PDA

View Full Version : Curret Army Power Levels?



Vipoid
14-03-2014, 20:58
Ignoring allies, how would people rate the armies in terms of power level (or tier if you prefer)?

Minsc
14-03-2014, 21:01
In no specific order and ranking the codex as a whole, not just who can make the most broken-superlist:

Top tier; Tau and Eldar.

Mid tier; SM, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Daemons, Imperial Guard.

Bottom tier; Orks, Sisters of Battle, CSM**.

Unsure: Dark Angels. I haven't actually faced them in 6th, and only heard others speak about the, so I'm not sure if they belong in mid or bottom. Imperial Knights since I have no clue about them.

**Crimson Slaughter may actually bump CSM up into mid-tier, if you go bonkers with MoN Oblits, Heldrakes, and the new relics.
Be'lakor and a ML(3) Divination Sorcerer will be great force-multipliers. Time will tell.

Tebrey
14-03-2014, 21:05
Just my opinion (in order):

Top:

Tau
Imperial Knights
Eldar
Necrons
Legion of the Damned

Mid:

Inquisition
Daemons
Grey Knights
Marines
Guard
Blood Angels
Dark Angels

Bottom:

CSM
Tyranids
Dark Eldar
Orks
Adepta Sororitas


That said, my Orks are still tabling opponents. Shrug.

Carnage
14-03-2014, 21:08
Ignoring allies, how would people rate the armies in terms of power level (or tier if you prefer)?

Top Tier
Eldar
Tau
Demons
Space Marines (Bikes and weird ally heavy lists specifically)
Imperial Guard

Mid Tier
Necrons
Grey Knights
Tyranids (Including the new dataslates anyways)
Space Wolves
Chaos Space Marines
Dark Angels

Bottom Tier
Orks
Dark Eldar
Blood Angels
Sisters of Battle

Pretty much in that order. Eg, Eldar > IG, and GK > Dark Angels, but they are in the same "league".

I don't really consider Knights, LotD, or Inquisition "armies" in their own right. Top tier are your tournament winners, Mid-tier can put up a fight, and bottom tier is a joke compared to the rest. I feel like I'm forgetting someone though.

EDIT: Forgot necrons....doh.

Reinholt
14-03-2014, 21:09
I disagree with the implication in this thread title that any army with the letter "n" in the name is underpowered.

Vipoid
14-03-2014, 21:19
I disagree with the implication in this thread title that any army with the letter "n" in the name is underpowered.

On the one hand, well spotted.

On the other, I can't change the thread title - and you have no idea how much that will irritate me now. :skull:

Slayer-Fan123
14-03-2014, 23:14
Discounting allies, I'm not sure I would rate Eldar so high to be honest.

Bonzai
15-03-2014, 00:11
Tier 1: Tau, Eldar, daemons

Tier 2: Space Marines, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines

Tier 3: Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, Tyranids

Tier 4: dark Eldar, dark Angels, Space Wolves

Tier 5: Blood Angels, Orks, Sisters of Battle

I am not counting the pseudo codexes like Imperial Knights, Inquisition, and Legion of the Damed.

Mandragola
15-03-2014, 10:52
I disagree with discounting allies. The allies an army can take are a fundamental part of its strength. Some books make for bad primary detachments but good allies, like inquisition or csm. Adding Coteaz to an imperial force nearly always improves it, as does adding Belakor, a helldrake and some cultists to necrons, daemons and maybe even tau. Where armies are battle brothers they may as well be seen as one army, as is the case with eldar and tau.

I have only seen stats for tournament performances. These rank armies like this:

Eldar
Tau
Daemons
Necrons
Tyrannids (yes)

And below that it gets really hard to make sense of for a bit, because the numbers drop away. A lot of armies are not good but not awful.

Truly bad armies at the moment, at least to play on their own, would be sisters, inquisition and LotD. Those are the ones where it's hard to see how a good army could be made.

Camman1984
15-03-2014, 11:18
Have they sorted out the null deployment problem with LotD? When the codex first appeated there was a lot of talk that they still all had to be left in reserve and come down from turn 2 onwards, ensuring a turn one defeat every time. That takes them down from bottom teir to competely unplayable without allies.

Kingly
15-03-2014, 11:22
Has anyone here ever faced a massive unit of CSM bikes led by a Sorc Lord with invisibility...? Apparently not, makes mince meat of my Tau...

Camman1984
15-03-2014, 11:52
Power levels such a hard thing to measure? Almost every army had a 'tournie build' which utilises maybe 1/2 units from the whole codex, but the rest of the codex is less powerful or vice versa. Look at the CSM, seen as a weaker codex in general, but throw in some drakes, blackmace prince etc and it starts looking really powerful.

Azulthar
15-03-2014, 20:15
1. Eldar & Tau
2. Daemons
3. Necrons
4. The rest :)

When talking highly optimized tournament lists, of course.

When talking slightly more casual levels of power, I'd clearly put Tau ahead of Eldar for example, and Daemons considerably lower on the list.

Izanagi
16-03-2014, 01:39
personaly i would go:
Top of the food chain: Nids if used correctly, Tau, Daemons and probs Imperial Knights
Secondary: any thing mariney, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons and Chaos space marines
And at the bottom: Orks, Imperial Guard, Sisters of battle and Inquisition
Note: blood angels, dark angels, space wolves and grey knights are mariney.
and i beat a tau player with a borrowed dark angels army, the double flamer dreadnaught in a drop pod helped.

Ironbone
16-03-2014, 12:45
My personal experience based list would go like this :

Tier 1 - most powerful/broken armies
Tau, Eldar, Nekrons, Deamons, Iyaden

Tier 2 - strong and well rounded armies, but lacking some traits and power of tier 1
Space Marines, Grey Knights, Blood Anges, Space Wolfes, Imperial Kinghts, Tyranids, Dark Angels, Raukan, Chaos Space Marines, Crismon Sloughter, Dark Eldar, Sentiniels

Tier 3 - armies that can, when right build ( and healty dose of luck ) trample even tier 1 armies, but their age, and/or overall lacking of newer rules is visible
Orks, Imperial guard, inqustion ( as standalone, no alies army, it' preety meh. True power of INQ lies with boosting other armies abilities ), legion of the dames ( without alies )

Tier 4 - Armies that are sorry to exist
Sisters :p.

