my post could be interpreted as saying that Eldar lists are literally nothing but Dark Reapers. Is it your position that anything that shows up in a tournament-winning list is too good and should probably be nerfed? Are you upset that I didn't call out Guardians as something that GW should think about rebalancing? I admit it: I don't think that Guardians should be nerfed and I think that'd be a pretty silly position for someone to take.

I mean, I even mentioned grav tanks (which would include Wave Serpents -- actually they're the main ones I had in mind) and Rangers specifically as things that one could reasonably think are too good in certain circumstances/matchups. Did you read my post?

Eldar being built on the back of a couple units doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely everything else is worthless. There are other competent Eldar units, they're just heavily overshadowed by the big two, and without them aren't enough for Eldar to be a highly functioning force.

There are also a lot of really, really bad units in the Craftworld codex. Considerably more than there are decent ones. The Craftworld codex is actually pretty bad as a whole.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:
Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

I don't understand who you think you're arguing with. I don't see how my post could be interpreted as saying that Eldar lists are literally nothing but Dark Reapers. Is it your position that anything that shows up in a tournament-winning list is too good and should probably be nerfed? Are you upset that I didn't call out Guardians as something that GW should think about rebalancing? I admit it: I don't think that Guardians should be nerfed and I think that'd be a pretty silly position for someone to take.

I mean, I even mentioned grav tanks (which would include Wave Serpents -- actually they're the main ones I had in mind) and Rangers specifically as things that one could reasonably think are too good in certain circumstances/matchups. Did you read my post?

You said that Eldar are only playing two "very good" units. So yeah, I completely disagree. I think that entire army core is great. And much more than just the Rangers or the Wave Serpents, too.

 meleti wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:
Whoa. Do people think Eldar lists are just Dark Reaper spam, like 40 Dark Reapers or something ridiculous like that? Because that's just flat out wrong. Eldar are far from "Dark Reapers: the Army." If you like at any good Eldar list like the ones that placed at LVO or the ones that have won large tournaments since LVO, they tend to be very synergistic lists and yes, they do contain some Dark Reapers. But there's a lot of other working parts in those armies.

I mean, heck:

There's at least one other unit in there -- Shining Spears -- that's very good but plausibly not game-breakingly so

If you think Shining Spears and Dark Reapers are the only good units in the Eldar lists we see succeeding these days, you really ought to play more games against those Eldar. Guardians, Farseers, Spiritseers, Warlocks, Wave Serpents, Rangers, Autarchs, occasionally Eldrad... there's a lot more going on. And these aren't the cheap units that people are only taking for tax (those would be Kabalite Warriors). These are all very strong units that are essential to how Eldar lists function.

I don't understand who you think you're arguing with. I don't see how my post could be interpreted as saying that Eldar lists are literally nothing but Dark Reapers. Is it your position that anything that shows up in a tournament-winning list is too good and should probably be nerfed? Are you upset that I didn't call out Guardians as something that GW should think about rebalancing? I admit it: I don't think that Guardians should be nerfed and I think that'd be a pretty silly position for someone to take.

I mean, I even mentioned grav tanks (which would include Wave Serpents -- actually they're the main ones I had in mind) and Rangers specifically as things that one could reasonably think are too good in certain circumstances/matchups. Did you read my post?

You said that Eldar are only playing two "very good" units. So yeah, I completely disagree.

Okay, so yes, you might want to reread my post because I'm pretty sure you can't find this statement.

Edit: Wait, is this just you missing the context around "very good but not plausibly not game-breakingly so"? Like, I would hope that the other part of that sentence, and the end of the sentence, and the rest of the paragraph where I say that GW should look at them, makes clear to the reader that I'm picking out Shining Spears as something that very plausibly require nerfing, not that they're the only other unit besides Dark Reapers that could possibly qualify as "very good" by any definition. I mean, come on. Also note that I even introduced Spears as one of an indeterminate number of units that should be looked at, not as the only one. Though the main other one I have in mind is the Hemlock.

I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Probably not, which is why this is so weird. But I think you're misunderstanding where other people are coming from.

Actually I think this is a good example of why it's not useful to try to talk about a codex as a whole as being strong or weak or whatever. This doesn't mean anything. You say that it's not a weak codex because it's got a number of other units in it that you're generally pretty happy to have in a list but which won't be winning tournaments by themselves. Other people say that it's a weak codex aside from Reapers and maybe Spears for exactly the same reason -- it's got a number of other units in it that you can get good use out of but which you're not going to have much success with competitively without supplementing with the really OP stuff. This just seems like a glass half full / half empty thing to me. I think it's pretty plausible that you agree on almost all of the specific details with a lot of the people you're thinking of as expressing "pure nonsense"; you're just putting those all together into a judgment about the codex as a whole in a different way. But this judgment doesn't matter for anything!

That's why I think it's probably most useful to talk about the problematic elements specifically rather than trying to figure out what we ought to think about the competitiveness of the codex as a whole, somehow abstracted from any of the specific units in it. What should be nerfed, and by how much? What should be buffed, and by how much?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Probably not, which is why this is so weird. But I think you're misunderstanding where other people are coming from.

