# Competitive Tiers of Armies



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

(Been a while since I've started a thread...)

I was wondering before what peoples opinions on the 'tiers of army competitiveness' was before. I remember seeing a thread like this in the Fantasy section though I don't recall ever seeing one exactly like this for 40K

Basically, it can be broken down into three tiers; at your tier one you have the most used Tournament forces, the armies that the masses bleat 'cheese!' towards.. The bottom tier are armies which are usually very unused, perhaps due to the rules being outdated or the Codex just not being nearly as competitive as others. the 2nd tier is basically everything in between.

In my opinion the Table would look something like this:

Top Tier
Eldar
Chaos
Orks

(In no particular order, if people think there is a definite best please tell )

Middle Tier
Tau Empire
Tyranids
Necrons
Daemons

Bottom Tier
Daemonhunters

As you can see, I've left out Guard, Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters and Space Marines. 

Guard I have absolutely no idea... I have no experience with this army what so ever. I've only just managed to get a hold of the Codex 

Dark Eldar, hard to master but apparently devastating when put to use properly, wasn't sure if that meant they deserved to be in the top tier because of this, middle tier or maybe even bottom.

Witch Hunters, again no real experience, came ninth in GT though (could just be down to a very good player though)

 I was honestly unsure whether or not to put the Space Marines in the bottom or middle... 

So blow me away people! Butcher my list, grab your torches and pitch forks and call Witch Hunt against such a horribly wrong fabrication. Make some changes or just murmur in agreement


----------



## Col. Schafer (Apr 15, 2008)

I think it depends on the list, are you talking about each armys potential, or how its most comonly played.

If done wrong, the guard is about the worst army its posible to field, if done right it can beat anything. (asuming a limetless suply of models)


----------



## NurglingStomper (Jan 31, 2009)

Not too sure about tournies but it seems like everyone and their brother plays space marines *cough -ultrasmurfs- cough*


----------



## Haekmo (Mar 1, 2009)

Think you nailed the top three, tho to make a very powerful list is resonably easy, making a list that that u dont get bored with and is diiferent from all the cheese is a lil dificult. i hate fielding cheese personaly.

I think codex marines have the potential to be 4th ot 5th... ive seen some great players and army's that are very solid but they are very far n few between.


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

Col. Schafer said:


> I think it depends on the list, are you talking about each armys potential, or how its most comonly played.


Well, each armies potential. Some armies clearly have a better potential to do well in a competitive environment, I'm trying to list them that way.
And generally, if a list is commonly played at a tournament then it is probably the competitive potential. 

You can make a bad list with any army, but you wouldn't start rating them on that list would you?

Just to clear things up; I'm talking about all sorts of fluff aside, listing with each army at its most destructive in a tournament environment


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

I would put Space Marines in the Middle tier and Guard, Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters in the bottom tier. When guards new Codex lands i would consider moving them into the middle tier MAYBE (BIG MAYBE) even the top.


----------



## Col. Schafer (Apr 15, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification. 

I'll vote for puting guard in the middle. If you know your oponrnt and objective, a specialised guard list cant be beat, but in a tornament such a list would inevitably come up against somthing it wasent ment to face. A guard take all comers list, even a cheesy one, can be devestating but will either yield to many kill points or not have enughf troops to hold objectives well enughf.

Chaosftw: I beg your pardon? guard dop not deserve the botom tir TYVM. care to face 7 deep strikeing democharges at 500 points?


----------



## Stuntiesrule (Mar 22, 2009)

with new rules on overrun I would put guard in middle, when new book hits we will se but in the hands of good player I say guard is top


----------



## Wiccus (Jun 2, 2008)

I would say that Orks are definitely top. Nothing scares me more than Orks with any of my armies be it Chaos Marines, Daemons or Guard. Chaos is pretty good and I suppose they belong at the top but the chaos players in my area arent the best in the world so I havent really gotten the full experience not to mention I've only fought them with my Daemons and Chaos marines is like one of the armies that they are best against IMO.

Havent played Eldar in like over a year so I wouldnt know their rankings.