Bonzai
17-03-2014, 00:03
My personal experience based list would go like this :

Tier 1 - most powerful/broken armies
Tau, Eldar, Nekrons, Deamons, Iyaden


Just curious, what is so over the top with Iyanden that it deserves special mention separate from Eldar?

Carnage
17-03-2014, 00:12
Just curious, what is so over the top with Iyanden that it deserves special mention separate from Eldar?

If I had to guess, I'd say the fact the easiest to kill enemy model is T6 3+, with T8 W6 model being the warlord?

I don't think Iyanden is any worse than normal Eldar, in fact, I think wraithguard are a waste of points that would be better spent on wave serpents and jetbikes for late game capping.

Coldblood666
17-03-2014, 00:15
I see a lot of people ranking Eldar as #1. I'm new to this edition and what makes them so good in particular? Are they a one trick pony or do they win with several viable builds?

Slayer-Fan123
17-03-2014, 00:23
If I had to guess, I'd say the fact the easiest to kill enemy model is T6 3+, with T8 W6 model being the warlord?

I don't think Iyanden is any worse than normal Eldar, in fact, I think wraithguard are a waste of points that would be better spent on wave serpents and jetbikes for late game capping.
Or you use Wraithguard AND Wave Serpents.

Carnage
17-03-2014, 03:08
Or you use Wraithguard AND Wave Serpents.

Wraithguard cut into the amount of serpents you can take though, and half of the Eldar's heavy lifting comes from the serpents. Wraithguard have range issues, and risk the serpent getting close to deliver them. 5 Dire Avengers + TL scatter laser Serpent is 185. 5 Wraithguard + TL-scatter Serpent is 280. You can get 3 DA + serpents for the price of 2 WG + serpents. This allows you to sit at long range and pelt stuff with 3, including the shields, instead of driving 2 in close to deliver the WG, in which case you have to keep the shields up to protect yourself. The potential damage of the WG+serpent combo is fairly high if everything goes well, but the average performance of the DA+serpents is a lot better, as it's much lower risk.


I see a lot of people ranking Eldar as #1. I'm new to this edition and what makes them so good in particular? Are they a one trick pony or do they win with several viable builds?

Honestly? No. The best build is constructed from 3-4 super OP units with primarily over-stacking buffs, and the rest of the book ranges from passable (Dire Avengers/guardians/Wraithguard) to laughably bad (Banshees/scorpians/Fire Prisms).

2 Farseers on jetbikes
5-8 warlocks on jetbikes. The Seer-star is....unkillable. Rerollable 2+ or 3+ invul save makes them untouchable. Throw them at the enemy willy-nilly and watch them not die.

2-3 3 man jetbike squads, left in reserve for late game objective contesting/capturing. Just rush right in 36", it's virtually impossible to stop if the Eldar go second.
3-4 5 man Dire Avenger squads in wave serpents with TL-scatter lasers. Wave Serpents are extremely difficult to kill with the shield up, and using it as a weapon gives them 4 S6 TL shots and another D6+1 S7 TL shots afterwards. It's passable anti-aircraft, and forces saves on MeQ and monstrous creatures by the bucket full. 4 of the will throw out 34 S6+ shots per turn, all twin-linked.

1-2 Wraith Knights. Weapon loadout is flexible, but I suggest the S10 shots for ranged anti-tank.

Any points left over is flexible, but a lot of people use allied Tau for anti-air/broadside missile spam, warwalkers or another Wraithknight or 2.

The army is fast and virtually indestructible. It's almost immune to small arms, and has so many high toughness/vehicle hull points to get rid of it saturates anti-tank firepower.

Nubl0
17-03-2014, 03:17
Very hard to judge given how much a mess 40k is right now, given all these DLC add ons flying around. Not to mention what super heavies show up in escalation, who I'm pretty sure the eldar profited most from.

Kingly
17-03-2014, 05:11
DLC add ons that are pretty fluffy and not really "Teh InterNutZ Powa" escalation that's an EXPANSION, you forgot to mention the usual moan and groan favourite Flyers!
You'd think peeps would get bored...

back on target,

I'm shocked people are saying IG, facing a gun line hidden behind an Aegis can be pretty daunting.

The bearded one
17-03-2014, 07:34
Can people enlighten me more on Tau? The tourneylists and the like?

I mean, I know they're really strong, I play them. But I keeping reading them being called overpowered to hell, but although very strong I find they can be fairly easy to defeat if you have a decent idea of how they work and what they're weak to. I can order them to unleash a bloody firestorm, but find they are soft to most returnfire, and generally allergic to going more than an inch outside of cover. Any single volley of bolters cripples a unit pathfinders, for example. Marine books are way more resistant to fire, and a single marine managing to reach the other side could take out a firewarrior unit. Only riptides are hard to put down.
I do like the book for having such a wide viability. I could practically throw darts to select units and get a decent strength list. I guess you could say the Tau codex has a... 'high average'.


I guess it's a bit disheartening. You play an army for years -when they're near the bottom- and then you're delighted with the new material, which almost feels like a reward -a good codex, with good fluff and good rules allround, and one of the better (best?) supplements (nice, original fluff, impactful rules) - and you've become one of the thousands, playing the overpowered army.

Ironbone
17-03-2014, 08:55
facing a gun line hidden behind an Aegis can be pretty daunting
Yes, but as gunline army have nice firepower ( and still worse than tau one ), it have many really hard to deal drawbacks. It's immoblie, huge, absurdly easy to kill with no cover weapons ( wich now are aplenty ), and damm inefective in close combat ( my 5 power axe, fearless, 40 man blob with re-rolls, and often 4+ inv is always having 3-4+ turn struggle against basicly anthing that assoult it ). Well, guard can ceartainly compeate with top armies, but be honest, it's ageing is more and more visible.


