Morticon Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I would like to see other people take a stab at this too. Gonna throw a spanner into the works and say I don't believe one dex is higher ranked than another. Its just too odd a concept to get my head around, personally. I do believe certain dexs are easier to make an all comers lists. I believe those to be: SW and GK - which are all on a par for me. IG are not as easy as people think -as you need a very specific type of build, therefore I dont see it as being on a par with SW and GK where you can get away with a lot more builds and being MEq are a lot more forgiving. BA I believe can take each of those dexs but are more difficult to construct to beat everything else too. Orks are still exceptionally powerful in the right hands and also manage to be very versatile. Daemons here destroyed the local scene but when the GK came out, less people played them for fear of running into the GK. But they're still fearsome. Dark Eldar also do well in the right hands here. Chaos as well in the same boat. I just cant rank armies with any great confidence or authority. Here's a look at local meta quick: Top 10 at the last Regionals we had here was: Grey Knights Imperial Guard Blood Angels Space Wolves Space Marines Orks Dark Eldar Blood Angels Space Wolves Chaos Space Marines Up country in their regionals the most recent results were: Necrons Dark Eldar Grey Knights Chaos Space Marines Eldar Black Templars Imperial Guard Space Marines Space Marines Dark Eldar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Fast vehicles = single heavy weapons = TLAC Retain the move 12" and shoot advantage. LC/TLPG are for GK and SW. I too think putting the dexes into tiers is an exercise in futility. But I do agree with SamaNagol's last post, that as a synergy army, building an effective list from the BA codex isn't as plug and play as say, GK and SW with Psyflemen and GH/Missle LF respectively. Synergy armies get a bad internet rap for comp play, e.g Menoth in Warmahordes. It's a lot harder to look at well built synergy army list on the net and see how it could compete with an army that just relies on individual high stat models that are independently powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 A good BA list is like giving a set of files and a hammer and chisel to someone and expecting them to carve a sculpture. It can be done if you have the required skills. