I personally always feel annoyed I need to navigate this as a video, so this is the list (as best as I can tell as this is still incredibly hard to parse zoomed all the way in at 1080p, which feels like a decision made to force people like me to stare at the video)
S: Tau, Necrons, Orks
A: Space Marines, Grey Knights, Thousand sons, Sisters, World Eaters, Death Guard, black Templar, Aeldari, Tyranids
B: Chaos Space Marines, Blood Angels, Astra Militarium, Leagues of Votann, Dark Angels, Genestelaer Cults, Chaos Knights, Custodes, Drukhari, Chaos Demons
C: Ad Mech, Imperial Knights, Death watch, Space Wolves
Why would you want Gladius for Spacewolves? Stormlance synnergizes so well with Thunderwolves and the detachment already gives you advance and charge which i feel is the main thing you get from Gladius.
The main draw of Gladius for Wolves is Wulfen. While they're solid in Stormlance, the ability to pick up Lance and +1 AP turns them into absolute blenders in Gladius, which is a reasonable alternative.
Yeah, a guy won a big event a couple of weeks ago in Gladius with loads of Wulfen, no TWC, and an Eradicator brick with the Biologis/Fire Discipline combo.
Well that's where Gladius giving an extra AP is very relevant. But also with high volume 2 damage attacks, you can sometimes just brute force your way through
Thank you for your service writing it out. I always check the video description or pinned comment for this, and click off to the next vid if it's missing.
The idea is the absolute best players on the absolute best list, playing against other top level players, which in their experience Tyranids has more tools to scale with player skill. Votann is a very straightforward faction that drops in effectiveness the better the opponent is at the game, while not offering a particularly high ceiling of optimization/tricks.
This is part of the problem. Nids players respect John's opinion on nids. He ranks them as the second worst faction in the game. Based on his comments in the discord, he doesn't think they are close to a tier
He hasn't won a tournament with them since September. He has had 2 seconds places but failed to win. Nids have won one GT which had too few players for stat check to accept it as data. This tier list placement was based on the fact gargoyles are good. Which they are. But gargoyles cannot win you a game on their own
The other part is, Siegler even says here, it's because top tier players like Lennon can win a GT with them.
So why not place ad mech in a tier? They've won more tournaments than nids and got more buffs. Siegler also says he could probably navigate them to a GT win with enough practice. That applies to every single faction with exceptions for (maybe, haven't looked at their data) extreme stat checks like knights.
It's genuinely amusing and simultaneously painful that admech is So bad that nerfing OTHER armies and books hurts admech more then it does other factions
Cos admech units are so astonishingly bad you do anything you can to NOT use them
It will be so sad when a ton of amazing plastic 30k mechanicum stuff comes out, and then none of it is playable in 40k because of the schism between core and specialty games inside GW.
I think the disconnect between AoW tier lists and the community is two fold:
1) These guys almost exclusively play against top level players, and so are basing their data off of their games. If you don't have top level movement/access to every single meta model, then yes you probably won't be A tier as Nids.
2) inversely, there are factions that AoW don't really seriously play. I'm a drukhari player, and while the criticisms towards Skysplinter aren't necessarily invalid (yes we struggle with primary, and yes targeting transports is a very viable strategy against us) it ignores the real ways to mitigate that as nobody in AoW aside from Skari seriously plays Drukhari. Every stream game that had Drukhari is running frankly sub optimal lists. The green tide game against Drukhari Quinton was running like 1/3 of the army as harlequins, which have 0 rules support and aren't even strong in Aeldari never mind Drukhari. Quinton is very clearly a strong player, you just kind of need to specialize into Drukhari to get enough reps to play skysplinter at a high level. I'm sure this is true with other factions in the game as well
I do enjoy the tier lists just as a way of talking about the current meta, and I think they are 80-90% correct in their assumption
I do feel like there is a bit of bias towards the armies they play more heavily. If they base the tier list on the games they play and how the armies perform in their testing it's quite understandable. They are after all only 5ish players and won't be getting enough games in with every single army to not be affected by personal biases.
But maybe they could be even clearer about that in the tier list. More "this is what we think works the best for us", instead of "this is the best in the hands of the best players".
Agreed, and this might be just a side effect of their main Drukhari coach not living in the house and doing stream games with them. I think that Drukhari is very much a specialist faction, and takes very consistent reps to make work.
I don't disagree with B tier, but I'm just looking at the factions above Drukhari in that tier and I'm not buying it. Drukhari has a really solid game plan into Leagues of Votann, Custodes, GSC, we're downright oppressive into chaos knights. I think middle to top of B tier makes more sense to me
So I've played Skysplinter vs CK about 5 times since the codex dropped, and I've found with all war dogs lists, you have enough damage to kill 4-5 war dogs a turn. 5 incubi and an archon on average kill a war dog, and scourges plus your other shooting will usually kill 1-2. I had one game where the CK player pushed super hard and spent most CP on double Shades plus a rotate ion shields, and i was able to charge with 2x5 and 1x10 incubi, killing 4 in melee and i killed 3 in shooting, which was obviously abive average but the raw msth has it possible if they dont have an interrupt.
So on say GW terrain with some longer firing lanes, you can shoot to death some karnivores, connect several charges and delete a huge chunk of the enemy army. That plus an abundance of little 10 OC packages to drop off on points makes denying primary a lot easier as well. Finally the beastmaster is key, as most of the games I was able to slow down and pin a couple of Brigands each game at the start. The indirect hurts the scourges, but you rip through the war dogs so quickly the damage quickly falls.
War dogs also for some reason have ork leadership so they fail battleshocks from incubi quite often
They have an insane amount of cheap dark lances and haywire weapons.
Here’s a good, relatively short batrep that showcases the struggle.
https://youtu.be/6cAw2uVcAJU?si=m3h7kPCw1VoGd1us
Except when evaluating the Top 5% elo vs top 5% elo, tyranids are the worst army with 34% winrate. Top 5% vs the field they're just above deathwatch.
John from AoW (who is actually an expert on nids) wanted to put them in B tier after the previous dataslate - but Siegs overrode John and said they were A tier. Siegs doesn’t play nids and just ignores people that do, which is unfortunate because it undoes all the expertise AoW has on hand
Totally agree specifically about Drukhari. I would love to see John or Jack or Richard or whoever specialize with Drukhari and play them exclusively for several months/quarters
I'm a drukhari main, and it still took me probably 20 games of skysplinter to really understand the nuances of it. I think Quinton is an awesome player, but his drukhari lists frustrated me. Like bringing grotesques or not having a beastmaster, having almost no scourges. There's a fairly narrow band of units that perform in skysplinter
I do get a lot of value out of my War Room subscription for just core concept videos and batreps but I definitely feel the drukhari side lacking a bit say compared to custodes/tau or other factions with similar sized rosters
I don't really agree with your take on Drukhari here and definitely side more with Art of War. The reality is that Drukhari is a decent army that struggles from a very specific detachment rule and a few limited datasheets.
Opponents at top level can literally just pop your transports and the army loses all damage. Ever play one of the best Guard players in the world with Drukhari? How about one of the best Canoptic Court or Custodies players? It isn't even a game.
Then if Incubi don't go into a target worth a damn... Drukhari just prays a few sets of scourges can kill it. Which really isn't true for some of these prolific datasheets.
Arty going down in play and Custodies losing fights first will really help. But I still don't see the army winning bigger tournaments just because some of their matchups are very very rigged against them.
I didn't say Drukhari were S tier, I just think they are better than a lot of the other B tier factions. Now with custodes getting hit pretty hard, that was our main gatekeeper gone. I think we are probably top of B tier, with some flaws in the faction but the ability to punch up against better factions with player skill. Which makes sense given Drukhari has had more GT wins than several of the other B tier factions.
Why so much negativity? You can disagree with people without insulting them. Thanks for continuing to put out great content. Please ignore the haters they are a vocal minority
All these Admech and Nids player furiously debating why thier faction is the worst...meanwhile Deathwatch is worse by every metric and got no changes, mentions, or confirmations.
At least metawatch confirmed playtesting for Admech. Deathwatch is worse off AND are being ignored. Just some perspective for you.
As a Nids player at least my faction has a decent semblance of playing like it is supposed to. Aside from Crusher Stampede the Detachments function well.
The big problem is the drought of anything beyond Strength 9, an underwhelming army rule and dependence on Biovore/spore mines.
Those arent good but at least they fall in the "GW could reasonably fix this" instead of Ad Mech's "This whole Codex needs a rewrite".
I play Nids too, so I understand the pain for sure, but at least we can podium. Someone recently went 5-0 and got second at a major GT, so it's possible. STR 9 cap is a bugger but Gargs are the single best unit in the game, so we have that going for us.
Admech are REALLY hurting right now for sure, but GW has confirmed that they are playtesting new rules for them to bring them back on par. It sucks to KEEP waiting Admech players, I understand, but GW is paying attention to your pain and is trying to fix it.
Meanwhile, there's Deathwatch...no changes from the last three updates, no mention of any changes in the future, and they even said that "besides the latest factions to get a codex and Admech, everyone else got point changes"...which means they just fully forgot DW was a thing.
Deathwatch needs improvement more so than any other faction in the game, prove me wrong.
That's the rumor for sure, which would be sad to see DW folded like that, but I can't say I don't understand the decision.
However, a youtuber named Valrak, who is deep into the 40k rumor mill, has stated that the redacted codex is specifically Agents of the Imperium and is not folding any other faction into it. He could be wrong of course but I hold out hope for another option.
For any DW players I do not blame them. However part of me thinks I would prefer DW didn't get "forgotten entirely" vs "is planned to move into [REDACTED]
Their stated approach on Admech gives me no hope for them or Nids. They're talking about rules but datasheets are the root of the issue for admech. The bugs got the same issue where some of their rules would have some play were it not for the glaring gaps in their datasheets notably S values
That's the rumor online, but Valrak (a YouTuber known for keeping a finger on the pulse of said rumors) says that the imperial agents codex won't be folding anyone into it.
If that's the case then the zero changes made to DW make even less sense lol
Hah true! Maybe they assume generic SM changes are sufficient somehow. Ive tried to build DW lists without killteams but just cannot see any real advantages to it.
It currently goes against dws design policy of what's in the box fits.
To make death watch squads you have to build multiple boxes.
If they get multiple kill teams where the sergeant is in terminator or gravis and then the remaining troops are in tacticus and then you just build the squad out how ever I can see it.
