You are all missing the point here. When you make these lists you're are taking the player out of the equation and holding the army up to how well it plays in the 6th edition rules.
What I mean by taking the player out is that the players are both of equal skill. Be it a dumbass, a casual or a pro, the armies should theoretically have the same statistics for wins or loses.
If you dont play competitively dont bother reading these lists because as everyone has pointed out, a good player will be a mediocre player with a stronger army many times until the point that mediocre player becomes a good/better player. This is just common knowledge to everyone.
You look at these lists and say, "Ok the players are on equal footing, which army will come out on top?" There are some merits to these kinds of lists for players who just want to play the game competitively.
Krueger though raises a valid point that one flaw with these armies are only as good as the mission their fighting on and you'd need to play x amount of games in each scenario to see who is king in each mission and deployment type. Then you accumulate all this data and it should show who is top dog over all. I'd love to see this done as I love looking at statistics and spread-sheets.
Might as well throw in my two currency as well and say DE could be tier 3 due to their ability to overwhelm nids. They cant really stand up to the tough stuff but they're definitely not a tier 4 army.
Even though you walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I'm there waiting... and your not coming out alive!
Last edited by Igni Ferroque; 10-10-13 at 07:58 PM.