# Which 40k armies are the most competitive?



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Which armies do you find to be the most competitive?

I was thinking of getting a new army, but could not decide.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Top Tier: IG, SW, BA

Mid Tier: SM, Orks, Tau, BT, Nids, CSM, Eldar

Bottom Tier: Crons, Chaos Demons, Daemon/Witch Hunters

Unclear Tier: DA (with new update), DE


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Scathainn pretty much hit the nail on the head.

However i would be tempted to put Tau in the bottom tier.
Dark Angels are almost a mid-tier army now with the new FAQ.

Still to early to call on the Dark Eldar, however i believe they will fit somewhere between top-mid tier. Not quite as powerful as the top-tier codices, but they seem to be ahead of most of the mid-tier codices.
Once people start to figure out their strengths/weaknesses (and any changes to the metagame) we will better understand where they fit.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Imperium armies may take a hit depending on if the new GK codex changes or eliminates allies. Competitive IG especially get big boosts from allied Mystics.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Scathainn said:


> Top Tier: IG, SW, BA
> 
> Mid Tier: SM, Orks, Tau, BT, Nids, CSM, Eldar
> 
> ...


Same, but BA aren't top tier. Top tier is IG followed by SW with BA being at or close to the top of the second tier. DE is mid tier, low mid tier, but mid tier none the less.



KingOfCheese said:


> Still to early to call on the Dark Eldar, however i believe they will fit somewhere between top-mid tier. Not quite as powerful as the top-tier codices, but they seem to be ahead of most of the mid-tier codices.Once people start to figure out their strengths/weaknesses (and any changes to the metagame) we will better understand where they fit.


Eh, my prediction is low to mid range second tier, definitely not the cream of the crop on B team though. Their codex is a good, well written to be sure, and all the entries are usable, but none are really great. They just aren't that good.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

the one you play well, since there is no such thing as "tiers"


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> the one you play well, since there is no such thing as "tiers"


Agreed.


In saying that, the whole Tier thing I think is based on an armies ability to be played by a rookie with no real grasp of tactics and still have a chance of winning due to the strength of that armies 'cookie-cutter' list/lists.


Oh and BTW you can all bugger off, as Chaos Daemons aren't a low tier army.

They are random, which is completely different and someone who knows how to use them can minimize some of the risks ... so there.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> the one you play well, since there is no such thing as "tiers"


True. 

I can play well, and actually win, with a 25-40 models Daemonhunters army. The army does not matter, it is the one that controls it... You army can have 9 tanks, but to what use are they if they can not see the enemy who is hiding behind big damn buildings? And when they get there they are blown up by a melta gun...And after soon you find that the 1000 points you spent on the bastards went up in smoke, and you will soon find that your infantry is getting crushed by a Grey Knight grandmaster and his retinue of Terminators, who deep struck right into your lines...


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

D-A-C said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> In saying that, the whole Tier thing I think is based on an armies ability to be played by a rookie with no real grasp of tactics and still have a chance of winning due to the strength of that armies 'cookie-cutter' list/lists.


unfortunatly winning due to the list as any skill level player does not exist according to competetive players, I've mentioned it before and had my head bitten off by competetive gamers screaming that the list is not important.

though I'm sure they will turn round and say thats exactly what tiers means, just to be hypocrites :laugh:


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> unfortunatly winning due to the list as any skill level player does not exist according to competetive players, I've mentioned it before and had my head bitten off by competetive gamers screaming that the list is not important.
> 
> though I'm sure they will turn round and say thats exactly what tiers means, just to be hypocrites :laugh:


Lol I've just had my had bitten off my competitive gamers, period.


I think the fact is certain codices are strong in an all comer enviroment where you will face 3+ opponents whose lists and armies you don't see before hand.

They are strong because they have options and units that are strong regardless of the opponent such as for example Long Fangs.