Then you just do an assault or shooty squad
I've actually tried some Vet heavy lists recently. Between Frag cannons and DW Thunder Hammers, I did decently in my local scene, that is, until the Wraith heavy Necron player ate me alive lol
Also, to address the design policy issue, it doesn't make much sense from a business perspective why they wouldn't push DW. The fact that DW requires multiple boxes to build properly is a source of consternation for the players, but a source of income for GW. I know they SAY they want things to come more "pre-packaged" but their actions speak louder then that (looking at you DA).
Deathwatch shouldn't be its own faction, neither should DA, BA, SW or any other marine flavour excluding singularly GK.
The issues with deathwatch being a bad faction I consider a non-argument because GW lied and didn't stick to their guns on saying that there wouldn't be any supplements.
Absolutely. It is a consequence of GW's poor planning and bad writing. This shouldn't be a problem at all, DW here are being measured by their own index. DW using the core marines rules are probably doing substantially better than the DW index.
This doesn't help anything though? You can complain (rightfully so) that GW went back on the whole supplement thing, but they did, and we are here now. Saying that BA/SW/DW/DA etc.. should languish for years until another edition isn't feasible.
It absolutely is feasible. They should drop them into legends now, cut the losses and rip the band-aid off. OR completely redisgn the supplements to be standalone (like TSons/DG) where they're outright banned from taking core marines models and points and have their own unique points.
This all sucks, it's GW's fault and it's marine players fault for constantly demanding that their special little babies all get their own special rules because they're so much better than xenos or chaos factions. If marines players were less dense we might actually get the positive changes needed to balance BA/DA/DW/whatever, but until marines can stop demanding they get special treatment then no. This is their grave that they dug, now they have to lie in it.
Literally no they shouldn't all of those have distinct units and identities there is absolutely zero reason to fold them into one faction otherwise you lose all lore coherency and are standardizing everything for everyone. Jesus, you're like the fun police. Those players want to play a distinctively different style of marines that's enough to be its faction so let them why do you care? Are you jealous?
Also, DW should not be paying some arbitrary price because you feel butthurt about some statement by GW. Your entire opinion and attitude is the type of player I fear the community becoming.
Absolutely not to all of that. I'm sorry but if Custodes went from 6 detachments down to 4, and Tyranids went from 6+customs down to 5, and crons went 6+Cust down to 5, then from a strictly balance perspective only marines should also be at 6 detachments maximum.
I'm sorry you play DW and are butthurt that your special little princesses aren't performing well, but it is a symptom of rules bloat. DW should not have a supplement and neither should any of the marine factions.
The only exception I would find acceptable is if they all had their own codexes like TSons/DGuard/WEaters and their points for units were totally different from the core marines AND they were banned from taking core marine options.
They should either be standalone OR rolled into the core codex ** *like every other goddamn faction in the game you whiny loser* **. It's just the absolute audacity of you to go "waaa waaa you're butthurt" and then to immediately go "but also I'm special and my little war Barbie's deserve unique rules but yours don't because... Reasons?"
It really is. AoW put out high quality content and are an important part of growing the community. You can disagree with their opinions without being an ass. Be better yall
That's really just the nature of these sorts of tier-lists.
If you agree with the rankings you probably won't feel compelled to comment on the thread; there isn't much to say if their opinion matches yours.
If you disagree and you think your faction is **stronger/better** than their rankings then you keep quiet because you don't want the whiners at your local store using comments (or future AOW content) as an excuse to complain.
If you disagree and think your faction is **weaker/worse** than their ranking, then you come post on Reddit - because how **dare** they imply your personal winrate is anything but a reflection of how downtrodden your faction currently is.
1:58:38
This comment is so sad to hear. One of the reasons Necrons are too good is because... they have a detachment that is well designed and plays the mission well.
This should be the bar to meet rather than a point of contention that inevitably causes internal and external imbalance. It really does feel like these codices are written in a day by one person sometimes...
In the Codex the Tyrannofex costed 190Pts, but was overwritten before it got to the players and the MFM nerfed them to 240Pts.
So no communication between MFM Team and Codex Team.
They took away Tyrannofex -1 Damage and still nerfed it to 240Pts
Amongst other things too. It is not a good or fun codex. It is not a good or fun edition to be honest.
I wish the whole thing was burnt to the ground and the only thing saved from 10th was the mission generation and secondary mission choices. I genuinely love those, random missions and random objectives are super fun. And the option to do set in stone versions for tournaments or people who hate too much random have an option and I love that for them.
But I do not like the lack of list building and options and overall just feeling that there are only 4 good datasheets in every codex. Screw 10th Ed.
I only play nids, and it's difficult to say if my problem is that I don't find playing tyranids fun, or if I don't find 10th edition fun. Compounded by the fact I know a lot of people don't have fun playing nids as you either can or cannot deal with them
Art of War: If you're one of the best players in the world, Nids are A Tier...
You guys are great but that's a pretty useless take to everyone that isn't John Lennon or Sam Pope.
Which is ridiculous because that means a skilled tyranids player will apparently win more GTs etc than all other factions B tier and below. This has not been true at all, and the last tyranid list that went 5-0 has actually been nerfed beyond 2000 points due to gargoyle point hikes.
I much prefer the tier lists where it’s John and one of the other guys (not in this video), Siegs tends to massively overhype factions he doesn’t play, then downplays the power of factions he does play.
Does that mean that top players just aren't playing a huge slew of factions? Space Wolves have been 55% win rate for weeks - is it because they're up against bad players, or are Art of War just wrong on their tier list?
They’re not infallible and this is their opinions. If they just look at win rate, it’s boring - what’s the point? And if you’d watched the video you would know they were ranking Index Space Wolves, not Stormlance Space Wolves, which is the only competitive space wolf list
They ranked SW on their index detachment rather than space wolf units in space marine codex detachments. Look to where they ranked space marines to see where wolves in a space marine detachment stack up
I know they get hate for either way they do it, but it's a super odd approach to say "we'll lump SW, BT, and DA together with Codex Marines" when many of those factions play *completely* differently. Like, SW is basically TWC and Wulfen - units that no other marine codex has access to. When 1/2 the army is non Codex units and they're the main aspect of the army, it seems very odd to group them with a different army. It's like combining CSM with Chaos Daemons because CSM can use Chaos Daemon units
Yeah, they go back and forth on whether they include the Codex detachments in the evaluation of non-codex chapters (last video they did, this time apparently not), but they always underestimate Stormlance Space Wolves either way. It's also absolutely bonkers to me to publish a "tier list" that claims to look at the "best list with the best player", and then locks non-codex chapters into their worst detachments. It'd be like putting up an evaluation of Necrons based exclusively on the Destroyer detachment.
sad BA noises. they noticed us performing around 50%. needed a punch to the face i guess.
i hope you can fly under the Radar for longer and keep the difference between vanilla SM and the compliant chapters up
I'm sorry, but AoWs opinion on nids has really lost all credibility with me. They're at 40% win rate multiple weekends in a row now, and 43% 12 week win rate. They've won ONE event in about 4 months.
They cite John when trying to demonstrate how well nids can do, but even he hasn't won an event with them yet. He did clarify that two of those events would've been his if not for weird scoring systems, but the fact is he hasn't won an event with them.
They're struggling even when used by the best players in the world. They are not A tier by any measurable, objective metric.
Edit: typos
John Lennon, Alex MacDougall, Sam Pope and others have performed well with them into high quality opponents. That's what this is judged off of. Not the average Tyranid performance which is not good. It's a hard army to play and could use with a rules adjustment to make it easier for the average player.
I understand, and i do think nids have potential, but you're citing some of the best players in the world, and there's not a single event win between all of them (at least not since the January slate).
If these players, who are arguably playing the army to its highest potential, aren't winning events, are they really A tier?
Simple fact is there are far more events than people even us can travel to, but if I really want to chase event wins for instance there would be more Admech GT+ wins for sure. Same for John with Nids. All the games we have played is what this is based on and John has played a ton with Nids both against Team USA, AoW, and at Florida events.
Nids are definitely a higher skill faction and a lot of the community take seriously your Aow guys opinion.
But still Eldar and Tson are arguably high skill factions too…why are they doing so much better if in the same A tier category ? If skill is equally weighted than why statistically eldar and tson people are putting up a better data, are they better at rolling d6? If we pick 15 high-ish elo players, 5 for each nids, tson and eldar so the average between the groups is even…which group makes the better result?
Opinions are always important but in this particular case the discrepancy between statistics can’t really justify A tier for me.
That's a good point. I still disagree with nids being anywhere near A tier, but i understand how you all are looking at it, and i appreciate you discussing it with me!
Either way, if they're A tier or not, i do hope the next slate gives nids some help via rules changes.
The best way to watch these videos is to keep in mind the lens in which the AoW team look at the armies.
As it has been discussed, they are looking at it through the lens of the top players. That’s fine enough. That’s where they are at and what they like to talk about.
But it shouldn’t be an end all be all. It shouldn’t then be taken as gospel for all armies everywhere.
It doesn’t mean that admech can’t perform or that nids are not good.
My take away from these videos is seeing where the meta stands and what people are talking about / taking.
But your local meta is important to consider too. Net lists only go so far and are not always applicable.
I think that’s partly why AoW sings praises of the team match tournaments. You can build off meta lists that do specific things against specific matchups.
This is the best take right here. Teams format fixes alot of the woes with off meta factions, and I encourage everyone to check it out. Easily the most fun I've ever had playing 40k
Thanks! To that end, I was recently in an escalation league at my local shop.
I have a very large Tau army that is, regrettably, mostly unpainted. So I pushed myself to paint my shame and to take things I thought were cool (or was already painted 🤣), rather than meta lists.
I did this also as a way to kind of handicap myself a bit, since I have over 4K points of Tau to pull from. I didn't want to come in and smash new players just starting out.
This forced me to be creative with units I normally do not take, and I ended up having a lot of fun with it. :)
He has won 1 or 2 events in previous months and did really well in the recent BFS teams tourney, including upsetting Nayden’s Tsons which was projected to be an incredibly bad loss.
>won 1 or 2 events
John hasn't won any events with nids in the last quarter. He finished 2 events 5-0 but finished second. Tyranids won 1 20 man GT last quarter
Teams is not singles, it's really unfair to be rating teams when it's something a fractional number of the competitive player base plays.