Can people enlighten me more on Tau?
Extreme firepower + excelent alies with eldar, that help to counter some of few army drawbacks. Wraightknight for close combat, and long range anti-tank punch, fortune for better durability, farseers for psychic defence, jetbike for last turn objetive stealing, force multipiers are many. Plus combined overwatch, makinig tau decent instead of sucking in stoping enemy assoult dead in thier tracks, and markerlights capable of turning snap-shots into super accurate fire.


and you've become one of the thousands, playing the overpowered army.
Well, blame one who wrote you OP codex :p.

The bearded one
17-03-2014, 10:03
I find it amusing they're OP when that entire paragraph is extolling the virtues of Eldar support :p I'm happy with my book, because I've waded through the muck long enough while waiting for it, because I love my army.

I could add a farseer or spirit seer and 1-2 unit of bikes to my Tau army and remedy the problems, but without them the army inherently has some weaknesses, which seems perfectly reasonable.

Scammel
17-03-2014, 10:52
I find it amusing they're OP when that entire paragraph is extolling the virtues of Eldar support :p I'm happy with my book, because I've waded through the muck long enough while waiting for it, because I love my army.

I could add a farseer or spirit seer and 1-2 unit of bikes to my Tau army and remedy the problems, but without them the army inherently has some weaknesses, which seems perfectly reasonable.

Join the Ogre club.

*Starts re-winding up his Mournfangs*

The bearded one
17-03-2014, 11:16
Join the Ogre club.

*Starts re-winding up his Mournfangs*

Possibly the dwarf club too, soon.

At least not the lizardmen club.. * kicks troglodon *

Dang.. Vetock has written all my dang armies..

Grocklock
17-03-2014, 12:58
Why are orks so low on people's list they, may not be up there with the big boys but there a solid list.

A.T.
17-03-2014, 13:14
Why are orks so low on people's list they, may not be up there with the big boys but there a solid list.The middle of these kinds of lists tend to be made up of the also-rans in no particular order, with things like codex age or familiarity being the deciding factor in where the army places.

Carnage
17-03-2014, 14:11
Why are orks so low on people's list they, may not be up there with the big boys but there a solid list.


The middle of these kinds of lists tend to be made up of the also-rans in no particular order, with things like codex age or familiarity being the deciding factor in where the army places.

AT pretty much hit it on the head. When doing power rankings you don't base it off of what "Billy, Joe and Mike play down at the 'ole LGS", you base it on the absolutely top level cut throat builds it can bring to a tournament situation, because those lists are available to everyone, everywhere, all the time and have to be planned for in "friendly" gaming encounters as well.

If you turn the "difficulty knob" down to "friendly gaming level", and build conventional lists that aren't taken to the extreme, well, orks probably come up a few notches on the list, and some other armies drop down a fair bit as well, but their most powerful lists don't stack up to the best of the other armies.

For example, Tyranids are one of the most powerful armies in the game in a "Battleforce" or friendly/fluff situation, as their battleforce lists are extremely powerful against other lists on the same level. As people refine their lists and start cutting out bad units though, Tyranids become reasonably easy to counter, and they drop to a mid-tier army at that point.

Navar
17-03-2014, 14:48
[E]scalation that's an EXPANSION

Actually it isn't. Escalation is a supplement just like the codices.

Bonzai
17-03-2014, 16:20
If I had to guess, I'd say the fact the easiest to kill enemy model is T6 3+, with T8 W6 model being the warlord?

I don't think Iyanden is any worse than normal Eldar, in fact, I think wraithguard are a waste of points that would be better spent on wave serpents and jetbikes for late game capping.

Agreed. I play Iyanden, and while I won't say that they are a waste, but taking them does halve the number of serpents I can take (4 in my list). I love the Iyanden supplement and think its great, but it doesn't strike me as doing anything over the top on its own.

ChrisMurray
17-03-2014, 16:26
I don't keep upto date with what is the latest tournament list or power levels generally so I may have missed something. But when did everyone start ranking Daemons so high? Is it just because they have a 6th edition codex? I recall before the new codex dropped everyone was saying how much they hated the daemon codex and no one played them. Then the new codex dropped and most of the reviews I saw said it was good for fun armies but too random for tournament play. I liked the idea that I had one of the minority armies but judging by the lists people have put in this thread they must have become more popular.

Ironbone
17-03-2014, 17:26
Is it just because they have a 6th edition codex? I recall before the new codex dropped everyone was saying how much they hated the daemon codex and no one played them. Then the new codex dropped and most of the reviews I saw said it was good for fun armies but too random for tournament play
Well, deamons are random, but it's randomnes that mostly hurt enemy. And why deamons are ranked so high ? Grimore, screamer/fleash hound star, barrage of psychic powers, warp storm....

OuroborosTriumphant
17-03-2014, 17:33
I don't keep upto date with what is the latest tournament list or power levels generally so I may have missed something. But when did everyone start ranking Daemons so high? Is it just because they have a 6th edition codex? I recall before the new codex dropped everyone was saying how much they hated the daemon codex and no one played them. Then the new codex dropped and most of the reviews I saw said it was good for fun armies but too random for tournament play. I liked the idea that I had one of the minority armies but judging by the lists people have put in this thread they must have become more popular.

Screamerstar.

Grocklock
17-03-2014, 17:50
AT pretty much hit it on the head. When doing power rankings you don't base it off of what "Billy, Joe and Mike play down at the 'ole LGS", you base it on the absolutely top level cut throat builds it can bring to a tournament situation, because those lists are available to everyone, everywhere, all the time and have to be planned for in "friendly" gaming encounters as well.

If you turn the "difficulty knob" down to "friendly gaming level", and build conventional lists that aren't taken to the extreme, well, orks probably come up a few notches on the list, and some other armies drop down a fair bit as well, but their most powerful lists don't stack up to the best of the other armies.

For example, Tyranids are one of the most powerful armies in the game in a "Battleforce" or friendly/fluff situation, as their battleforce lists are extremely powerful against other lists on the same level. As people refine their lists and start cutting out bad units though, Tyranids become reasonably easy to counter, and they drop to a mid-tier army at that point.