Other than that the rest seems about right, I would say that Marines should be middle of the road they might seem lower on the tiers because pretty much everybody starts marines when they get into the hobby and the new players bring their average down due to their inexperience.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

1. Orks
2. Chaos Space Marines
3. Chaos Daemons
4. Eldar
5. Black Templars
6. Witch Hunters
7. Space Marines
8. Dark Eldar
9. Tyranids
10. Space Wolves
11. Blood Angels
12. Imperial Guard
13. Tau Empire
14. Daemonhunters
15. Necrons
16. Dark Angels


I want to see more lists please! There are 16 armies, off you go, lets compare.


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Pretty good list but i'm not sure about Daemons; I think they're too random to be consistently good at tournaments.


----------



## Wiccus (Jun 2, 2008)

bishop5 said:


> Pretty good list but i'm not sure about Daemons; I think they're too random to be consistently good at tournaments.


They most certainly are. Some games you get your entire army by turn 2 and can steamroller opponents. And then sometimes almost nothing shows til turn 5 and your bloodthirster mishaps on the first turn 2 games in a row. I think they belong further down. 

Not too sure on Dark eldar they seem like they get dominated pretty hard usually from being so outdated.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

1. Orks
Orks are -the- highest rank of cheese I've ever seen. They win at everything. Good job Phil Kelly. Good job. Also nob bikers can't lose.
2. Chaos Space Marines
Dual lash, plague marine, zerkers, obliterators. Done. Every base is covered and this is a very very good list(Sadly it's the only competitive chaos list with very little changes)
3. Chaos Daemons
If they deepstrike correctly. Otherwise this army shoots down the ladder. Units are extremely point effective to offset playstyle. If they deepstrike incorrectly, they're almost as bad as necron. I'm deathly afraid of bloodletters now.
4. Witch Hunters
D6 S8 shots per heavy support tank. Rips up certain list and if you don't know all the zany rules behind faithpoints(make sure to know how it works or you will lose to a sneaky player). I haven't played them well enough but around here we have a very strong player who uses them.
5. Black Templars
The most obvious reason behind this is it's the only GOOD loyalist army. Our basic troop is better than an assault troop. We don't get all the best gear but the ones we squirreled away are extremely potent indeed. Plus the troop-choice landraider support, and our "rerolling" champion are too good to be true. The choices make this dex stand out, and meleeing marines are nasty.
6. Eldar
Got rightfully shafted in fifth edition. They were simply unbeatable and now they can't even take objectives with competitive lists. Don't get me wrong, they still put up a fight, but when they HAVE to take their crappy troops instead of the flying circus, they start becoming a more balanced army. But they still beat the snot out of any choices below number 8 on the list. They're still up here mainly due to the fact they were Phil kelly's pride and joy. Wraithlords have no business whatsoever being T8.
7. Imperial Guard
Deepstriking suicide squads at bs4 with all meltas sucks ass. Also with the cover-denying shells of the basilisk, this army is still able to keep up with the others. Not as good as the higher ups, but still decent.
8. Dark Eldar
Hard to play and hard to use, but if you play this army effectively, they can run circles around less mobile forces. Very good anti-vehicle, but extremely fragile.
9. Tyranids
With the need for swarms to take objectives, tyranids took a well-deserved slap in the face of each and every one hundred point re-rollable freedom-hating jerk that was an MC.
10. Blood Angels
They have some neat tricks and some objective grabbing troop choices. But lack the punch or resilience of the higher ups.
11. Space Wolves
I haven't heard -anything- involving wolf for the wolf god.
12. Space Marines
Suck. They really really do. The basic tac squad won't beat any specialist from another army, and all the neat doodads and tricks space marines can pull just aren't as cost effective as tricks from the other armies. Whenever I see my opponent set up loyalists, I chalk up a free win. A lack of eternal warrior hqs is rough, and the basic tac squad is awful in fifth edition.
13. Tau Empire
Got a lot worse with the invention of run. I've seen tricksy tau but they just can't stop nob bikers or the cheese chaos list.
14. Daemonhunters
Who? Oh right. Those people that were good against chaos.
15. Dark Angels
Can take terminators as troops. They field the bad version of terminators. Need I say more?
16. Necrons
Will never receive an update. Ever.