True they really uplifted the rating with team event which is just useless data, if you could pick 5-8 best armies without any limit, it wouldn't even cross your mind to play Nids let alone the fact that in team event you can draft matchups which skews data even more.
Their judgement is taken very close to reality, as it should because AoW are great players, but MATH is sometimes just unquestionable. Nids since the last dataslate have an impressive low winrate, low top/wins at big events.
Even Lennon's best performance (the swarmlord himself) won with nids waaay back in end september at Crucible...well since than: his list went up points, other armies got codexes and now everyone knows nid scoring tricks. Its much harder to replicate the result now.
The game against Nadyen's Tsons he was going to lose and get tabled if the clock kept running, Nayden said this when John asked him what he would do but clocked out and so Nids won.
Fair, not gonna argue with the man himself lol. Paraphrasing but I thought I heard him saying he'd win without the clock, and Magnus looked unstoppable.
Which event? Did he win the event? Is it an event tracked on meta Monday or meta watch?
Edit: oh you said TEAMS event. That's pretty meaningless. The game isn't balanced around teams, just like it isn't balanced for 1k or 3k points. Teams events aren't tracked or considered for balancing by gw
Yes, we won. TLM layton in Orlando.
Dont think so as it’s a one day event, but it was three games of competitive warhammer with a wide player base. Last time I was at an event set up by the same people at the same store, three art of war dudes were there, and they didn’t even win. Competition is fierce in that area
So teams is 3 singles games. It isn’t meaningless to say that this nids player absolutely stomped 3 opponents in a row. That’s my recent view of the faction.
I wouldn't go nearly that far. They have years of knowledge, expertise, and some of the best players in the world on their team. I just don't agree with their ranking of nids, and think that even if they base it off how well nids can perform based off how well players like John do with them, they still dont belong in A tier due to a lack of event wins across the board.
But that's just my opinion. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable or skilled as these guys, so really no one should listen to me. But that doesn't mean i don't want to have a discussion with them and share my opinion.
The more I see these tier lists the less seriously I take them. It's fun memes for sure.
It's just weird when I see this stuff get ranked and compare them to the objective metrics of success literally everyone in the hobby has access to. Tyranids in A tier is peak memery
How do Tyrannids rank on stat check when you isolate it to the demographic AoW is talking about (i.e. skilled players using solved lists)?
They dont always emphasize it enough, but they are specifically evaluating the ceiling of a faction. So if you are using statcheck (great resource I think), sorting makes a difference.
Also, this is a predictive, post MFM guess by them. Until those points are impacting the tournaments en masse, their predictions certainly wont be worth checking the numbers on yet.
Not defending AoW here, as I agree they have their misfires plenty of the time, but if they are gonna be accussed of memery, lets make sure the context matches the defamation at hand, hehehe.
This is why I asked. That is the target demo AoW is talking about really, and clearly at odds with current performance. Not sure what they believe will bring Nids to A tier from that depth, but havent watched the whole video yet.
Probably its true because if Nids require a higher skill to “do tricks” and score your points while your army is dying trying to pillow damage…well indeed your high skill opponent likely knows the tricks but he actually brought guns not pillows.
Its really hard to find any metric where they are not at or close to the bottom. Even if they have play to them this also kinda shows there is counter play as well.
>How do Tyrannids rank on stat check when you isolate it to the demographic AoW is talking about (i.e. skilled players using solved lists)?
No idea. 45% winrate and no event wins. I'd bother checking if they had even a single (one(1)) win, but those two metrics are quite telling.
Stat Check's tierlist was a statistical analysis of the performance of factions over the previous MFM points, though. It's not applicable going forward.
Yes currently. This tier list is what they believe is happening post MfM.
I dont disagree Nids are on the struggle bus for average/regular players by any means here.
tbf, the points changes wont help. Even John fro AOW said the only 2 things that will change is Assimilation Swarm (a terrible detachment) will spam 3 psychopages, and he will drop a pyrovore or ripper from his list to keep gargoyles in invasion fleet.
GW lowered points on bad datasheets that no one takes, and nerfed a good unit that every list is taking, so really it was an overall nerf to nids. The bad sheets will still be bad and left on the shelf, and people will have to drop a unit or two to keep their gargolyes.
Its not like the top tier players are winning with them either. And i dont see the changes being made making a difference. Siegler said it at the end of the dataslate stream that he did with John, the best lists got worse. Its odd hearing him say that then also saying they are A tier.
Just saying nids players need to git gud is unhelpful. Especially when the only data to really back it up is team games.
I dont know where the git gud is from, but beside the point.
Im curious what changes across the field (maybe some factions getting nerfed?) they think will launch Nids into A tier as well. That being said, my only point was that they are predicting based off of the mfm, and only in the hands of aces with solved lists.
Im not defending their predicition.
They said that the best players in the world can eek out a result with them, I've already explained why that is false. By that I mean John Lennon managed to time out Sean Nayden in a team tournament. There's a reason meta lists don't count team tournaments.
Their entire justification is that gargoyles are unstoppable. Apparently nothing can kill 20 gargoyles in the game. Apparently deep strike + move shoot move on a T3 6+ model is completely unstoppable despite the fact they evaporate to flamer overwatch. Yes if they get in front of a land raider, that land raider isn't going that way. Yes, if an army doesn't have the tools to clear a horde, they are going to have a bad day.
The problem I have with that criteria is it’s like, who cares? Wow yeah a really good player with the best list can still win, I don’t think that really means anything to the majority of people, who are probably average at the game and have models they either like because of their design or the way they play. An overall tier list using all available data is just more helpful to the average player AND more interesting
> The more I see these tier lists the less seriously I take them. It's fun memes for sure.
The real value in these videos is the discussion about why a given army is in a given tier, not what tier an army actually is in.
It would be awesome if the tier list was constantly present to give context to what the guys are discussing. Also the faction name text is way too small. Thanks for the content!
The generic SM included lists like BT Gladius and DA Ironstorm. They were ranking the Codex detachments, no matter which chapter you use. They ranked the Divergent Chapters based on their specific detachments
And I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach. Those guys saying that Space Marines are A tier based on Black Templar units when I’m sitting here as an Ultras player is hilarious.
Divergent chapters should be based on what they have access to just like Codex SM. Otherwise they would rank SM as A and BT as C (if their detachment sucked) and say “but hey BT needs improvements” which is clearly not the case and false.
> *And I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach. Those guys saying that Space Marines are A tier based on Black Templar units when I’m sitting here as an Ultras player is hilarious.*
You (ie; not *you* specifically, but the community) also complained when they ranked each chapter by best detachment used instead.
There is no winning, somebody will always complain.
Top players with Top lists.
The same way they always do it.
They judge the divergent chapters on their specific detachments. So spacewolves is champions of russ, not storm lance.
They state this at the start of the video.
I’m not sure if they switch formats (defining faction by detachment taken as opposed to defining faction by chapter specific units), but it’s stated clearly how this list was made.
Last time (and the majority of previous ones) they did divergent chapters the way you described. They stated at the start of this video they were doing all chapters with codex detachments as Generic Marines (including things like BT Gladius) and each of the Divergent Chapters as their special detachment. It helps to watch the video ;)
Yes they included things like BT Gladius and DA Ironstorm as Generic SM. They were basically ranking the Codex detachments, with the best divergent or codex chapters being used.
I don't get people assuming that a marine ranking has to be more a single archetype.
Cause if you rank each book as "all the detachments averaged" then that chart gets hilariously funky. Crons with S/S/B/C/D detachments suddenly average out to B tier.
The issue with the Guard "buffs" is always the same: they are on terrible profiles. If they had got the Demolisher down by 10 points, it would be noticeable - but on the Eradicator? Who cares?
Pretty much the only relevant buffs are on the normal Russ (edit: and the Exterminator), the Hellhound, and the few extra points squeezed out of Scions, completely offset if you still want to use Bullgryns or even a bit of artillery. My list went down 20 points total - I'm not even buying a Cyclops with that.
> If they had got the Demolisher down by 10 points, it would be noticeable - but on the Eradicator? Who cares?
Eventually the Russ chassis will get so cheap that it's worth it for the sponson weapons and hull, regardless of the main gun. Someone went 4-1 with three Vanquishers (and eight Russes total) at Dice Goblins with the new points this weekend.
Triple vanquisher? Now that is interesting. Guess they are basically paying 145 for a good hull and some multimeltas. The vanquisher cannon is just an added bonus.
My vibe is Orks is high-top of A personally, not S. Even their best builds feels like they have a lot of flaws, and taking a claw to a gun fight is often just a big disadvantage.
But I'm glad we will soon find out. Seems like people are thinking they are the most broken thing yet based on their reaction to Mega Nobs but even after some of my own games they feel strong but manageable.
> and taking a claw to a gun fight is often just a big disadvantage.
I can't really agree with that. Waaagh gives good reach (and potentially twice for some units) and good bonuses. Throw in lots of good scoring pieces (Snikrot, Weirdboys, Stormboyz) and melee threat can either control the board or just smash the enemy into their deployment zone.
Oh I'm not saying it's not a good list. I just don't know if I'd elevate it to the same level as Canoptek Court or Mont'ka like they did here.
Orks seem to me to be solid but very flawed. If you come prepared you'll be fine. Fundamentally they are a low AP army that doesn't shoot very hard (dread mob excluded, and even then that basically is all AP2 shooting. good luck killing 2+ AoC which is very popular in redeemers).
I'll be surprised if it dominates. I'd wager it's more of a gatekeeper list.
Green tide is a coin flip where it'll wanna slot in where people aren't bringing enough guns.. but Gargoyle spam is a thing, and certain armies easily pickup 20 boys as a matter of course (Votann).
Dread Mob will completely depend on terrain format. It has a lot of damage output potential that will often be hard to deliver. And it's also kind of locked at str 9 AP2, which some stuff won't care much about.
People are going to get mad at what you said because everyones riding the "orks will be overpowered" wave but yea pretty much my sentiments after playing a few codex games.
Nobz are still made of a paper and Meganobz still kind of bounce off the things you want them to charge other than vehicles and fail to flip objectives because they are OC1 and not that killy with only D2 weapons. Combine that with Badrukk going away and losing your best method to clear chaff for your expensive units to get past its not going to be too difficult to screen and deal with Orks.
I think they are going to be good but honestly the biggest buff to Orks win rate is going to be Custodes codex kneecapping what was Orks worst matchup.
