[w0lfgang7]

Some of the typical army rankings that I've seen lately are listed below. Has the new SM codex been out long enough to rank them appropriately yet?
Tier 1
Eldar
Tau

Tier 2
Necrons
Daemons

Tier 3
Tyranids
Dark Eldar
Dark Angels
Imperial Guard
Grey knights
Space wolves
Chaos space marines

Tier 4
Orks
Blood angels
Sisters of battle

Unknown
Space Marines (next question, are the various chapters all in the same tier?)

 

[iamtheeviltwin]

I think despite some people's overestimation of the power of Grav Guns, the new SM codex will be firmly in that (rather wide) 3rd tier. Near the top I am sure...Some builds will perform well, but in the end they are still Space Marines: Jack of All Trades, Masters of None.

(Although, in my opinion Tau are overrated...such a one dimensional army has too many exploitable weaknesses)

 

[Suijin]

A friend who plays daemons would argue that tier 2 placing (meaning more like lower tier 3).

 

[Nordicus]

A friend who plays daemons would argue that tier 2 placing (meaning more like lower tier 3).

And I would argue that they are placed firmly in tier 2, as I have yet to loose with the army.

A list like the above is hard to make, as it all depends on the player. I have a brother who plays Tau, who just won his first match after 15 defeats from the likes or both Necron, SM, Chaos Space Marines and even Orks.

If you're talking strictly tournament I will shut my trap, as I have yet to be engaged in that scene.

(EDIT: Ding 400th post)

 

[humakt]

The funny thing about these tier lists is that they don't always make sense. I find that people who play what has been classed 4th tier armies, know the armies very well and can get a lot of wins with them.

As for Marines, I think it depends on the list that is being taken, they have a lot of variables within the list that make them hard to place just yet. It will take a few months for the 'killer' lists to be created and an idea of their placement to be judged.

 

[Khorne's Fist]

Not a fan of lists like these. More often than not the player makes the difference not the army. List choice plays a huge part of course, but if married with a solid plan and a good player any "lower tier" army could face rape anything above it. These lists are way too subjective, as you attest to yourself by putting demons up there just because you haven't lost with them.

 

[humakt]

This is a very valid point Khorne, and Eldar and Tau being Tier one may be more to do with them being the new kids on the block and less to do with the power in the codexes themselves.

 

[Loli]

I'm in agreement. Maybe in a strictly competitive view this list has merit - I don't play competitive so I don't know -, but generally I think this I flawed. Simply because of the player. People who have been using their armies for years and know the ins and outs of their 'lower tier' army can beat some times easily the upper tiers.

My Nids at 750 - 1000 do damn well against Tau. My Sisters have fun at 750.

But regardless I don't think Marines will get beyond 2nd tier because the are too general. Could be wrong. Though I do think Grav is overated.

 

[Wusword77]

Not a fan of lists like these. More often than not the player makes the difference not the army. List choice plays a huge part of course, but if married with a solid plan and a good player any "lower tier" army could face rapeanything above it. These lists are way too subjective, as you attest to yourself by putting demons up there just because you haven't lost with them.

:goodpost:

Given that cover, missions, and dice rolls all play a factor and are beyond the players control (to say nothing of the generals ability) no codex would 100% guarantee victory for a player.

 

[MidnightSun]

Not a fan of lists like these. More often than not the player makes the difference not the army. List choice plays a huge part of course, but if married with a solid plan and a good player any "lower tier" army could face rapeanything above it. These lists are way too subjective, as you attest to yourself by putting demons up there just because you haven't lost with them.

No. Give Tony Kopach a Sisters of Battle Codex with no Allies, and give his clone an Eldar Codex, and then get him and his clone to fight each other. The Eldar player will win 9/10 times.

Roughly how I'd do it:

Tier 1
Eldar
Tau
Imperial Guard (with/as Allies)
Necrons

Tier 2
Space Wolves
Space Marines
Grey knights

Tier 3
Tyranids
Dark Angels
Daemons
Chaos Space Marines

Tier 4
Orks
Dark Eldar
Blood Angels
Sisters of Battle

(Although, in my opinion Tau are overrated...such a one dimensional army has too many exploitable weaknesses)

Really? They have excellent Shooting and Movement phases (or movement in other phases), which are the two most important aspects of the game (yeah, assault's cool, but not as good as shooting).