----------



## cool_conoly (Mar 29, 2008)

1. Orks
2. Chaos Space Marines
3. Eldar
4. Dark Eldar

5. Witch Hunters
6. Space Marines
7. Chaos Daemons
9. Imperial Guard
10. Tau Empire
11. Daemonhunters
12. Necrons

You will notice the Dark eldar near the top on my list, because although they do not appear to often in tournaments they always do well when they do feature. These guys are dragged down so much by their crappy models as they really can be a great Army


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Alright guys I have actual tiers of armies from tournament rankings:

1. Chaos Daemons
2. Orks
3. Witch Hunters
4. Chaos Space Marines
5. Dark Angels
6. Eldar
7. Daemonhunters
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Tyranids
11. Black Templars
12. Necrons
13. Space Marines
14. Tau
15. Imp Guard
16. Space Wolves


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

onlainari said:


> Alright guys I have actual tiers of armies from tournament rankings:
> 
> 1. Chaos Daemons
> 2. Orks
> ...


Where did you grab these from? I find Witch hunters and Dark Angels being above Eldar extremely hard to believe. Eldar came first and 3rd at this years GT.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

That GT was taken into account.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Daemons top?

Not a chance.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I don't believe in tiers.
No army is unbeatable.
People who whine and cry about an army being unbeatable need to change something in their army, and definately need to change their attitudes. Generally they're the kind of people I give the poor sportsman score to.
I've won, lost and drawn against pretty much every army out there since I got started in 3rd edition. And I've played 6 armies; my Chaos I sold not long after the release of the new codex, and I sold my Necrons because I took no joy in winning with them with their one-trick pony theme.
Leaving me with Space Marines, Space Wolves, Eldar and Dark Eldar. Last night my Space Marines beat the tar out of an Eldar player, including the destruction or immobilization of two Wave Serpents and a Fire Prism.
Flying circus, indeed...


----------



## yWizePapaSmurfy (Apr 18, 2008)

lol

Yeah.

Nob Bikers can be beat, it's called Tank Shocking/Baiting.


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I don't believe in tiers.
> No army is unbeatable.
> People who whine and cry about an army being unbeatable need to change something in their army, and definately need to change their attitudes. Generally they're the kind of people I give the poor sportsman score to.
> I've won, lost and drawn against pretty much every army out there since I got started in 3rd edition. And I've played 6 armies; my Chaos I sold not long after the release of the new codex, and I sold my Necrons because I took no joy in winning with them with their one-trick pony theme.
> ...


You don't believe in tiers... Do you believe in patterns?

This thread was simply me putting forward my thoughts on how competitive the armies are in some order. 

A half blind, vegetated walrus with down syndrome can tell you some armies _do_ have an advantage over others. Of course no army is unbeatable, there is no one here whining and crying about them.

So do you think _every_ army is perfectly balanced? You've worked your way through 6 armies and played for at least 5 years (is that right?) and your telling me its all chess to you?
But even if you have no trouble against any force its clear that a lot of people think that some armies _are_ better suited to the competitive play style.

Just look to the GT's and other tournaments, the top spots change as new codices are released. Is it purely coincidence that the best players are all suddenly using armies that are v-e-r-y similar? They all fancied a change or they all suddenly though Nob Bikers just look really cool?


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Concrete Hero said:


> You don't believe in tiers... Do you believe in patterns?
> 
> This thread was simply me putting forward my thoughts on how competitive the armies are in some order.
> 
> ...



Do some armies give me trouble?
Yes.
Are all armies perfectly balanced against eachother?
No.
Do some players copy-cat others due to lack of ingenuity?
I'd say so.
Like I said, I've been playing since 3rd edition, which is a scoche longer than 5 years. And while some armies do give me more trouble than others, I find that it's the player I'm facing who makes at least as much difference as the list he or she runs.
I could be entirely wrong. I only have my own experiences to draw on. But it seems to me that the "tier system" just creates a sort of elitism amongst gamers. "He plays Eldar, so he doesn't know anything about how to play a real game," sort of thing. 
I play the armies I do because I like them, not because of some perceived advantage over another army. If I wanted to do it that way, I'd play Sisters of Battle, because in all honesty that army has always given me more trouble than any other.
But, it doesn't suit my asthetics to play them, nor my play-style.