Yeah I think Wardens getting nerfed is probably the biggest buff Orks had, including 4+ FNP mega nobs. That matchup was bloody impossible if your opponent knew what they were doing.
I honestly think Bully boys is solid but I suspect it's flaws will prevent it from becoming oppressive. I do think some armies / lists that already struggled into Orks will really feel it, though. Bully boys exerts \*a lot\* of pressure.
But it also doesn't hit that hard and will basically have 0 guns. Think you'd rather stare that down than 18 wraith, triple Doomstalker Court or Breacher fish Tau, which I suspect will absolutely clean up.
Meganobs are S-tier... as far as Brick units go, but as a threats they're as dangerous as you let them be.
They will waddle around, make shooting noises at passersby and not fall down when dumped on.
"Doctor, my hand hurts when I punch the wall"
"Then stop punching the wall" tier.
How useful is any tierlist for marines that focuses on Detachments? I'm really not sure that's super helpful.
If you look at something like stormlance, it is only really played in Space Wolves. I don't think a single player you approached at a tourney would categorize it as anything other than a space wolf list. It can't function in regular marines. It's misleading to instead group it with codex marines as a whole.
Codex marines are already struggling mightily, and if you compare their gladius, ironstorm, firestorm, etc. it is 15%+ lower than the divergent equivalents. At some point, there's no utility in calling those "space marine" lists.
Moreover, it's a massive feels bad to people who want to play codex marines, and struggle without the tools and toys the divergents have, to see them ranked A when they have consistently been the lowest win rate army on average for months.
I wish when your discussing Tournament wins with Guard you guys would acknowledge almost all were done on WTC/UKTC formats.
The prevelant Guard archetype was really only A tier in those formats and didn’t function nearly as well in GW format.
> The prevelant Guard archetype was really only A tier in those formats and didn’t function nearly as well in GW format.
The 40K Fireside guys thought that it did better on GW terrain than UKTC terrain, actually.
You mean it didn’t function well in the USA - I think we’ve been here before, it functioned perfectly fine on GW terrain if not the best terrain format for Guard’s stronger list archetypes, there just isn’t good uptake of guard in the USA particularly from the top players.
You very well know that’s nonsense. Good players gravitate to good armies. We have plenty of good Guard players here, probably more than UK but our format is not as favorable.
A small smattering of GT wins, and only 2 large event wins in the US. UK has more wins in two months than US in the entirety of 10th.
US iterates more tournaments and GTs, yet has far less wins than regions that use the more terrain dense UKTC or WTC.
Stop with the US Guard players bad nonsense.
Im sure there are amazing guard players in the US and we see a fair amount of wins there too, but Gaylard and Nassim are top 10 in the world caliber players and probably on another level than most we talk about here.
I'd be curious what happened if any of the AoW guys or the rest of the US WTC team members picked up guard and played them to a few tournaments.
Ben Jurek has been playing Guard stateside, John Lennon plays Guard though not exclusively.
The argument is are the UK players so good at Guard they are getting wins what US players are not able to?
Or is it in their format are Guard a better army with certian lists and they attract more high level players.
I’d argue it’s the latter. Format and terrain affect outcomes. The denser terrain with more substantial L shape terrain changes what units are taken and the meta.
Guard major weakness is board control, existing on objectives. UKTC/WTC terrain makes it easier for Guard to safely stage while denying opponents the ability to do so using indirect fire.
Alright, didn't think about Ben Jurek when trying to come up with US guard players, he's certainly a great player. Checked the results and I'd say a 4th and a 13th place is pretty good in the two tournaments I found (one was teams though).
I can't see that Lennon played guard this season, but he's the kind of player I'd like to see what he can do with them on US terrain!
The only reason I'm not buying the terrain army completely is that Gaylard has dismissed GW terrain being bad for it, which would make guard good on 3 out of the major 4 terrian formats and not just UKTC.
Regardless it's probably moot now. The style of list that performed so well with guard got hit pretty hard and I have no clue how they will do now and how they will work with the various terrain formats if the build change.
The argument isn’t that guard players are so bad in the US, it’s just none of the very good players in the US are using guard at events, that skews the stats, particularly larger event wins. Whereas in Europe we had a chunk of the top players using them, it skews the stats.
GW terrain is good for guard. Even your comment about uktc being good for staging and board control for guard shows you have no clue what you’re talking about - UKTC is one of the worst terrain formats for Guard exactly because they have the risk of losing board control cause they can’t stage safely outside their DZ. GW lets you stage midboard AND hide your indirect pieces in your DZ. You’re so laser focussed on terrain being the key factor you can’t see it’s stopping you from analysing what the context behind the statistics is.
Eh. Those lists are strong on GW terrain with fixed secondaries. Reinforcing and having your artillery being super hard to get to is really good. Scoring was relatively easy and preventing scoring was also easy.
They still hit it way too hard.
I run a pretty unusual IK list, but I’ve done well enough with them that I run other factions more often to avoid hard feelings. 2 Atrapos, Canis, 2 warglaves, 2 helverins, and eversor. They just always push the invuln save if it’s there, and they do well at both melee and range.
If you compare that to more popular lists, you drop significantly on shooting into cover, melee, survivability, or all of the above.
I'm watching through this and Space Marines at A tier is just misleading to the point of meaninglessness. Yeah, the top 3 exact netlists are good, sure. But this is supposed to be a *faction* tier list, and as a faction Space Marines has one of the worst winrates in the game.
Considering other mediocre factions like Tyranids and Death Guard are also in A tier, I think this is more like a "how scary is it to play into this faction at the top table" tier list than an actual faction tier list.
They don't take WR into account at all. If you actually watch the video they state clearly, this tier list is the best player of an army playing the best list. "How scary is it to play into this faction at the top table" is actually a great description, and they clearly state that that is how they are ranking it in the video.
The Generic SM rating included lists like BT Gladius, DA Ironstorm, etc. which are quite easily A tier armies. Once again they also clearly stated this in the video.
By your metric, most armies in the game are D or F tier because they have bad models...
They're not going to take the time to rank Battleline Stormlance Outriders and Kor'Sarro Khan because it's not competitively viable.
If you play certain builds of Death Guard well, it can do really well and that's why it's upper-middle of the pack. If you bring 20x Poxwalkers because you bought the Combat Patrol and that's your RTT / GT list, then yeah it'll be pretty bad.
I personally always feel annoyed I need to navigate this as a video, so this is the list (as best as I can tell as this is still incredibly hard to parse zoomed all the way in at 1080p, which feels like a decision made to force people like me to stare at the video) S: Tau, Necrons, Orks A: Space Marines, Grey Knights, Thousand sons, Sisters, World Eaters, Death Guard, black Templar, Aeldari, Tyranids B: Chaos Space Marines, Blood Angels, Astra Militarium, Leagues of Votann, Dark Angels, Genestelaer Cults, Chaos Knights, Custodes, Drukhari, Chaos Demons C: Ad Mech, Imperial Knights, Death watch, Space Wolves
Thanks for this TLDR.
Common Death Guard W. Nurgle provides
Not muh wolves 🥺
For context they were just rating the space wolves detachment. They are probably better than C if you use one of the codex detachments
I play guard now but played wolves in 7th back when you could throw terminator sergeants in squads. Those were the days
Space Wolfes are A tier if you run Gladius (or Stormlance on some terrain formats). But their own detachment is the worst detachment in the game.
Why would you want Gladius for Spacewolves? Stormlance synnergizes so well with Thunderwolves and the detachment already gives you advance and charge which i feel is the main thing you get from Gladius.
The main draw of Gladius for Wolves is Wulfen. While they're solid in Stormlance, the ability to pick up Lance and +1 AP turns them into absolute blenders in Gladius, which is a reasonable alternative.
This
Yeah, a guy won a big event a couple of weeks ago in Gladius with loads of Wulfen, no TWC, and an Eradicator brick with the Biologis/Fire Discipline combo.
Ah pretty interesting. I do kinda like that idea. Only ap1 makes them kinda meh though, but Thunderwolves have the same problem i guess.
Well that's where Gladius giving an extra AP is very relevant. But also with high volume 2 damage attacks, you can sometimes just brute force your way through
Opens up unit options. You can run wolves next to an agressor brick etc. Not every sw player has 18 thunderwolves
Thank you for your service writing it out. I always check the video description or pinned comment for this, and click off to the next vid if it's missing.
A true champion for the consumer. Thank you
Why wouldn’t you want to watch an hour of superchats and rambling for what could be a tight 15 minute video?
Sounds bold to put Votann below Tyranids. Can't see the MFM having caused a change, is there any evidence things are and have been like this?
The idea is the absolute best players on the absolute best list, playing against other top level players, which in their experience Tyranids has more tools to scale with player skill. Votann is a very straightforward faction that drops in effectiveness the better the opponent is at the game, while not offering a particularly high ceiling of optimization/tricks.
Or, you know, John Lennon playing his bugs.
This is part of the problem. Nids players respect John's opinion on nids. He ranks them as the second worst faction in the game. Based on his comments in the discord, he doesn't think they are close to a tier He hasn't won a tournament with them since September. He has had 2 seconds places but failed to win. Nids have won one GT which had too few players for stat check to accept it as data. This tier list placement was based on the fact gargoyles are good. Which they are. But gargoyles cannot win you a game on their own The other part is, Siegler even says here, it's because top tier players like Lennon can win a GT with them. So why not place ad mech in a tier? They've won more tournaments than nids and got more buffs. Siegler also says he could probably navigate them to a GT win with enough practice. That applies to every single faction with exceptions for (maybe, haven't looked at their data) extreme stat checks like knights.
>and who belongs in the dreaded D-tier (and why is it admech But GW keeps saying they'll fix us! I'm sure next time will happen, for sure! (/s)
20% point reduction on all units and Skitarii are actually negative points.
Real money wallets cry for Ad Mech. Gotta be the worst money to points ratio army in the game.
Haven't done the math, but I would be surprised if they surpassed GSC as the most expensive army.
AdMech have held the title all edition, and for at least a year before. Poorhammer did a good analysis of it, it wasn't even close.
I think even at the start of 10th Ed they were pretty close to GSC in points per dollar, it's only gotten worse
Not to mention nerfing imperial agents, which then nerfs AdMech in turn.
It's genuinely amusing and simultaneously painful that admech is So bad that nerfing OTHER armies and books hurts admech more then it does other factions Cos admech units are so astonishingly bad you do anything you can to NOT use them
Gw got you They will simply delete a third of your models from the game, that way the number of bad datasheets will drop
The number will drop, but the proportions will remain unchanged!