While I agree with your comment a little. I think looking at the teir system in three chunks is some what arcaic.

In my view the teir system is now split into two. With a couple, tau and eldar sitting on top and the rest on equal footing below it. But the gap between Tau and eldar and the rest is present but not enough but still present.

I'm interested to see though I'm basing this off battles of 1500 points but I get the impression that others are using 2000-2500. Using these points the gaps open up a bit more as rather then having to make hard choices the player is given all of his toys with points to spare.

Carnage
17-03-2014, 19:15
While I agree with your comment a little. I think looking at the teir system in three chunks is some what arcaic.

In my view the teir system is now split into two. With a couple, tau and eldar sitting on top and the rest on equal footing below it. But the gap between Tau and eldar and the rest is present but not enough but still present.

I'm interested to see though I'm basing this off battles of 1500 points but I get the impression that others are using 2000-2500. Using these points the gaps open up a bit more as rather then having to make hard choices the player is given all of his toys with points to spare.

Fair enough. A "the best" and "the rest" is also a useful measure I suppose, but it's not really fair to rank orks and sisters in the same breath as demons, necrons and space marines though, the gap between them is at least as large and between Tau/Eldar and the next best.

Most tournys are 1500-2000 points, with 1850-2000 being most common, so you will see most rankings done around that level.

Wolf Lord Balrog
17-03-2014, 20:28
I guess it's a bit disheartening. You play an army for years -when they're near the bottom- and then you're delighted with the new material, which almost feels like a reward -a good codex, with good fluff and good rules allround, and one of the better (best?) supplements (nice, original fluff, impactful rules) - and you've become one of the thousands, playing the overpowered army.

Exactly how I've been feeling. I've even gotten 'the look' once just putting a single Riptide and two units of Broadsides on the table, and I don't even run allies of any kind.

Grocklock
17-03-2014, 20:29
Fair enough. A "the best" and "the rest" is also a useful measure I suppose, but it's not really fair to rank orks and sisters in the same breath as demons, necrons and space marines though, the gap between them is at least as large and between Tau/Eldar and the next best.

Most tournys are 1500-2000 points, with 1850-2000 being most common, so you will see most rankings done around that level.

This is interesting. Thought about the best and the rest concept. As it would appear sisters and deamons are not in the same league. (I only have the net for info on sisters as no one i know has them).

It is good to get a better idea also about the points brackets (as pointed out 1850-2000 points is more prevalent) as that does change the discussion from my point of view.

I'm interested why necrons are seen as not as good as tau or has cron air come out of favour in the wider community.

Commissar Merces
17-03-2014, 20:39
Top Tier: Eldar, Tau
Tier 2: Necrons, Daemons
Tier 3: Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Tyranids, Grey Knights
Tier 4: Orks, Dark Angels, Sisters

Mandragola
17-03-2014, 23:37
This is interesting. Thought about the best and the rest concept. As it would appear sisters and deamons are not in the same league. (I only have the net for info on sisters as no one i know has them).

It is good to get a better idea also about the points brackets (as pointed out 1850-2000 points is more prevalent) as that does change the discussion from my point of view.

I'm interested why necrons are seen as not as good as tau or has cron air come out of favour in the wider community.

So daemons are the 3rd best army at the moment and not far behind Eldar and Tau. If you're talking "best and rest" then they are closer to the top two than the 4th place armies, which is where armies like necrons sit. Necrons are still decent and not a walk over, but definitely not qutie as good as those armies.

Cron air was actually never a really serious tournament army, in my experience. I go to loads of major tournaments and I've never seen it feature especially highly. There was one army at Nova 2012, shortly after 6th was released and before many armies had credible AA. It did pretty well, but did lose some games. It's pointless now, in an environment with riptides. Tau shoot them down for fun. Good necron lists seem to feature either wraith or deathmark spam with warriors in scythes and 3 annihilation barges near-obligatory.

Tau tournament lists tend to feature 2+ riptides, pretty much as the whole reason a tournament player is making a tau list in the first place. Not many troops, as even crisis suits aren't all that fantastic at their main job of claiming objectives. Instead eldar are drafted in to ride around on jetbikes, cast guide and prescience and maybe be a wraithknight. There's an alternative Tau+Tau army where you have a deathstar built around a riptide, to which you add O'Vesa (the IC riptide from farsight enclave), Farsight himself and a buff commander from Tau Empire. It gets called the "O'Vesastar", and other less polite things.

Marshal
18-03-2014, 00:16
Can people enlighten me more on Tau? The tourneylists and the like?


O'vesa + Riptide with Target Lock + Allied Utility Commander (CC Node, MSSS, PENC...) = unit that can deal with anything. Rerolls overheats, rerolls to hit, ignores cover, O'vesa rerolls nova reactor. This coupled in with some other Tau fun (units of 3 broadsides with HYMP's and Smartmissiles) and you've got yourself a tournament winning army right there. Part of the key to the army is that you take everything that has the ability to take bonding knives from the allied army so you're not forced to pay for the farsight tax, with the exception of your obligatory 3 man crisis suit team. I also like including Farsight with a 3rd riptide for some deepstrike shenanigans. Gives him a pretty good bodyguard for wounds also.

Greyhound
18-03-2014, 00:22
Short of changing game mechanics can we expect the balance shift to change, or can an assault army make it to the top of the list?

Is it possible to slash enough points on Ogryns, Orks, BA to allow them to field so much targets that the Eldars and Taus get threatened?

When/If Orks manage to assault the taus they currently have a chance already so as a friend pointed out, even if you give ST8, AP2 on the choppas the orcs would still have a very hard time defeating the tau's. The only way the new codex can change that is in creating either:
- new mechanics (assault from deep strike, special rules/special characters)
- Get a stupidly insane big model with D weapons which just will not die, and continue the escalation of shooting.
- be super cheap or have dead units coming back from reserve to win the war of attrition.