----------



## Zipding (Jan 20, 2010)

I've noticed that usually armies are strong because of powerful characters. I've played an ork player who used almost all elites, he had 1 mob of boyz and nobz as troops. I caught Ghazghkull in close combat for a few turns and wrecked absolutly everything else in his army. The instant my sacrificial units were dead, he tanked the rest of my army. I also know a space marine player who will almost always use Lysander, I personally don't like special characters because they restrict me from fielding my nice infantry horde that does well against pretty much everyone.


----------



## Leviticus (Mar 27, 2009)

Top Tier:
IG
SW
Eldar
Chaos (Last list only)
SM (Vulkan list only)

Middle Tier
Tyranids
Orks
Chaos
SM
New Blood Angels
Dark Eldar (Mega Dark Lance spam list only)

Low Tier
Tau
Dark Eldar
Daemon/Witch Hunters
Dark Angels
Black Templar
Necrons
Chaos Daemons

Some of you may question why I put orks middle tier. But with the amount of fire power both IG and SW can muster, the lack of psychic defense to deal with Lash Lists, and just the sheer effectiveness of TLFlamers /TL Melta of Vulkan...they just can't hang.

The new nids are royally terribad. But not nearly as terribad as the armies in the lower tier.

Everything else I am sure we can all agree on.

Nothing was put in any specific order in any tier. Any army in any tier can surely beat each other (Save top tiers where the fire power of Wolves and IG are enough to quell anythign at range....SW close combat abilities of the basic grey hunters just make them that much better than IG in terms of effectiveness.)


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

My two spent bolter casings:

Top Tier:

Orks (by a wide margin)
SM (Vulkan lists)
Eldar
Space wolves

Middle tier:
Chaos Marines
Imperial Guard
Vanilla SM
Chaos Daemons
Tyranids

Low tier: 
Tau
Necrons
Dark Eldar

Orks are easily at the top now. There is no battlefield role they can't excel at with a very reasonably priced unit and several distinct strategies to try. 

As a rule, the top tier is armies with either several strong options or with a couple of choices that are both very strong and hard to deal with.

Middle tier have either a single feasible strategy (that can be worked around by wary enemies) or are generalists with no focused strength that can be capitalized upon, or depend too much on luck. 

The bottom tier is composed of the armies that have exactly one plan, and that plan can be circumvented and neutralized quite easily with minimum hassle.


----------



## OddJob (Nov 1, 2007)

The issue with denoting tiers to armies is that the points level you play at has a significant knock on effect. Guard in particular seem to rocket in effectiveness as the points go up. Missions other than the rulebook standard can also have significant effects.

My take on 1500pts/Standard Missions (i.e. UK GT level).

*Tier One (always strong)*
Chaos
Eldar
Orks
Space Wolves (I may be biased as I currently play with Tyranids)

*Tier Two (potentially boned by matchups)*
Marines
IG
Tyranids
Deamons 

*Tier Three (potentially boned by matchups and certain missions)*
Sisters of battle
Dark Eldar
Tau

*Tier Four (Underpowered i.e. Good Freaking luck)*
Deamon Hunters 
Necrons (Major Kudos to the fella that came top 10 in the UKGT final at the weekend!)
Dark Angels.

Any of the above armies could do well, but the further down the list you go the more raw luck is required in terms of matchups.


----------



## MyI)arkness (Jun 8, 2008)

Wow this is one old thread. I agree with Oddjob, but one shouldnt forget that, for example, some of the middle/low armies are very good, but require high skill to be used properly, and at the same time they are not very popular, so there are fewer really good players playing them = less info about armies, less chance of players coming high in tournaments.


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

We're going about this all wrong.

We should NOT be talking about army lists as a whole. We should be talking about BUILDS in terms of tiering.

Mechdar is a top-tier list. It barely makes it. It scrapes through things by the skin of it's teeth, but ultimately going anywhere you want throwing around enough s6 shots to take down the terminator around is working. Jetseer is a solid list. It's got a tough-as-nails CC unit that acts as it's flagship and everything else takes care of business. The army list at large? Not so much.

Some armies have multiple viable archetypes. Some of those archetypes are better than others. Some get... one. The chaos dex has an archetype that is great against nonmech armies, and not bad against mech armies (9 oblits will still bring vehicles down, after all) but the army as a whole, when not fielded within a restricting and narrow set of options just isn't going to cut it.

So... maybe we could list things by build type rather than just flat-out race? I mean, Kan Wall and Knobb bikers are both better than Green tide, right?


----------

