# Best armies / Army tiers...where do SM place now?



## w0lfgang7 (Feb 10, 2013)

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 (Nov 12, 2012)

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 (Aug 11, 2011)

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


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

Suijin said:


> 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 (Jan 2, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jan 2, 2008)

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 (Mar 26, 2009)

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 (Aug 11, 2008)

Khorne's Fist said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> 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 



iamtheeviltwin said:


> (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 (Mar 26, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

Khorne's Fist said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2009)

Loli said:


> 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 (Aug 11, 2008)

MidnightSun said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2010)

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 (Jun 8, 2009)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

Wusword77 said:


> 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 (May 17, 2012)

Khorne's Fist said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2010)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> 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 (Jan 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Kreuger said:


> 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?"


There's no forwards or backwards to what I posted. 

You judge an army based on how one type of player can play it. 

If an average gamer played all of the armies, against other average gamers, which one would he win the most games with? That's how you create a tiered list, because it eliminates the variables.

Will my Corvette beat nearly every Mustang around Nürburgring in Germany? Sure. Will _I _beat Michael Schumacher if he has the Mustang and I have my Corvette? Probably not. But the Corvette is still the superior car in every way. 

However, if you give Schumacher _both_ cars, what does he win more races with? Look at the tournament winners. It gives a pretty clear picture what the best armies are at any given time. It isn't like suddenly all the Grey Knights players forgot how to win games, and there was a Tau and Eldar Renaissance. Those armies are just better in their current forms.


----------



## Igni Ferroque (Dec 7, 2010)

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.

Edit:

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.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Veteran Sergeant said:


> Will my Corvette beat nearly every Mustang around Nürburgring in Germany? Sure. Will _I _beat Michael Schumacher if he has the Mustang and I have my Corvette? Probably not. But the Corvette is still the superior car in every way.


You're comparing an American Muscle car and an all around sports car. It's apples to oranges. A corvette is designed to handle twists and curves while maintaining speed, while a mustang is designed for (mostly) drag racing and making that quarter mile time. Your taking the Mustang out of it's element, while putting the Corvette right where it was meant to be driven.

Would be better to compare something like a Cadi CTS and a BMW 5 series. Both designed to be sport sedans with similar capabilities. Most people would say the 5 series is the superior car but the driver would be the main determining factor on which car would win.



Igni Ferroque said:


> 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.


Except the listing still falls apart when you take different point levels, terrain, and missions into determining which books are good.

Just because 2 armies might with a good amount of games at 1850 points doesn't mean they will be as powerful/effective at 500 points.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> Except the listing still falls apart when you take different point levels, terrain, and missions into determining which books are good.
> 
> Just because 2 armies might with a good amount of games at 1850 points doesn't mean they will be as powerful/effective at 500 points.


That was exactly my point. To get any sort of statistically reliable result and develop a leader board you would have to conduct a series of games at the same points, mission, etc. As many variables as possible need to be controlled, leaving the remaining variables as army book and player skill.

And if the players play enough games within those parameters, then the variability of the players can be accounted for statistically. Eventually what remains is the quality of the army book.


----------



## Igni Ferroque (Dec 7, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> Except the listing still falls apart when you take different point levels, terrain, and missions into determining which books are good.
> 
> Just because 2 armies might with a good amount of games at 1850 points doesn't mean they will be as powerful/effective at 500 points.


Except the majority of international leagues follow the same points limits. There are tournaments that go for different points limits but the big tournies all follow the same formula. For example, the European Team Championship have a set points limit to compete in their competitions. Its one of the biggest, if not the biggest European league, so armies could be judged by that standard in Europe. The same can be done for other major tournaments in other continents. 

The end of the first post covers different scenario's. You just need to do the research and then you can list these army's with much more certainty who will do better at what and who is much more versatile.


----------