I'm interested in the comments saying that the balance has shifted throughout 6th edition between armies, it is the best sign that it will continue doing so in the next 12 months.

Mandragola
18-03-2014, 00:44
The balance shifts of course with new releases. Here's a brief history:

In early 6th armies with loads of infantry did well. Things like space wolves with allied IG, featuring tons of grey hunters and a massive blob squad. That army won nova. Another very effective list was tons of GK strike squads.

Then codex: helldrake landed and that all changed. Power armour was purely decorative and had no in-game effect any more. This was oddly the best moment to play necrons, since they could keep their infantry safe in nightscythes, shoot down helldrakes and even ally one in if they wanted, while wraiths and annihilation barges weren't slowed by a little fire and a vector strike, and were often in cc already by the time the planes appeared.

The next really big shift was Tau, because they stopped all that flyer nonsense dead. There was much rejoicing, till it was observed that Tau were just as mean to infantry as helldrakes had been, without needing to mess about with reserve rolls and the like. S8 ap2 large blasts that ignore cover were deemed harsh.

And following this we got the era of the deathstar, which is essentially about creating a unit so tough it actually can live with Tau firepower, cross the board and engage them.

Daemons are competitive because of their phenomenal speed. Even Tau can't shoot dead 40 flesh hounds in one shooting phase, even before you start with 2++ rerollable saves.

Sort of interesting is that Eldar appeared and jumped to the top of the leader board but didn't seriously change the meta in the process. The seismic changes have really been around flyers, either bringing them in or shooting them down, and Eldar haven't really contributed to that. They have an ok flyer and a dreadful one, so they tend to borrow a riptide.

Akwikone
18-03-2014, 00:45
Short of changing game mechanics can we expect the balance shift to change, or can an assault army make it to the top of the list?

Is it possible to slash enough points on Ogryns, Orks, BA to allow them to field so much targets that the Eldars and Taus get threatened?

When/If Orks manage to assault the taus they currently have a chance already so as a friend pointed out, even if you give ST8, AP2 on the choppas the orcs would still have a very hard time defeating the tau's. The only way the new codex can change that is in creating either:
- new mechanics (assault from deep strike, special rules/special characters)
- Get a stupidly insane big model with D weapons which just will not die, and continue the escalation of shooting.
- be super cheap or have dead units coming back from reserve to win the war of attrition.

I'm interested in the comments saying that the balance has shifted throughout 6th edition between armies, it is the best sign that it will continue doing so in the next 12 months.



It's hard to say if points slashing alone will make Tournament viable assault armies, without unforeseen consequences. With the New Rulebook supposedly coming in may, we may see some minor tweaks to tip a the odd a bit better in assaults favor; Things like not rolling 3D6 charging into Terrain, bringing back Assault off outflank/scout/infiltrate, etc. A healthy amount of Terrain I also find helps assault armies either close the gap, or force shooting armies to come to them.

Based entirely off of Codex alone, you'd need a few pretty huge things, like Sanguinary Priests giving FNP 4+, or the Ork Waaaaagh making charge range 3D6 from what I would guess.

Carnage
18-03-2014, 03:18
It's hard to say if points slashing alone will make Tournament viable assault armies, without unforeseen consequences. With the New Rulebook supposedly coming in may, we may see some minor tweaks to tip a the odd a bit better in assaults favor; Things like not rolling 3D6 charging into Terrain, bringing back Assault off outflank/scout/infiltrate, etc. A healthy amount of Terrain I also find helps assault armies either close the gap, or force shooting armies to come to them.

Based entirely off of Codex alone, you'd need a few pretty huge things, like Sanguinary Priests giving FNP 4+, or the Ork Waaaaagh making charge range 3D6 from what I would guess.

Of course price adjustments could make assault armies viable. 2 point slugga boys and 8 point BA assault marines would do it. It would break the game, but it would make assault viable.

Silversage
18-03-2014, 08:42
Will that happen? Will assault armies get some love from GW again?

*random slap in the face* Heavens no. "Hey, you Blood Angel Veteran over there! What do you think you're doing preparing to assault from reserves? That's not in keeping with our policy, stop it. Here's a gun, go shoot something mr. Assault Specialist"

Sanguinius does not approve.

Ironbone
18-03-2014, 10:03
Will assault armies get some love from GW again?
"Again" is key word :p.

Assoult armies have been loved waaaay too much for past like 10 ? 15 years ? :shifty: It's been bearly 2 years since shooting is at damm last ( and even so, not that much to make cc entierly unusable ) better, every single ******** cc army player is shoutnig "bring old times, when WE were broken, and THEY were underdog back !".

Since 3rd ed, changes in 4th, 5th, and 6th ed were slowly but surely stepped in direction of shooting, trend that i wish will be continued :D.

Krucifus
18-03-2014, 11:20
If they were going to make Assault armies viable again it would have been done with Tyranids, but instead they were just encouraged to take more bodies with guns.

I'm personally dreading the Ork dex...

Greyhound
19-03-2014, 02:07
Orks can be shooty. I don't mind it, but I already roll truck loads of dice so how many more do I have to roll before games workshop decide to give me a break?

It's fun to roll 15-30 dice but 200 will become a bore

Scribe of Khorne
19-03-2014, 03:22
"Again" is key word :p.

Assoult armies have been loved waaaay too much for past like 10 ? 15 years ? :shifty: It's been bearly 2 years since shooting is at damm last ( and even so, not that much to make cc entierly unusable ) better, every single ******** cc army player is shoutnig "bring old times, when WE were broken, and THEY were underdog back !".

Since 3rd ed, changes in 4th, 5th, and 6th ed were slowly but surely stepped in direction of shooting, trend that i wish will be continued :D.

5th was firmly Shooting, and 6th is as well, 4th...well that was when Chaos lost its good codex, so I didnt play that...

What exactly is your point beyond "Shooting should be best always".

Greyhound
19-03-2014, 04:33
Also how many shades of shooting can we have?

If IG take the long range pie-plates angle, orks will be left with the mobile short range shooting? I thought we already had eldars and white scars/ dark angels taking the crown in fast-mobile army.