Genius move by gw. No longer can you slap in a Knight and use up your points, with all admech troops at negative points you have to run 120 of them.
It will be so sad when a ton of amazing plastic 30k mechanicum stuff comes out, and then none of it is playable in 40k because of the schism between core and specialty games inside GW.
11th Quarter in a row, let's go!
Some top tier memes coming out of this from the nids discord
I think the disconnect between AoW tier lists and the community is two fold: 1) These guys almost exclusively play against top level players, and so are basing their data off of their games. If you don't have top level movement/access to every single meta model, then yes you probably won't be A tier as Nids. 2) inversely, there are factions that AoW don't really seriously play. I'm a drukhari player, and while the criticisms towards Skysplinter aren't necessarily invalid (yes we struggle with primary, and yes targeting transports is a very viable strategy against us) it ignores the real ways to mitigate that as nobody in AoW aside from Skari seriously plays Drukhari. Every stream game that had Drukhari is running frankly sub optimal lists. The green tide game against Drukhari Quinton was running like 1/3 of the army as harlequins, which have 0 rules support and aren't even strong in Aeldari never mind Drukhari. Quinton is very clearly a strong player, you just kind of need to specialize into Drukhari to get enough reps to play skysplinter at a high level. I'm sure this is true with other factions in the game as well I do enjoy the tier lists just as a way of talking about the current meta, and I think they are 80-90% correct in their assumption
I do feel like there is a bit of bias towards the armies they play more heavily. If they base the tier list on the games they play and how the armies perform in their testing it's quite understandable. They are after all only 5ish players and won't be getting enough games in with every single army to not be affected by personal biases. But maybe they could be even clearer about that in the tier list. More "this is what we think works the best for us", instead of "this is the best in the hands of the best players".
Agreed, and this might be just a side effect of their main Drukhari coach not living in the house and doing stream games with them. I think that Drukhari is very much a specialist faction, and takes very consistent reps to make work. I don't disagree with B tier, but I'm just looking at the factions above Drukhari in that tier and I'm not buying it. Drukhari has a really solid game plan into Leagues of Votann, Custodes, GSC, we're downright oppressive into chaos knights. I think middle to top of B tier makes more sense to me
Can you explain the drukhari vs CK matchup?
So I've played Skysplinter vs CK about 5 times since the codex dropped, and I've found with all war dogs lists, you have enough damage to kill 4-5 war dogs a turn. 5 incubi and an archon on average kill a war dog, and scourges plus your other shooting will usually kill 1-2. I had one game where the CK player pushed super hard and spent most CP on double Shades plus a rotate ion shields, and i was able to charge with 2x5 and 1x10 incubi, killing 4 in melee and i killed 3 in shooting, which was obviously abive average but the raw msth has it possible if they dont have an interrupt. So on say GW terrain with some longer firing lanes, you can shoot to death some karnivores, connect several charges and delete a huge chunk of the enemy army. That plus an abundance of little 10 OC packages to drop off on points makes denying primary a lot easier as well. Finally the beastmaster is key, as most of the games I was able to slow down and pin a couple of Brigands each game at the start. The indirect hurts the scourges, but you rip through the war dogs so quickly the damage quickly falls. War dogs also for some reason have ork leadership so they fail battleshocks from incubi quite often
They have an insane amount of cheap dark lances and haywire weapons. Here’s a good, relatively short batrep that showcases the struggle. https://youtu.be/6cAw2uVcAJU?si=m3h7kPCw1VoGd1us
Except when evaluating the Top 5% elo vs top 5% elo, tyranids are the worst army with 34% winrate. Top 5% vs the field they're just above deathwatch. John from AoW (who is actually an expert on nids) wanted to put them in B tier after the previous dataslate - but Siegs overrode John and said they were A tier. Siegs doesn’t play nids and just ignores people that do, which is unfortunate because it undoes all the expertise AoW has on hand
Totally agree specifically about Drukhari. I would love to see John or Jack or Richard or whoever specialize with Drukhari and play them exclusively for several months/quarters
I'm a drukhari main, and it still took me probably 20 games of skysplinter to really understand the nuances of it. I think Quinton is an awesome player, but his drukhari lists frustrated me. Like bringing grotesques or not having a beastmaster, having almost no scourges. There's a fairly narrow band of units that perform in skysplinter
Yep 100% the lists they’ve played are not optimized, neither are the tactics
I do get a lot of value out of my War Room subscription for just core concept videos and batreps but I definitely feel the drukhari side lacking a bit say compared to custodes/tau or other factions with similar sized rosters
I don't really agree with your take on Drukhari here and definitely side more with Art of War. The reality is that Drukhari is a decent army that struggles from a very specific detachment rule and a few limited datasheets. Opponents at top level can literally just pop your transports and the army loses all damage. Ever play one of the best Guard players in the world with Drukhari? How about one of the best Canoptic Court or Custodies players? It isn't even a game. Then if Incubi don't go into a target worth a damn... Drukhari just prays a few sets of scourges can kill it. Which really isn't true for some of these prolific datasheets. Arty going down in play and Custodies losing fights first will really help. But I still don't see the army winning bigger tournaments just because some of their matchups are very very rigged against them.
I didn't say Drukhari were S tier, I just think they are better than a lot of the other B tier factions. Now with custodes getting hit pretty hard, that was our main gatekeeper gone. I think we are probably top of B tier, with some flaws in the faction but the ability to punch up against better factions with player skill. Which makes sense given Drukhari has had more GT wins than several of the other B tier factions.
Why so much negativity? You can disagree with people without insulting them. Thanks for continuing to put out great content. Please ignore the haters they are a vocal minority
All these Admech and Nids player furiously debating why thier faction is the worst...meanwhile Deathwatch is worse by every metric and got no changes, mentions, or confirmations. At least metawatch confirmed playtesting for Admech. Deathwatch is worse off AND are being ignored. Just some perspective for you.
As a Nids player at least my faction has a decent semblance of playing like it is supposed to. Aside from Crusher Stampede the Detachments function well. The big problem is the drought of anything beyond Strength 9, an underwhelming army rule and dependence on Biovore/spore mines. Those arent good but at least they fall in the "GW could reasonably fix this" instead of Ad Mech's "This whole Codex needs a rewrite".
I play Nids too, so I understand the pain for sure, but at least we can podium. Someone recently went 5-0 and got second at a major GT, so it's possible. STR 9 cap is a bugger but Gargs are the single best unit in the game, so we have that going for us. Admech are REALLY hurting right now for sure, but GW has confirmed that they are playtesting new rules for them to bring them back on par. It sucks to KEEP waiting Admech players, I understand, but GW is paying attention to your pain and is trying to fix it. Meanwhile, there's Deathwatch...no changes from the last three updates, no mention of any changes in the future, and they even said that "besides the latest factions to get a codex and Admech, everyone else got point changes"...which means they just fully forgot DW was a thing. Deathwatch needs improvement more so than any other faction in the game, prove me wrong.
Pretty sure they really are going into [REDACTED]
That's the rumor for sure, which would be sad to see DW folded like that, but I can't say I don't understand the decision. However, a youtuber named Valrak, who is deep into the 40k rumor mill, has stated that the redacted codex is specifically Agents of the Imperium and is not folding any other faction into it. He could be wrong of course but I hold out hope for another option.
For any DW players I do not blame them. However part of me thinks I would prefer DW didn't get "forgotten entirely" vs "is planned to move into [REDACTED]
Not to mention that Redacted Codex probably won't release till closer to the next Dataslate anyways.
That 5-0 list has been nerfed beyond 200 points due to gargoyle point hikes, so say goodbye to our rare GT win!
Their stated approach on Admech gives me no hope for them or Nids. They're talking about rules but datasheets are the root of the issue for admech. The bugs got the same issue where some of their rules would have some play were it not for the glaring gaps in their datasheets notably S values
Tbh demonw/ck/ik got no changes either. Feels like those 4 gw simply doesn't know what to do with.
Death watch on it’s way to being a Codex Compliant detachment
Or part of Imperial Agents codex - most likely one of the two at this point.
Potentially bc DW is dying as a faction and being wrapped up into some form of Imperial soup? Idk. But agree, they get zero attention from GW.
That's the rumor online, but Valrak (a YouTuber known for keeping a finger on the pulse of said rumors) says that the imperial agents codex won't be folding anyone into it. If that's the case then the zero changes made to DW make even less sense lol
Hah true! Maybe they assume generic SM changes are sufficient somehow. Ive tried to build DW lists without killteams but just cannot see any real advantages to it.
Even were this true they'd wrap them with Agents and GK... both of whom got points changes, so why didn't DW?
Only GW knows.
I really worry about Deathwatch
Same, it's my favorite faction lorewise but it just seems GW doesn't know what to do with them on the table 😔
It currently goes against dws design policy of what's in the box fits. To make death watch squads you have to build multiple boxes. If they get multiple kill teams where the sergeant is in terminator or gravis and then the remaining troops are in tacticus and then you just build the squad out how ever I can see it. Then you just do an assault or shooty squad
I've actually tried some Vet heavy lists recently. Between Frag cannons and DW Thunder Hammers, I did decently in my local scene, that is, until the Wraith heavy Necron player ate me alive lol Also, to address the design policy issue, it doesn't make much sense from a business perspective why they wouldn't push DW. The fact that DW requires multiple boxes to build properly is a source of consternation for the players, but a source of income for GW. I know they SAY they want things to come more "pre-packaged" but their actions speak louder then that (looking at you DA).
Deathwatch shouldn't be its own faction, neither should DA, BA, SW or any other marine flavour excluding singularly GK. The issues with deathwatch being a bad faction I consider a non-argument because GW lied and didn't stick to their guns on saying that there wouldn't be any supplements.
So all DW players should pay the price? No changes at all ever for an entire faction?
Absolutely. It is a consequence of GW's poor planning and bad writing. This shouldn't be a problem at all, DW here are being measured by their own index. DW using the core marines rules are probably doing substantially better than the DW index.
This doesn't help anything though? You can complain (rightfully so) that GW went back on the whole supplement thing, but they did, and we are here now. Saying that BA/SW/DW/DA etc.. should languish for years until another edition isn't feasible.