So you can then max out on these units and stand a very good competitive chance, even with poor tactical acumen.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

doesn't matter. If you hate playing your army then you will lose everytime recardless of the results. Play what you want and if you play well and the dice gods vavour you then any army can be a Chuck Norris of the Gaming world


----------



## Creidim (Jan 6, 2011)

ive seen a dudes pure GK army run through a turney IG army only losing two GK and yet everyone says their uncompetitive, pick an army and if your any good you can make it work, take sisters for example...given a low rating yet when used by someone with a bit of skill they can be lethal


----------



## Creidim (Jan 6, 2011)

jaws how did u turn calgar into a chaos spawn? :S


----------



## Zjoekov (Jan 11, 2011)

Splitting into Tiers is kinda pointless; current 40k is too balanced for that. 

Assuming that you know how to play them, I would say these armies are top competative:
All loyalist Marines, IG, Tyranids.

Sisters of battle and Dark Eldar I don't know at the moment. 
Eldar and Tau are a little bit too dependant on the dice to make them consitently perform well, but I would still call the competative overall. 
Orks...to a certain level yes; they tend to colapse against too many armies on the highest level of play though.
Chaos is a bit the same as Orks; competative to a certain degree. They simply lack the tools for the highest levels of play.

Basicly the only ones which are just bad: Deamonhunters and Necrons. Doesn't mean that you can't win against bad players with those armies, it does mean you will lose against a good player with a proper army.


Not to sound rude btw; but asking this question means that choosing a competative army won't really help you a lot... without understanding the 'why' behind it; it's kinda pointless. It also affects the competativeness of an army to a great degree: With a solid IG/Wolves build your chances are higher (when you aren't that good as a player) than with a solid Tau/Eldar build although when both properly played the difference isn't nearly as much anymore.

It's also where most of the whining comes from: Some armies are just so much easier to play that it makes them look (even) more competative.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Tau aren't as competitive in 5th as they were in 4th. Their bread and butter:

Hammerheads - about 35 points too expensive for the new rules
Devilfish - 30 points too expensive
Fire Warriors - 1 point too expensive with rifles, 2 points too expensive with carbines

Crisis suits are the only competitive unit in the whole codex now.

The rest of the book is utter shite.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Creidim said:


> ive seen a dudes pure GK army run through a turney IG army only losing two GK and yet everyone says their uncompetitive, pick an army and if your any good you can make it work, take sisters for example...given a low rating yet when used by someone with a bit of skill they can be lethal


I sure as hell agree!


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Doelago said:


> I sure as hell agree!


Hmmm, I have to disagree about the current daemonhunters. Anecdotal evidence does not make an army competitive, and for the GK to take on an experienced IG player losing only two models he must have given up his firstborn to the dice gods. The scenario is a possible outcome, but highly improbable.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Tiers exist withint he game as tiers are clearly the relative strengths of an army when played by players of equal skills. A player may do well with Wtich Hunters but thatd oesn't not make Witch Hunters mid or top tier, it just means that players has elevated them through skills. That same player coul dhave done better with a higher teir army, thats what it means.


----------



## steamius (Dec 9, 2010)

I will say top 3 are
space wolves
eldar
space marines


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Scathainn said:


> Top Tier: IG, SW, BA
> 
> Mid Tier: SM, Orks, Tau, BT, Nids, CSM, Eldar
> 
> ...



Just switch Tau and Chaos Daemon's positions, and you've got my opinion.

Chaos Daemons are one of those armies that many people claim are uncompetitive, but regardless they keep doing very well at many tournaments, and have won Ard Boyz 2 out of the last 3 years. The winning armies at Ard Boyz for the past few years were:

2008: Chaos Daemons (Fate Crusher)
2009: Imperial Guard (Leaf Blower)
2010: (3 winners, since they started having Ard Boyz at 3 different locations) Chaos Daemons, Imperial Guard, Chaos Marines

Chaos Daemons still come in as mid-tier not because of overall power, but because they do very well against other competitive armies, since most competitive armies these days are prepared for mechanized opponents, not a close combat focused army where everything has eternal warrior and an invulnerable save.

Tau, on the other hand, are low tier. They can still do well in the right situation, but they fold up far too easily in close combat to stand up against competitive armies.

I consider Dark Angels low tier, simply because their units cost more than the other Space Marine chapters, for usually no benefit at all. Even Deathwing armies are inferior to Loganwing (Space Wolves with Logan), or SM Salamander armies with lots of TH + SS terminators.