Actually I think this is a good example of why it's not useful to try to talk about a codex as a whole as being strong or weak or whatever. This doesn't mean anything. You say that it's not a weak codex because it's got a number of other units in it that you're generally pretty happy to have in a list but which won't be winning tournaments by themselves. Other people say that it's a weak codex aside from Reapers and maybe Spears for exactly the same reason -- it's got a number of other units in it that you can get good use out of but which you're not going to have much success with competitively without supplementing with the really OP stuff. This just seems like a glass half full / half empty thing to me. I think it's pretty plausible that you agree on almost all of the specific details with a lot of the people you're thinking of as expressing "pure nonsense"; you're just putting those all together into a judgment about the codex as a whole in a different way. But this judgment doesn't matter for anything!

That's why I think it's probably most useful to talk about the problematic elements specifically rather than trying to figure out what we ought to think about the competitiveness of the codex as a whole, somehow abstracted from any of the specific units in it. What should be nerfed, and by how much? What should be buffed, and by how much?

I don't think this thread is really intended to be a "what should be changed" discussion, that's more like one of those multiple GD threads floating around, and nothing every really comes out of those discussions anyway. Just a whole lot of people going to bat for their pet units getting points drops or rules changes, and arguing against everybody else's pet units. I envisioned it more as a quick look at what's good and what isn't, without getting into all the sticky details since we're talking about a dozen or more armies here.

But so far as being competitive without supplementing with Reapers, check out some of Sean Nayden's recent Eldar lists. No Dark Reapers. No Shining Spears. And he had a whole lot of success with those lists.

 meleti wrote:
I don't think good units need to be nerfed. I don't even want any Eldar units other than Reapers and maybe Spears to be changed in March. I just think the broader point (which has been expressed by other posters here) that Eldar so who have a weak codex buoyed by Dark Reapers is pure nonsense. If that isn't your position, then we probably agree on Eldar.

Avatar of Khaine
Autarchs that don't ride bikes
Most of the Phoenix Lords
Warlock Councils
Howling Banshees
Striking Scorpions
Shadow Spectres (not codex, but I'm sore)
Swooping Hawks
Windriders
Vypers
Warp Spiders
Falcons
Nightspinners
Support Batteries
Wraithlords
Wraithknights

All units ranging from mediocre to outright terrible.

 meleti wrote:

I don't think this thread is really intended to be a "what should be changed" discussion, that's more like one of those multiple GD threads floating around, and nothing every really comes out of those discussions anyway. Just a whole lot of people going to bat for their pet units getting points drops or rules changes, and arguing against everybody else's pet units. I envisioned it more as a quick look at what's good and what isn't, without getting into all the sticky details since we're talking about a dozen or more armies here.

But so far as being competitive without supplementing with Reapers, check out some of Sean Nayden's recent Eldar lists. No Dark Reapers. No Shining Spears. And he had a whole lot of success with those lists.

Yeah, I didn't think it was either. I posted originally because there seemed to be some confusion and fighting about what it means to be a "good codex", and I explained why you'd see these disagreements even between people who agree about all the details and then suggested that that shows that that's not a useful way to talk about the game.

Can you link some of these lists?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 meleti wrote:

I don't think this thread is really intended to be a "what should be changed" discussion, that's more like one of those multiple GD threads floating around, and nothing every really comes out of those discussions anyway. Just a whole lot of people going to bat for their pet units getting points drops or rules changes, and arguing against everybody else's pet units. I envisioned it more as a quick look at what's good and what isn't, without getting into all the sticky details since we're talking about a dozen or more armies here.

But so far as being competitive without supplementing with Reapers, check out some of Sean Nayden's recent Eldar lists. No Dark Reapers. No Shining Spears. And he had a whole lot of success with those lists.

Yeah, I didn't think it was either. I posted originally because there seemed to be some confusion and fighting about what it means to be a "good codex", and I explained why you'd see these disagreements even between people who agree about all the details and then suggested that that shows that that's not a useful way to talk about the game.

Can you link some of these lists?

LVO: https://i.imgur.com/E523kdz.jpg

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sean-Nayden-1st-Overall-Hammer-in-the-New-Year-GT-2018-.pdf

Both from January.

C4790M wrote:
No-ones seemed to touch on Genestealer Cults yet :(

I think it is somewhat hard to gauge where exactly GSC sits overall, as they have the unfortunate combination of being a relatively new army and one of the most expensive armies to collect which makes it difficult to optimize them. The second issue is that 8th more or less gutted the old 7th edition GSC Metamorph spam list which means anyone who was playing them competitively in 7th had to radically rebuild the army going in 8th.

For what it is worth I think with Chapter Approved they are just shy of being a mid-tier army as a standalone force, just they are held back by the lack of codex tricks (Stratagems, Traits, etc.) and a couple things that could stand to be a bit cheaper. With allies they are probably mid-tier, but both allies are very competitive on their own so it is a bit of a wash.