Midnight

 

[Loli]

No. Give Tony Kopach a Sisters of Battle Codex with no Allies, and give his clone an Eldar Codex, and then get him and his clone to fight each other. The Eldar player will win 9/10 times.

Roughly how I'd do it:

Tier 1
Eldar
Tau
Imperial Guard (with/as Allies)
Necrons

Tier 2
Space Wolves
Space Marines
Grey knights

Tier 3
Tyranids
Dark Angels
Daemons
Chaos Space Marines

Tier 4
Orks
Dark Eldar
Blood Angels
Sisters of Battle



Really? They have excellent Shooting and Movement phases (or movement in other phases), which are the two most important aspects of the game (yeah, assault's cool, but not as good as shooting).

Midnight

Dark Eldar aren't that low, if they are 4 then they are borderline 3/4.

 

[Nordicus]

These lists are way too subjective, as you attest to yourself by putting demons up there just because you haven't lost with them.

I think you misunderstood my post - I wrote that these lists are subjective as well, in response to his original post. The reason why i put the daemons over tier 3, was as a example as to how subjective these lists are.

In my experience it's always the player, never the army. So to clarify, we are totally agreeing on this

 

[MidnightSun]

Dark Eldar aren't that low, if they are 4 then they are borderline 3/4.

Dark Eldar certainly didn't use to be that low, agreed, but I'd say they're pretty bottom-tier in 6th. Too much fragility, not enough actual killing power.

Midnight

 

[Wusword77]

No. Give Tony Kopach a Sisters of Battle Codex with no Allies, and give his clone an Eldar Codex, and then get him and his clone to fight each other. The Eldar player will win 9/10 times.

Given how different all the armies play it's hard to say that.

At the end of the day Tier listing falls apart because you can't take a "tier 1" army book and guarantee an average player a victory over another average player with a "tier 4" book. You can't.

 

[Kreuger]

The only way a tiered rankings list like this makes sense is if it is the result of a (semi)controlled statistical experiment.

Not all armies perform equally well on all missions and at all points levels. We would need to make those control variables in the experiment.

For example, if we were to say that at X points, playing only one mission, at a constant game length, with a set type of terrain . . .

AND

We had a large enough sample size, perhaps 100 players per army, each registering more than 10, 20, or more games, then we might be able to make a case.

Given a consistent environment with many games, with enough players, the variance between player skill would be reduced. We would start to see the statistical value of one army/codex showing above other armies as we can remove the value of the player from the equation. Because clearly a good player with a weak codex can still out-play a mediocre player with a powerful codex.

 

[Mossy Toes]

The closest we get to that is the "state of the meta" posts on BoLS and the like, dissecting the quantities of armies brought to tourneys, I daresay.

 

[Khorne's Fist]

At the end of the day Tier listing falls apart because you can't take a "tier 1" army book and guarantee an average player a victory over another average player with a "tier 4" book. You can't

:goodpost:

 

[Veteran Sergeant]

Not a fan of lists like these. More often than not the player makes the difference not the army. List choice plays a huge part of course, but if married with a solid plan and a good player any "lower tier" army could face rape anything above it. These lists are way too subjective, as you attest to yourself by putting demons up there just because you haven't lost with them.

Yeah, but that's why you just rank the army on an average.

The question is, will a really good player win more games with a really good Ork list, or a really good Tau list?

That's your answer.

 

[Kreuger]

Yeah, but that's why you just rank the army on an average.

The question is, will a really good player win more games with a really good Ork list, or a really good Tau list?

That's your answer.

I think you have this backwards. Good players can win with most armies. But a more powerful codex would allow bad players to win more often.

The question should be,"will a bad to mediocre player win more with Orks or tau?"

 

[Orochi]

Lists like these are incredibly subjective and do little more than annoy people.

Every army works differently with every person.

EG, I'd quite happily declare that with my Dark Eldar or Eldar (using an apex list) I'd probably be incredibly hard to beat.
Yet, give the the dreaded Air-Cavalry or Leaf-Blower Guard armies, I'd probably under-perform massively due to having no experience with either.

Thing with this game is you are playing a fellow player's tactics with the army they choose to embody and execute them with. You are NOT playing an army with a strict, singular way to play.