It absolutely is feasible. They should drop them into legends now, cut the losses and rip the band-aid off. OR completely redisgn the supplements to be standalone (like TSons/DG) where they're outright banned from taking core marines models and points and have their own unique points. This all sucks, it's GW's fault and it's marine players fault for constantly demanding that their special little babies all get their own special rules because they're so much better than xenos or chaos factions. If marines players were less dense we might actually get the positive changes needed to balance BA/DA/DW/whatever, but until marines can stop demanding they get special treatment then no. This is their grave that they dug, now they have to lie in it.
Literally no they shouldn't all of those have distinct units and identities there is absolutely zero reason to fold them into one faction otherwise you lose all lore coherency and are standardizing everything for everyone. Jesus, you're like the fun police. Those players want to play a distinctively different style of marines that's enough to be its faction so let them why do you care? Are you jealous? Also, DW should not be paying some arbitrary price because you feel butthurt about some statement by GW. Your entire opinion and attitude is the type of player I fear the community becoming.
Absolutely not to all of that. I'm sorry but if Custodes went from 6 detachments down to 4, and Tyranids went from 6+customs down to 5, and crons went 6+Cust down to 5, then from a strictly balance perspective only marines should also be at 6 detachments maximum. I'm sorry you play DW and are butthurt that your special little princesses aren't performing well, but it is a symptom of rules bloat. DW should not have a supplement and neither should any of the marine factions. The only exception I would find acceptable is if they all had their own codexes like TSons/DGuard/WEaters and their points for units were totally different from the core marines AND they were banned from taking core marine options. They should either be standalone OR rolled into the core codex ** *like every other goddamn faction in the game you whiny loser* **. It's just the absolute audacity of you to go "waaa waaa you're butthurt" and then to immediately go "but also I'm special and my little war Barbie's deserve unique rules but yours don't because... Reasons?"
Christ even by the already low standards set by this sub, the negativity here is overwhelming.
It really is. AoW put out high quality content and are an important part of growing the community. You can disagree with their opinions without being an ass. Be better yall
That's really just the nature of these sorts of tier-lists. If you agree with the rankings you probably won't feel compelled to comment on the thread; there isn't much to say if their opinion matches yours. If you disagree and you think your faction is **stronger/better** than their rankings then you keep quiet because you don't want the whiners at your local store using comments (or future AOW content) as an excuse to complain. If you disagree and think your faction is **weaker/worse** than their ranking, then you come post on Reddit - because how **dare** they imply your personal winrate is anything but a reflection of how downtrodden your faction currently is.
1:58:38 This comment is so sad to hear. One of the reasons Necrons are too good is because... they have a detachment that is well designed and plays the mission well. This should be the bar to meet rather than a point of contention that inevitably causes internal and external imbalance. It really does feel like these codices are written in a day by one person sometimes...
Totally agreed, it isn't necrons fault that the Tyranids codex dropped and fixed nothing wrong from the index.
Technically the codex dropped and was immediately worse than the index, because tyrannofexes were so heavily nerfed both points and rules wise
In the Codex the Tyrannofex costed 190Pts, but was overwritten before it got to the players and the MFM nerfed them to 240Pts. So no communication between MFM Team and Codex Team. They took away Tyrannofex -1 Damage and still nerfed it to 240Pts
It also lost the ability to have overwatch some twice with them
Amongst other things too. It is not a good or fun codex. It is not a good or fun edition to be honest. I wish the whole thing was burnt to the ground and the only thing saved from 10th was the mission generation and secondary mission choices. I genuinely love those, random missions and random objectives are super fun. And the option to do set in stone versions for tournaments or people who hate too much random have an option and I love that for them. But I do not like the lack of list building and options and overall just feeling that there are only 4 good datasheets in every codex. Screw 10th Ed.
I only play nids, and it's difficult to say if my problem is that I don't find playing tyranids fun, or if I don't find 10th edition fun. Compounded by the fact I know a lot of people don't have fun playing nids as you either can or cannot deal with them
I play 4 factions and this is an issue all armies have. 10th sucks not just nids.
Art of War: If you're one of the best players in the world, Nids are A Tier... You guys are great but that's a pretty useless take to everyone that isn't John Lennon or Sam Pope.
Guard: First time?
They specifically rank things based on what top tier players can do with top tier lists.
Which is ridiculous because that means a skilled tyranids player will apparently win more GTs etc than all other factions B tier and below. This has not been true at all, and the last tyranid list that went 5-0 has actually been nerfed beyond 2000 points due to gargoyle point hikes. I much prefer the tier lists where it’s John and one of the other guys (not in this video), Siegs tends to massively overhype factions he doesn’t play, then downplays the power of factions he does play.
In 9th siegs hyped admech up the whole edition to be s tier. They had a winrate of approx 21-33 percent for 90 percent of the edition.
And then won lvo with it
Does that mean that top players just aren't playing a huge slew of factions? Space Wolves have been 55% win rate for weeks - is it because they're up against bad players, or are Art of War just wrong on their tier list?
They’re not infallible and this is their opinions. If they just look at win rate, it’s boring - what’s the point? And if you’d watched the video you would know they were ranking Index Space Wolves, not Stormlance Space Wolves, which is the only competitive space wolf list
I did watch but it seems ridiculous to use Stormlance in marines when only SW play it. It’s not agnostic in any way
And yet they got negative community feedback when they ranked the divergent chapters using their best available detachments on previous tier lists.
It’s a fair criticism for sure
I bet the Deathwatch player that someone's in the balanced team's wife cheated with, is feeling really bad now that our faction gets so much hate
Looking forward to Space Wolves getting underestimated yet again.
They ranked SW on their index detachment rather than space wolf units in space marine codex detachments. Look to where they ranked space marines to see where wolves in a space marine detachment stack up
I know they get hate for either way they do it, but it's a super odd approach to say "we'll lump SW, BT, and DA together with Codex Marines" when many of those factions play *completely* differently. Like, SW is basically TWC and Wulfen - units that no other marine codex has access to. When 1/2 the army is non Codex units and they're the main aspect of the army, it seems very odd to group them with a different army. It's like combining CSM with Chaos Daemons because CSM can use Chaos Daemon units
Yeah, they go back and forth on whether they include the Codex detachments in the evaluation of non-codex chapters (last video they did, this time apparently not), but they always underestimate Stormlance Space Wolves either way. It's also absolutely bonkers to me to publish a "tier list" that claims to look at the "best list with the best player", and then locks non-codex chapters into their worst detachments. It'd be like putting up an evaluation of Necrons based exclusively on the Destroyer detachment.
sad BA noises. they noticed us performing around 50%. needed a punch to the face i guess. i hope you can fly under the Radar for longer and keep the difference between vanilla SM and the compliant chapters up
I'm sorry, but AoWs opinion on nids has really lost all credibility with me. They're at 40% win rate multiple weekends in a row now, and 43% 12 week win rate. They've won ONE event in about 4 months. They cite John when trying to demonstrate how well nids can do, but even he hasn't won an event with them yet. He did clarify that two of those events would've been his if not for weird scoring systems, but the fact is he hasn't won an event with them. They're struggling even when used by the best players in the world. They are not A tier by any measurable, objective metric. Edit: typos
John Lennon, Alex MacDougall, Sam Pope and others have performed well with them into high quality opponents. That's what this is judged off of. Not the average Tyranid performance which is not good. It's a hard army to play and could use with a rules adjustment to make it easier for the average player.
I understand, and i do think nids have potential, but you're citing some of the best players in the world, and there's not a single event win between all of them (at least not since the January slate). If these players, who are arguably playing the army to its highest potential, aren't winning events, are they really A tier?
Simple fact is there are far more events than people even us can travel to, but if I really want to chase event wins for instance there would be more Admech GT+ wins for sure. Same for John with Nids. All the games we have played is what this is based on and John has played a ton with Nids both against Team USA, AoW, and at Florida events.
Nids are definitely a higher skill faction and a lot of the community take seriously your Aow guys opinion. But still Eldar and Tson are arguably high skill factions too…why are they doing so much better if in the same A tier category ? If skill is equally weighted than why statistically eldar and tson people are putting up a better data, are they better at rolling d6? If we pick 15 high-ish elo players, 5 for each nids, tson and eldar so the average between the groups is even…which group makes the better result? Opinions are always important but in this particular case the discrepancy between statistics can’t really justify A tier for me.
That's a good point. I still disagree with nids being anywhere near A tier, but i understand how you all are looking at it, and i appreciate you discussing it with me! Either way, if they're A tier or not, i do hope the next slate gives nids some help via rules changes.
The best way to watch these videos is to keep in mind the lens in which the AoW team look at the armies. As it has been discussed, they are looking at it through the lens of the top players. That’s fine enough. That’s where they are at and what they like to talk about. But it shouldn’t be an end all be all. It shouldn’t then be taken as gospel for all armies everywhere. It doesn’t mean that admech can’t perform or that nids are not good. My take away from these videos is seeing where the meta stands and what people are talking about / taking. But your local meta is important to consider too. Net lists only go so far and are not always applicable. I think that’s partly why AoW sings praises of the team match tournaments. You can build off meta lists that do specific things against specific matchups.
Great point about the power of team play!
This is the best take right here. Teams format fixes alot of the woes with off meta factions, and I encourage everyone to check it out. Easily the most fun I've ever had playing 40k
Thanks! To that end, I was recently in an escalation league at my local shop. I have a very large Tau army that is, regrettably, mostly unpainted. So I pushed myself to paint my shame and to take things I thought were cool (or was already painted 🤣), rather than meta lists. I did this also as a way to kind of handicap myself a bit, since I have over 4K points of Tau to pull from. I didn't want to come in and smash new players just starting out. This forced me to be creative with units I normally do not take, and I ended up having a lot of fun with it. :)
I've never done an escalation league but I'd love to do one with my unpainted custodes haha
But you ranked them higher than other factions which are just objectively stronger and have more tournament placings and wins.
He has won 1 or 2 events in previous months and did really well in the recent BFS teams tourney, including upsetting Nayden’s Tsons which was projected to be an incredibly bad loss.
>won 1 or 2 events John hasn't won any events with nids in the last quarter. He finished 2 events 5-0 but finished second. Tyranids won 1 20 man GT last quarter Teams is not singles, it's really unfair to be rating teams when it's something a fractional number of the competitive player base plays.