If we want to see the meta change someone should become heavily focused on taking down Monstrous Creatures forcing the diversity back toward more mobile, more units, more models type armies. But I thought dark eldars were already fairly good at this with poison attacks.

I don't know much what can be done in the current mechanics.
- if we make IG and Orks more resilient (invulnerable saves, or other gimmicks) we'll end up with cannon-fodders such as boys as guards capable of surviving as well as marines. It doesn't make sense
- if we give them better weapons, or more accuracy, again everyone is now elite and it will be hard to explain why eldar elite troops are similarly equipped as grots.
- If we drop the point cost we end up with removing the tactical aspect of the game. If I put 300-500 boys on the board, there isn't much room to move anywhere else but a straight line, shooting in front of me. No tactics, no fun.

so we're left with new mechanics / rules (IMHO)
- better vehicle rules (more resilient) for a solid IG army made up of 10-15 tanks, also sells more model. Same for Ork, with new battlewagons/ scrap vehicles.
- better reserve rules with maybe not the ability to assault, but potentially the ability to survive longer the shooting on the first turn. This would leave the other army the ability to flee or engage the attacker and make the game more tactical around terrain, defense and placement
- new codex to come out with more racial-specific terrain/fortifications or simply discounts on points, ability to take several in a new FOC which will change the way the game gets played.
- new scenarios, setup configuration which change the way we play

Ironbone
19-03-2014, 12:17
What exactly is your point beyond "Shooting should be best always".
Well, it's 41st milenium for Emperors sake :rolleyes:, if I want swordfight as main way of dispatching enemy, I would play WFB ( wich I do btw :p), or join my town local knight brotherhood :p. Close combat should certainly have ( and it have currently) it's place in the rules. Hey, even now, what units are concidered best ? Ones who can do well in shooting and in close combat as well. If they are mobile and durable onto that, they are golden :D.

Hell, even in "Flames of War", wich is very ( for a wargame ofc, but still ) realistic WWII based game, and shooting is all over the place, assaults have lots of rules, and are maybe not major, but still damm important part of the game.

What annoys me to no end ( and it's my point ) that close combat was dominant part of the game for soooo daaaaam looong, and now when it finaly chaged, cacophonic chorus of voices screaming "Bring od times back ! We want to kill, maim, evicerate, trample, stomp and destroy all poor souls who oppose us. And they should not even dare to thing about any sensible way of stopping us !" can be heard.

God dammit, term "********" never been so accurate :p .

And before you will re-post, Scribe of Khorne, it's more directed at what I hear all over the internet, beeing multi-forum guy, than at you. Your post is preety lightweight compared to that, just idea behind it is the same.


Also how many shades of shooting can we have?
Well, we already have lot of them ( twin-linked one, blast one, template one, long, medium and short-ranged one, no save one, all saves one, on cover one, piosoned one, gather str at distance one, wound on something diffrent that T one ), and developers creativity is still adding more and more :D.


I don't know much what can be done in the current mechanics.
- if we make IG and Orks more resilient (invulnerable saves, or other gimmicks) we'll end up with cannon-fodders such as boys as guards capable of surviving as well as marines. It doesn't make sense
- if we give them better weapons, or more accuracy, again everyone is now elite and it will be hard to explain why eldar elite troops are similarly equipped as grots.
Well, IMHO guard and orkz are curently quite decent armies, despite beeing kinda old ( testement to codex design ). Sure, they need many tweaks here and there , but who doesn't ? Ceartainly they need improvment, but they don't need *that* big power surge that tau and eldar get. Problem lies more with opposite side of the board, because top armies have waaay too many toys to erese them without even breaking a sweat. With abmysal armour save, cover is only way for this armies to survive, and what is the point of having cover, when so many weapons ignore it ? Sure, it's hard to make armies usable without falling into fanboyism, or loosing flavour. Every army should have strong and weak sides. Some handle well CC, some are numerous, other pour a lot of shots. All that togheter wouldn't be bad, if top armies haven't bumped their strong sides to point almost boardering with absurd, while their dwarbacks are not that big of a deal ( especialy if you take alies to counter them, usually icreasing strong sides as well ).

coldwar
19-03-2014, 22:00
These for me are of my personal experience's. I am a Blood Angels and Necron Player though. And I don't really play cheese lists as people call them. Anyway.

Top Tier:
Necrons
CSM
Tau
Orks

Middle Tier:
Blood Angels
Space Marines
Eldar
Imperial Guard
Dark Eldar

Lower tier
Sisters of Battle
Daemons

My best mate plays CSM competitively and he play tested his list he was going to use against me before the last tournament at our local club. Was a close win with me winning. He won at the tournament at which I didn't play at due to that I don't like playing in tournaments anymore. CSM are powerful if you select the right things and you don't need to spam any unit either (other then two troop choices)

Greyhound
20-03-2014, 03:33
It's interesting that some people place eldars at the top, while other put orks. Different Metas, and different players I guess.

It's good to see diversity :)

Israfael
20-03-2014, 04:22
What annoys me to no end ( and it's my point ) that close combat was dominant part of the game for soooo daaaaam looong

You're mistaken about melee holding some kind of stranglehold over the hobby. Shooting and melee have taken turns back and forth between various editions, with the most recent editions (since 5th, really) favoring shooting armies- now heavily so.


On topic, my list, based upon my experience in the local tourney/club scene-


The clear winners:
Tau
Eldar
Daemons


Solid, but not on the same level:

Space Marines
Imperial Guard
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Grey Knights
Tyranids


Weaker than most:

Blood Angels


"Masochists only" club:

Sisters of Battle

AngryAngel
20-03-2014, 04:35
5th was firmly Shooting, and 6th is as well, 4th...well that was when Chaos lost its good codex, so I didnt play that...

What exactly is your point beyond "Shooting should be best always".

3rd the age of the rhino rush was a good time for assault, as was 4th. 5th was more shooty but CC was far from dead, 6th is the shooting edition for sure. Though I have no doubt the hammer will swing back hard for assault. It is the way of GW rules. Make something strong, next book , make it weak. Though such is felt more with units but it will hold true I am sure with core rules design.