Dark Eldar are either mid-tier or high-tier. I'm not quite sure yet. At this point it's unclear if they're either really difficult to beat, or if most people just don't know the best way to defeat them yet.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

mynameisgrax said:


> Tau, on the other hand, are low tier. They can still do well in the right situation, but they fold up far too easily in close combat to stand up against competitive armies.


Agreed on the tier, but it has nothing to do with close combat. That is a side effect of simply not having enough models on a table because 'Heads and 'Fishes are 30+ points too expensive, Fire Warriors 1-2 points too expensive for 5th and everything else except Crisis Suits being junk.

This means the average army will waste 250-500 points per 1500 points of army. And I'm not even joking.

Tau can't win tournaments anymore and that's a fact. EXCEPT <1,000 points tournaments where you have nothing but XV8 and drones. Maybe.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Tau can win events, just not the shitty current ones. They do a decent enough job of squeezing wins through. Its when they need to massacre that they fall apart.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Interesting point on Tau model count, Metalhandkerchief. I think part of their problem is that you have to compare them to the Imperial Guard, and IG clearly wins out in regards to infantry, costing less than half that of a fire warrior. IG also wins out when you compare devilfish to chimeras, and hammerheads to Leman Russes. The IG simply gets a LOT more bang for the buck.



ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Tau can win events, just not the shitty current ones. They do a decent enough job of squeezing wins through. Its when they need to massacre that they fall apart.


Good point. Competitiveness, after all, isn't about just winning, but winning BIG. The winner of most competitive tournaments is not necessarily the army that won every game, but the army that massacred the most opponents, which can be really infuriating for the players that won every game, and only came in 2nd or 3rd (has happened to me more than once).

Tau can do fine (especially if they focus on marker lights, kroot, skimmers, and crisis suits) if it's a single game, a team game, or even in apocalypse. It's in a series of games that they have trouble, because they will almost never massacre opponents.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Here's a good way to define competitiveness: imagine a big round robin tournament between highly skilled players where every player represents one of the various codexes in play. Every player will play every other player 10 times, using a different build out of the codex every time. Who ends up with the most wins? 

Meaning:

1. Take luck out of the equation, in this case by playing multiple games to reduce the effects of fluky wins. Any army can beat any other points-equal army with enough dice luck. 

2. Take player skill out of the equation. A veteran tournament winner will obliterate a rookie that barely knows the rules, barring fluky dice luck.

3. How many viable builds does each army have, and how well does each build stack up in comparison?

At the end of the tournament we would learn the following things:

1. Old codexes with overpriced units, limited options, and rules that translate poorly to 5th ed will be at a disadvantage. There's no way around it. 

2. Give players the option to choose the previous codex for their army instead of the current one, and none of them will. 

3. At the end of the day, the newest codexes that are most generous with point values and rules sets will win...and the result will be close to everybody's gut feeling all along. 5th ed Imperium will come out on top, followed by 5th Ed xenos, then 4th ed Imperium, with WH, Necrons, and Tau languishing near the bottom.

BUT.....

Can you win tournaments with any army? Absolutely. If the dice are with you, you match up well against the opponents you draw, and play smartly, you'll always have a chance. It may be tougher going, and some games you may find yourself just outmatched no matter what you do, but just because an army isn't considered top tier doesn't mean you can't have fun and win with it.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Ok to answer the thread's original question, I'd say the top three IMO (due to specific builds they can produce) are...

SW
BA
I.G.

Not every build in those armies are equal, and for sure anyone playing them in an incompetent manner can loose, even with the most competitive build.



As to the tier -vs- generalship argument, both sides are right...

An amazing general can do great things with a not so great force as well as the most brilliant build can suffer at the hands of incompetency.

On the other side... saying all things are exactly equal would be like saying if two space marines with the _*exact same stat line, armor, etc.*_ faced each other, and one was armed with a bp & chainsword while the other was armed with a plasma pistol and power weapon... that weapons wouldn't (in any way) affect the outcome. 

That is simply *not* true. We all know that a plasma pistol and power sword are better weapons. That's why we pay more points for them...


The best way to understand tiers is to pit two generals of equal skills against each other. With that component of the game having been equaled out we can then take a look at the tools, or weapons at their disposal.