True they really uplifted the rating with team event which is just useless data, if you could pick 5-8 best armies without any limit, it wouldn't even cross your mind to play Nids let alone the fact that in team event you can draft matchups which skews data even more. Their judgement is taken very close to reality, as it should because AoW are great players, but MATH is sometimes just unquestionable. Nids since the last dataslate have an impressive low winrate, low top/wins at big events. Even Lennon's best performance (the swarmlord himself) won with nids waaay back in end september at Crucible...well since than: his list went up points, other armies got codexes and now everyone knows nid scoring tricks. Its much harder to replicate the result now.
The game against Nadyen's Tsons he was going to lose and get tabled if the clock kept running, Nayden said this when John asked him what he would do but clocked out and so Nids won.
Sean clocking out was responsible for the final score, but he was definitely not going to table me. 😂
Fair, not gonna argue with the man himself lol. Paraphrasing but I thought I heard him saying he'd win without the clock, and Magnus looked unstoppable.
Why does he keep bringing them? I just played a 42 person teams tournament, the nid player on my team was number 1 player at the whole event
Which event? Did he win the event? Is it an event tracked on meta Monday or meta watch? Edit: oh you said TEAMS event. That's pretty meaningless. The game isn't balanced around teams, just like it isn't balanced for 1k or 3k points. Teams events aren't tracked or considered for balancing by gw
Yes, we won. TLM layton in Orlando. Dont think so as it’s a one day event, but it was three games of competitive warhammer with a wide player base. Last time I was at an event set up by the same people at the same store, three art of war dudes were there, and they didn’t even win. Competition is fierce in that area
See my edit above
So teams is 3 singles games. It isn’t meaningless to say that this nids player absolutely stomped 3 opponents in a row. That’s my recent view of the faction.
To be fair, they haven't had much credibility in a long time
I wouldn't go nearly that far. They have years of knowledge, expertise, and some of the best players in the world on their team. I just don't agree with their ranking of nids, and think that even if they base it off how well nids can perform based off how well players like John do with them, they still dont belong in A tier due to a lack of event wins across the board. But that's just my opinion. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable or skilled as these guys, so really no one should listen to me. But that doesn't mean i don't want to have a discussion with them and share my opinion.
The more I see these tier lists the less seriously I take them. It's fun memes for sure. It's just weird when I see this stuff get ranked and compare them to the objective metrics of success literally everyone in the hobby has access to. Tyranids in A tier is peak memery
How do Tyrannids rank on stat check when you isolate it to the demographic AoW is talking about (i.e. skilled players using solved lists)? They dont always emphasize it enough, but they are specifically evaluating the ceiling of a faction. So if you are using statcheck (great resource I think), sorting makes a difference. Also, this is a predictive, post MFM guess by them. Until those points are impacting the tournaments en masse, their predictions certainly wont be worth checking the numbers on yet. Not defending AoW here, as I agree they have their misfires plenty of the time, but if they are gonna be accussed of memery, lets make sure the context matches the defamation at hand, hehehe.
Top 5% elo vs top 5% elo, nids are the worst army with 34% winrate. Top 5% vs the field they're just above deathwatch.
This is why I asked. That is the target demo AoW is talking about really, and clearly at odds with current performance. Not sure what they believe will bring Nids to A tier from that depth, but havent watched the whole video yet.
Probably its true because if Nids require a higher skill to “do tricks” and score your points while your army is dying trying to pillow damage…well indeed your high skill opponent likely knows the tricks but he actually brought guns not pillows.
Its really hard to find any metric where they are not at or close to the bottom. Even if they have play to them this also kinda shows there is counter play as well.
>How do Tyrannids rank on stat check when you isolate it to the demographic AoW is talking about (i.e. skilled players using solved lists)? No idea. 45% winrate and no event wins. I'd bother checking if they had even a single (one(1)) win, but those two metrics are quite telling.
interestingly Stat check also did a tierlist last week and ranked Nids as the second worst faction.
Stat Check's tierlist was a statistical analysis of the performance of factions over the previous MFM points, though. It's not applicable going forward.
It also had some truly hilarious rankings in it if you didnt know how they did it
Yes currently. This tier list is what they believe is happening post MfM. I dont disagree Nids are on the struggle bus for average/regular players by any means here.
tbf, the points changes wont help. Even John fro AOW said the only 2 things that will change is Assimilation Swarm (a terrible detachment) will spam 3 psychopages, and he will drop a pyrovore or ripper from his list to keep gargoyles in invasion fleet. GW lowered points on bad datasheets that no one takes, and nerfed a good unit that every list is taking, so really it was an overall nerf to nids. The bad sheets will still be bad and left on the shelf, and people will have to drop a unit or two to keep their gargolyes.
Its not like the top tier players are winning with them either. And i dont see the changes being made making a difference. Siegler said it at the end of the dataslate stream that he did with John, the best lists got worse. Its odd hearing him say that then also saying they are A tier. Just saying nids players need to git gud is unhelpful. Especially when the only data to really back it up is team games.
I dont know where the git gud is from, but beside the point. Im curious what changes across the field (maybe some factions getting nerfed?) they think will launch Nids into A tier as well. That being said, my only point was that they are predicting based off of the mfm, and only in the hands of aces with solved lists. Im not defending their predicition.
>git gud is from Comes from AoW saying some top tyranid players are doing well with it.
So they said, "git gud," or is that how you interpret their presentation?
They said that the best players in the world can eek out a result with them, I've already explained why that is false. By that I mean John Lennon managed to time out Sean Nayden in a team tournament. There's a reason meta lists don't count team tournaments. Their entire justification is that gargoyles are unstoppable. Apparently nothing can kill 20 gargoyles in the game. Apparently deep strike + move shoot move on a T3 6+ model is completely unstoppable despite the fact they evaporate to flamer overwatch. Yes if they get in front of a land raider, that land raider isn't going that way. Yes, if an army doesn't have the tools to clear a horde, they are going to have a bad day.
I see your interpretation there. A stay salty man, lol.
The problem I have with that criteria is it’s like, who cares? Wow yeah a really good player with the best list can still win, I don’t think that really means anything to the majority of people, who are probably average at the game and have models they either like because of their design or the way they play. An overall tier list using all available data is just more helpful to the average player AND more interesting
> The more I see these tier lists the less seriously I take them. It's fun memes for sure. The real value in these videos is the discussion about why a given army is in a given tier, not what tier an army actually is in.
It would be awesome if the tier list was constantly present to give context to what the guys are discussing. Also the faction name text is way too small. Thanks for the content!
Nids and basic Space Marines A tier...you cant make this up
The generic SM included lists like BT Gladius and DA Ironstorm. They were ranking the Codex detachments, no matter which chapter you use. They ranked the Divergent Chapters based on their specific detachments
And I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach. Those guys saying that Space Marines are A tier based on Black Templar units when I’m sitting here as an Ultras player is hilarious. Divergent chapters should be based on what they have access to just like Codex SM. Otherwise they would rank SM as A and BT as C (if their detachment sucked) and say “but hey BT needs improvements” which is clearly not the case and false.
> *And I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach. Those guys saying that Space Marines are A tier based on Black Templar units when I’m sitting here as an Ultras player is hilarious.* You (ie; not *you* specifically, but the community) also complained when they ranked each chapter by best detachment used instead. There is no winning, somebody will always complain.
I'm curious whether they're considering Dark Angels Ironstorm as "basic space marines", or if that rating is based entirely off Ultramarines Vanguard.
Yes it's any marine faction using Ironstorm/Vanguard/Gladius like BT or BA
Top players with Top lists. The same way they always do it. They judge the divergent chapters on their specific detachments. So spacewolves is champions of russ, not storm lance.
And yet last time when I asked, I was told that Space Wolves are evaluated based on all the detachments, including Codex ones.
They state this at the start of the video. I’m not sure if they switch formats (defining faction by detachment taken as opposed to defining faction by chapter specific units), but it’s stated clearly how this list was made.
You expect these comments on a video to be from people who actually watch the video?
In the past they've done each chapter with their best detachment, but (like you said) they clearly stated this time they were doing it differently.
Last time (and the majority of previous ones) they did divergent chapters the way you described. They stated at the start of this video they were doing all chapters with codex detachments as Generic Marines (including things like BT Gladius) and each of the Divergent Chapters as their special detachment. It helps to watch the video ;)
Yes they included things like BT Gladius and DA Ironstorm as Generic SM. They were basically ranking the Codex detachments, with the best divergent or codex chapters being used.
I don't get people assuming that a marine ranking has to be more a single archetype. Cause if you rank each book as "all the detachments averaged" then that chart gets hilariously funky. Crons with S/S/B/C/D detachments suddenly average out to B tier.
They clearly stated in the livestream that they count every SM faction using the codex SM detachments
The issue with the Guard "buffs" is always the same: they are on terrible profiles. If they had got the Demolisher down by 10 points, it would be noticeable - but on the Eradicator? Who cares? Pretty much the only relevant buffs are on the normal Russ (edit: and the Exterminator), the Hellhound, and the few extra points squeezed out of Scions, completely offset if you still want to use Bullgryns or even a bit of artillery. My list went down 20 points total - I'm not even buying a Cyclops with that.
> If they had got the Demolisher down by 10 points, it would be noticeable - but on the Eradicator? Who cares? Eventually the Russ chassis will get so cheap that it's worth it for the sponson weapons and hull, regardless of the main gun. Someone went 4-1 with three Vanquishers (and eight Russes total) at Dice Goblins with the new points this weekend.
Yeah, that goes without saying - if they are cheap enough, you'll take three everywhere. I'm just saying that I don't see that point being there yet.
Do you by any Chance have access to the full guard list?