-Totenkopf-
20-03-2014, 04:37
Wraithguard cut into the amount of serpents you can take though, and half of the Eldar's heavy lifting comes from the serpents. Wraithguard have range issues, and risk the serpent getting close to deliver them. 5 Dire Avengers + TL scatter laser Serpent is 185. 5 Wraithguard + TL-scatter Serpent is 280. You can get 3 DA + serpents for the price of 2 WG + serpents. This allows you to sit at long range and pelt stuff with 3, including the shields, instead of driving 2 in close to deliver the WG, in which case you have to keep the shields up to protect yourself. The potential damage of the WG+serpent combo is fairly high if everything goes well, but the average performance of the DA+serpents is a lot better, as it's much lower risk.

Honestly? No. The best build is constructed from 3-4 super OP units with primarily over-stacking buffs, and the rest of the book ranges from passable (Dire Avengers/guardians/Wraithguard) to laughably bad (Banshees/scorpians/Fire Prisms).

2 Farseers on jetbikes
5-8 warlocks on jetbikes. The Seer-star is....unkillable. Rerollable 2+ or 3+ invul save makes them untouchable. Throw them at the enemy willy-nilly and watch them not die.

2-3 3 man jetbike squads, left in reserve for late game objective contesting/capturing. Just rush right in 36", it's virtually impossible to stop if the Eldar go second.
3-4 5 man Dire Avenger squads in wave serpents with TL-scatter lasers. Wave Serpents are extremely difficult to kill with the shield up, and using it as a weapon gives them 4 S6 TL shots and another D6+1 S7 TL shots afterwards. It's passable anti-aircraft, and forces saves on MeQ and monstrous creatures by the bucket full. 4 of the will throw out 34 S6+ shots per turn, all twin-linked.

1-2 Wraith Knights. Weapon loadout is flexible, but I suggest the S10 shots for ranged anti-tank.

Any points left over is flexible, but a lot of people use allied Tau for anti-air/broadside missile spam, warwalkers or another Wraithknight or 2.

The army is fast and virtually indestructible. It's almost immune to small arms, and has so many high toughness/vehicle hull points to get rid of it saturates anti-tank firepower.



The entire codex is great.... Banshees get hate only because its hard to get the into combat... How are Fire prisms bad? I bring 2 in almost every list and they kick butt... Eldar are good because everything works well together.. An army of just wave serpents will not win you a tourny.. anymore than 3 is a waste IMO.. They need support and the book is full of support options...

As for the poll, I am surprised Necrons aren't rated higher.. They are they hardest codex to play against.. They can do it all.

Ironbone
20-03-2014, 12:16
Shooting and melee have taken turns back and forth between various editions, with the most recent editions (since 5th, really) favoring shooting armies- now heavily so.
Yeah, because all that rant about GK, SW and BA rapeing squad after squad came from nowhere and was entierly baseless :p. Sure, even in very cc friendly 4th ed they existed armies focused around shooting, Iron Warriors list for example, but every good one of them boasted strong counter-cc unit, like deamon prince. Pure dakka armies almost always performed below the averange, only guard have (brief) moment of glory during realese of it's glorious 5th ed dex, when it's shooting trully was good.

So, no, not untill 6th was proportions between shooting and cc even near to equal. I can agree that cc only uilds suffer back then as well, but any build too focused around one aspect of the game simply must form time to time face circumstances it will never handle well.

Scammel
20-03-2014, 12:52
Yeah, because all that rant about GK, SW and BA rapeing squad after squad came from nowhere and was entierly baseless :p. Sure, even in very cc friendly 4th ed they existed armies focused around shooting, Iron Warriors list for example, but every good one of them boasted strong counter-cc unit, like deamon prince. Pure dakka armies almost always performed below the averange, only guard have (brief) moment of glory during realese of it's glorious 5th ed dex, when it's shooting trully was good.

So, no, not untill 6th was proportions between shooting and cc even near to equal. I can agree that cc only uilds suffer back then as well, but any build too focused around one aspect of the game simply must form time to time face circumstances it will never handle well.

I'm not sure you're familiar with 5th ed that much. All the armies you listed (bar Guard) were powerful because they had extremely strong/cost effective shooting elements combined with the ability to stand up to assault. CSM were powerful because the lash Prince combo'ed well with Obliterators. SW ran as many units of Long Fangs as they could with Grey Hunters, not Blood Claws, filling out the Troops. BA tended to run Razorback spam over, say, Death Company. GK gave us the fearsome Psyfleman and ridiculous elements such as Psybolt ammo and Psycannon. Heck, even Orks ran Shootas over Sluggas and copious amounts of Lootas. Your suggestion that 5th was biased in favour of CC is many, many miles away from the truth.

Ironbone
20-03-2014, 19:54
Your suggestion that 5th was biased in favour of CC is many, many miles away from the truth.
Of course such suggestion is untrue, because I never said so :p. 5th ed wasn't biased into CC, it rules was simply favouring close combat over eradicating enemy from afar, as quicker, easier, and ultimatly, more cost-to-resoult effective ( single model almost never could destroy squad by shooting. Yet same single model could often wipe out same squad in cc without any major effort ).

I would say, in 5th ed, proprotions between CC and shootong were ( entire gamewise ) like 55-45. Now, they are more like 45-55 and everybody losses their minds :rolleyes:...

Vipoid
20-03-2014, 19:59
Of course such suggestion is untrue, because I never said so :p. 5th ed wasn't biased into CC, it rules was simply favouring close combat over eradicating enemy from afar, as quicker, easier, and ultimatly, more cost-to-resoult effective ( single model almost never could destroy squad by shooting. Yet same single model could often wipe out same squad in cc without any major effort ).

I would say, in 5th ed, proprotions between CC and shootong were ( entire gamewise ) like 55-45. Now, they are more like 45-55 and everybody losses their minds :rolleyes:...

You have very strange ideas about 5th.