SW, BA, & I.G. = plasma pistol and power weapon

Necrons, Tau, & witch hunters = bolt pistol and chainsword 

Can a good general playing necrons beat a SW army played by someone not as competent as he? Absolutely. Can a good general playing necrons beat an equally competent general playing SW's? Highly unlikely... 

however... there's always the dice. :biggrin:


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

It's more of how you play the army rather than hwo it's built.

Sure, Necrons won't stand long against a mech IG list from 5th ed, but plenty of times I've wiped SW, IG and BA from the table with my Mechdar.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Cyleune said:


> It's more of how you play the army rather than hwo it's built.
> 
> Sure, Necrons won't stand long against a mech IG list from 5th ed, but plenty of times I've wiped SW, IG and BA from the table with my Mechdar.


Exactly... the first (crons -vs- 5th ed I.G.) is a powerful example of a great general with poor tools. There's only so much you can do when you're equipped with your bare hands and your opponent has a power fist. However, I'd also say that if you were facing a tactically inept player, you could definitely smear the table with him if he played SW, BA, I.G. or otherwise. 

The second example (you winning with your mechdar) is a perfect illustration of how of a good general with a solid tool/weapon (Mechdar) can beat other players with a potentially slightly better tool/weapon. 

To put this into game terms think of it like this.... The general is like the model itself along with it's stat line, and the army they play is like the weapons and equipment they're armed with.

Mechdar is a good tool/weapon. It's definitely an extremely viable, powerful build for the Eldar. IMO it's the best. 

A good question to ask would be, if you faced a general equal to yours in skill, and he was using the best/most powerful build that BA, SW, & I.G. could produce... would you win consistently? Say in ten games... how many times would you win verses your opponent? There's always going to be that anomaly, but if you beat him 8 in 10 times then either (A) you're equal generals but you have a better tool, (B) you're the better general, or (C) you're the better general _*and*_ you have a better tool. 

For me... I'd place the Eldar along with vanilla SM's, Orks, Tyranids, CSM's, & Chaos Daemons in the second tier. Tau, Necrons, Daemonhunters, & witch hunters would all be in the lower tier for me, and I'm not sure where DE fit yet as they're so new. Similarly, I'm not sure how the new errata affects the BT & DA yet as I simply haven't had the time to look through and and analyze it.


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

anything that is space marine is pretty cometitive, I think tau can be brutal if you know how to play them properly.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Yeah, I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with what's top tier: Imperial Guard, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels.

Generally, these armies are agreed to be mid-tier: Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Space Marines

Also, I don't think anyone disagrees over the worst off armies in the game: Necron and Daemonhunters (without allies).

It's these armies that people can't agree on: 

Dark Eldar (top or mid?) 

Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons (some say low, and yet they keep on winning)

Tau, Sisters of Battle, Black Templars, and Dark Angels (mid or low?)


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

While I can count my losses to Chaos (either variant) on one hand, I have to say I really respect the amount of Fearless, durable, fairly reliable Troops they have. Daemons are tricky as their "gifts" cannot be stopped with any anti-psyker abilities and they can hit really hard. Each do have several draw backs but these things alone deserve some respect.

I'll mark DE as mid-tier, simply because of potential frailty. Its a problem very similar to Daemons. If they can't start doing a lot of damage soon enough, then they will have a very hard time in game.

I am slightly jealous of Tau with my Eldar though. I would LOVE a railgun, period. Sure Hammerheads and Suits are expensive, but man do they get their job done! Sure a Fire Prism can kill more Termies with one shot, but I'd honestly trade that for more a more reliable ranged anti-tank shot that only takes up one slot. <--But that's just wish listing.

I would like to see more of a scored ranking system based on army capabilities. Something like Speed, Defense, and Attack type of thing on a scale of 1-10. Impossible? Maybe. Different Build to Build? Maybe. But hey, it'll give something more solid to look at, even if the ratings are opinion.


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

I'd have to agree that IG/SW/BA seem to be top tier when you use the right units. 

Necrons and Witchhunters at the bottom. 

Hopefully if we check back in around 10-11 months it'll be a tad different with the two new codex releases this year. Would love to see more GK (love the models) and would love for my investment in Necrons to pay off.


----------