Russ Riders (2000 points) Astra Militarum Strike Force (2000 points) Combined Regiment CHARACTERS Gaunt’s Ghosts (100 points) • 1x Ibram Gaunt • 1x Bolt Pistol 1x Gaunt’s chainsword • 1x Colm Corbec • 1x Corbec’s hot-shot lascarbine 1x Straight silver knife • 1x Elim Rawne • 1x Rawne’s lascarbine 1x Straight silver knife • 1x Hlaine Larkin • 1x Larkin’s long-las 1x Straight silver knife • 1x ’Try Again’ Bragg • 1x Bragg’s autocannon 1x Straight silver knife • 1x Oan Mkoll • 1x Lascarbine 1x Mkoll’s straight silver knife Lord Solar Leontus (125 points) • Warlord • 1x Conquest 1x Konstantin’s hooves 1x Sol’s Righteous Gaze Platoon Command Squad (60 points) • 1x Platoon Commander • 1x Close combat weapon 1x Plasma pistol 1x Power fist • 2x Veteran Guardsman • 2x Close combat weapon 2x Lasgun 2x Laspistol 1x Master Vox 1x Regimental Standard • 1x Veteran Heavy Weapons Team • 1x Close combat weapon 1x Laspistol 1x Mortar Tank Commander (205 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Demolisher battle cannon 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta Tank Commander (205 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Demolisher battle cannon 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta Tank Commander (205 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Demolisher battle cannon 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta BATTLELINE Catachan Jungle Fighters (55 points) • 1x Jungle Fighter Sergeant • 1x Close combat weapon 1x Laspistol • 9x Jungle Fighter • 9x Close combat weapon 9x Lasgun OTHER DATASHEETS Attilan Rough Riders (120 points) • 1x Rough Rider Sergeant • 1x Hunting lance 1x Lasgun 1x Laspistol 1x Power sabre 1x Steed’s hooves • 9x Rough Rider • 9x Hunting lance 9x Lasgun 9x Laspistol 9x Steed’s hooves Leman Russ Eradicator (150 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Eradicator nova cannon 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta Leman Russ Executioner (170 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Executioner plasma cannon 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta Leman Russ Vanquisher (145 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta 1x Vanquisher battle cannon Leman Russ Vanquisher (145 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta 1x Vanquisher battle cannon Leman Russ Vanquisher (145 points) • 1x Armoured tracks 1x Heavy stubber 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 2x Multi-melta 1x Vanquisher battle cannon Scout Sentinels (60 points) • 1x Close combat weapon 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 1x Sentinel chainsaw Scout Sentinels (60 points) • 1x Close combat weapon 1x Hunter-killer missile 1x Lascannon 1x Sentinel chainsaw Tempestus Scions (50 points) • 1x Tempestor • 1x Plasma pistol 1x Power fist • 4x Tempestus Scion • 4x Close combat weapon 1x Hot-shot lasgun 1x Hot-shot laspistol 1x Meltagun 1x Plasma gun 1x Vox-caster
Triple vanquisher? Now that is interesting. Guess they are basically paying 145 for a good hull and some multimeltas. The vanquisher cannon is just an added bonus.
My vibe is Orks is high-top of A personally, not S. Even their best builds feels like they have a lot of flaws, and taking a claw to a gun fight is often just a big disadvantage. But I'm glad we will soon find out. Seems like people are thinking they are the most broken thing yet based on their reaction to Mega Nobs but even after some of my own games they feel strong but manageable.
> and taking a claw to a gun fight is often just a big disadvantage. I can't really agree with that. Waaagh gives good reach (and potentially twice for some units) and good bonuses. Throw in lots of good scoring pieces (Snikrot, Weirdboys, Stormboyz) and melee threat can either control the board or just smash the enemy into their deployment zone.
Oh I'm not saying it's not a good list. I just don't know if I'd elevate it to the same level as Canoptek Court or Mont'ka like they did here. Orks seem to me to be solid but very flawed. If you come prepared you'll be fine. Fundamentally they are a low AP army that doesn't shoot very hard (dread mob excluded, and even then that basically is all AP2 shooting. good luck killing 2+ AoC which is very popular in redeemers). I'll be surprised if it dominates. I'd wager it's more of a gatekeeper list. Green tide is a coin flip where it'll wanna slot in where people aren't bringing enough guns.. but Gargoyle spam is a thing, and certain armies easily pickup 20 boys as a matter of course (Votann). Dread Mob will completely depend on terrain format. It has a lot of damage output potential that will often be hard to deliver. And it's also kind of locked at str 9 AP2, which some stuff won't care much about.
People are going to get mad at what you said because everyones riding the "orks will be overpowered" wave but yea pretty much my sentiments after playing a few codex games. Nobz are still made of a paper and Meganobz still kind of bounce off the things you want them to charge other than vehicles and fail to flip objectives because they are OC1 and not that killy with only D2 weapons. Combine that with Badrukk going away and losing your best method to clear chaff for your expensive units to get past its not going to be too difficult to screen and deal with Orks. I think they are going to be good but honestly the biggest buff to Orks win rate is going to be Custodes codex kneecapping what was Orks worst matchup.
Yeah I think Wardens getting nerfed is probably the biggest buff Orks had, including 4+ FNP mega nobs. That matchup was bloody impossible if your opponent knew what they were doing. I honestly think Bully boys is solid but I suspect it's flaws will prevent it from becoming oppressive. I do think some armies / lists that already struggled into Orks will really feel it, though. Bully boys exerts \*a lot\* of pressure. But it also doesn't hit that hard and will basically have 0 guns. Think you'd rather stare that down than 18 wraith, triple Doomstalker Court or Breacher fish Tau, which I suspect will absolutely clean up.
Meganobs are S-tier... as far as Brick units go, but as a threats they're as dangerous as you let them be. They will waddle around, make shooting noises at passersby and not fall down when dumped on. "Doctor, my hand hurts when I punch the wall" "Then stop punching the wall" tier.
How useful is any tierlist for marines that focuses on Detachments? I'm really not sure that's super helpful. If you look at something like stormlance, it is only really played in Space Wolves. I don't think a single player you approached at a tourney would categorize it as anything other than a space wolf list. It can't function in regular marines. It's misleading to instead group it with codex marines as a whole. Codex marines are already struggling mightily, and if you compare their gladius, ironstorm, firestorm, etc. it is 15%+ lower than the divergent equivalents. At some point, there's no utility in calling those "space marine" lists. Moreover, it's a massive feels bad to people who want to play codex marines, and struggle without the tools and toys the divergents have, to see them ranked A when they have consistently been the lowest win rate army on average for months.
I wish when your discussing Tournament wins with Guard you guys would acknowledge almost all were done on WTC/UKTC formats. The prevelant Guard archetype was really only A tier in those formats and didn’t function nearly as well in GW format.
> The prevelant Guard archetype was really only A tier in those formats and didn’t function nearly as well in GW format. The 40K Fireside guys thought that it did better on GW terrain than UKTC terrain, actually.
You mean it didn’t function well in the USA - I think we’ve been here before, it functioned perfectly fine on GW terrain if not the best terrain format for Guard’s stronger list archetypes, there just isn’t good uptake of guard in the USA particularly from the top players.
You very well know that’s nonsense. Good players gravitate to good armies. We have plenty of good Guard players here, probably more than UK but our format is not as favorable. A small smattering of GT wins, and only 2 large event wins in the US. UK has more wins in two months than US in the entirety of 10th. US iterates more tournaments and GTs, yet has far less wins than regions that use the more terrain dense UKTC or WTC. Stop with the US Guard players bad nonsense.
Im sure there are amazing guard players in the US and we see a fair amount of wins there too, but Gaylard and Nassim are top 10 in the world caliber players and probably on another level than most we talk about here. I'd be curious what happened if any of the AoW guys or the rest of the US WTC team members picked up guard and played them to a few tournaments.
Ben Jurek has been playing Guard stateside, John Lennon plays Guard though not exclusively. The argument is are the UK players so good at Guard they are getting wins what US players are not able to? Or is it in their format are Guard a better army with certian lists and they attract more high level players. I’d argue it’s the latter. Format and terrain affect outcomes. The denser terrain with more substantial L shape terrain changes what units are taken and the meta. Guard major weakness is board control, existing on objectives. UKTC/WTC terrain makes it easier for Guard to safely stage while denying opponents the ability to do so using indirect fire.
Alright, didn't think about Ben Jurek when trying to come up with US guard players, he's certainly a great player. Checked the results and I'd say a 4th and a 13th place is pretty good in the two tournaments I found (one was teams though). I can't see that Lennon played guard this season, but he's the kind of player I'd like to see what he can do with them on US terrain! The only reason I'm not buying the terrain army completely is that Gaylard has dismissed GW terrain being bad for it, which would make guard good on 3 out of the major 4 terrian formats and not just UKTC. Regardless it's probably moot now. The style of list that performed so well with guard got hit pretty hard and I have no clue how they will do now and how they will work with the various terrain formats if the build change.
The argument isn’t that guard players are so bad in the US, it’s just none of the very good players in the US are using guard at events, that skews the stats, particularly larger event wins. Whereas in Europe we had a chunk of the top players using them, it skews the stats. GW terrain is good for guard. Even your comment about uktc being good for staging and board control for guard shows you have no clue what you’re talking about - UKTC is one of the worst terrain formats for Guard exactly because they have the risk of losing board control cause they can’t stage safely outside their DZ. GW lets you stage midboard AND hide your indirect pieces in your DZ. You’re so laser focussed on terrain being the key factor you can’t see it’s stopping you from analysing what the context behind the statistics is.
Eh. Those lists are strong on GW terrain with fixed secondaries. Reinforcing and having your artillery being super hard to get to is really good. Scoring was relatively easy and preventing scoring was also easy. They still hit it way too hard.
I run a pretty unusual IK list, but I’ve done well enough with them that I run other factions more often to avoid hard feelings. 2 Atrapos, Canis, 2 warglaves, 2 helverins, and eversor. They just always push the invuln save if it’s there, and they do well at both melee and range. If you compare that to more popular lists, you drop significantly on shooting into cover, melee, survivability, or all of the above.
I'm watching through this and Space Marines at A tier is just misleading to the point of meaninglessness. Yeah, the top 3 exact netlists are good, sure. But this is supposed to be a *faction* tier list, and as a faction Space Marines has one of the worst winrates in the game. Considering other mediocre factions like Tyranids and Death Guard are also in A tier, I think this is more like a "how scary is it to play into this faction at the top table" tier list than an actual faction tier list.
Ironstorm is literally a tier
They don't take WR into account at all. If you actually watch the video they state clearly, this tier list is the best player of an army playing the best list. "How scary is it to play into this faction at the top table" is actually a great description, and they clearly state that that is how they are ranking it in the video. The Generic SM rating included lists like BT Gladius, DA Ironstorm, etc. which are quite easily A tier armies. Once again they also clearly stated this in the video.
By your metric, most armies in the game are D or F tier because they have bad models... They're not going to take the time to rank Battleline Stormlance Outriders and Kor'Sarro Khan because it's not competitively viable. If you play certain builds of Death Guard well, it can do really well and that's why it's upper-middle of the pack. If you bring 20x Poxwalkers because you bought the Combat Patrol and that's your RTT / GT list, then yeah it'll be pretty bad.
[удалено]
I'm sure they have plenty of events experience to back it up