At best, it was 40-60, with the advantage lying firmly with shooting. Shooting was much more efficient than combat at dealing damage - especially when you consider the transport rules. CC was still useful - e.g. to finish a depleted squad, or to keep a shooting unit out of the picture. But, shooting was more important and was what really dominated 5th.

In 6th, you're looking at 20-80 split - shooting just got a ton of advantages, whilst combat got much worse.

Minsc
20-03-2014, 20:07
In 6th, you're looking at 20-80 split - shooting just got a ton of advantages, whilst combat got much worse.

Agreed.

2D6" charge range doesn't nearly compensate for having to suffer trough overwatch, no charging out of transports, split charge getting nerfed and the badly implemented challenge-rules more or less screwing over melee-equipped "sergeants". Let's not forget the "remove the closest model's first"-rule also means that it's easy to "push" melee-units back several inches just by shooting them.
Not to mention that coversaves got worse across the board (better for shooting, worse for melee) and that it actually got harder to charge trough difficult terrain now than it used to be. (3D6, pick 2 lowest vs 2 D6, pick the highest).

You can even see this trend in the 6th Ed. codeci; They all got better at shooting but worse at combat. Why? Because close combat is flawed in the core rules of 6th Ed, and fixing it would require several pages of rules in the codex, while shooting is king without the need for any tweaking.

I mostly play CC-heavy lists (CSM, Orks and Eldar, although my Eldar has reverted to being primarily shooty now, thanks 6th Ed :rolleyes: ), and as someone who has played since late third Ed., playing a close combat army has never been harder than it right now.

4th was ~50/50, maybe a slight edge for melee units.
5th Was 60/40 for shooting. CC wasn't useless, but shooty units had an edge.
6th is 80/20, if not 90/10. By picking CC-units, you hamstring your army.

Ironbone
20-03-2014, 20:20
You have very strange ideas about 5th.
Strange you say :confused:? Well, maybe they are wired, but all is based on years of my own personal experience in playing :chrome:.


and as someone who has played since late third Ed., playing a close combat army has never been harder than it right now
Well, that's ceartainly true. But after so many years, tiping the balance ( even highly ) in favour of shooting was refreshing :).

Camman1984
20-03-2014, 20:36
I remember a time when a good close combat unit could roll up an entire army with sweeping advance after sweeping advance. That sucked, but close combat armies have taken way too many hits. Anyone remember how scary the eversor assasin was? Played one recently? How about banshees tearing through units of terminators?

In a non-competitive environment, assault can still work but you have to know what you are doing whereas a shooty army can take anyone on. I wonder what they will do with orks? After seeing the lack of melee help for nids i am concerned that orks will just become another flavour of gunline hunkered behing and aegis defence.

Marshal
20-03-2014, 22:07
I'm confused at to why people say 4th was more towards combat. Maybe people are forgetting the whole entangled rule? My god, I can't count the number of times my Dark Eldar paper planes went down in a fiery blaze only to have them sit there and look about pretty stupidly while they were "entangled" in the wreckage. (Entangled was when a vehicle exploded, you were basically auto-pinned, even if you were fearless) Too many tank death traps. I once had a unit of termies titsed out killed when my land raider crusader was circled by bikes and then they shot at it with a melta gun penetrating it (not killing it, any time a transport got a penetrating hit scored on it, occupants MUST automatically disembark) and watched the termie squad die off like it was nothing because there was no where to place them. The crusader was unhurt...

Minsc
20-03-2014, 22:30
Marshal; Wasn't that (auto-disembark on pen's) 3d Ed, or do I remember wrong?

Marshal
20-03-2014, 23:21
Marshal; Wasn't that (auto-disembark on pen's) 3d Ed, or do I remember wrong?

No, you're remembering wrong unfortunately. I started my days in 3rd Ed. Pg 68 BGB: Damage to Passengers:
Passengers carried aboard a vehicle that is destroyed or suffers a Penetrating hit (no matter what the result) will try to get out of the steel coffin as quickly as possible. The passengers must make an immediate disembarktion move. In addition, they may also suffer casualties and/or be pinned as a result. This is explained in the table below. Then there's a table below it that talks about vehicles and how you treat passengers when their vehicle is penetrated but not wrecked, and if their vehicle is destroyed. 4th Ed was the bane of light armoured transport vehicles...

Minsc
20-03-2014, 23:33
Ahh. Thanks, I guess I'm mixing 3rd and 4th then. As far as I remember, I didn't really start using transports other than Falcons until 5th Ed.

Still, in 4th you could consolidate into a new combat, so I'll stay by my statement that CC had an edge in 4th. :)

Krucifus
21-03-2014, 13:33
The Sweeping Advance into a new unit was absurdly broken; I remember one game where my Daemon Prince removed almost the entirety of an Imp Guard army by never being able to be shot at and conga-lining through units each player turn.

But they'd fixed that already, the 101 further nerfs were completely unneccesary and handing out "Hammer of Wrath" as if that fixes anything is just insulting.

Removing casulties from the front has completely taken the point away from running a green tide list as once the enemy has finished firing all you are doing is moving the back Boys into the space the Front Boys died in last turn. You need to space them out so they aren't decimated by templates and that just means more distance lost with every casulty.

Random charge distance would be bad enough it didn't then still grant a free overwatch shooting phase to the enemy when you roll snake eyes. I have never found the possibility of rolling over 6" to be worth the liklihood that you will roll less than that, and that's before even taking charging through cover into account! (I can't remember the last time I charged something that wasn't in cover...)

I know I'm mostly repeating stuff from other people's posts but I agree with it all 100%. To then remove charging from transports, infiltration or reserves has just been painful. As much as we've only just had 6th Ed I really hope the 7th Ed around the corner rumours are true so they can (please try) and fix some of this.

Assault is a massive part of the 40K game (as silly as it often seems in a scene with space laser cannons) for several armies and at the moment trying to assault with anything short of a monstrous creature makes you feel like you are being punished for not just sitting against the back line firing away with ignore cover, invulnerable save or anything else guns.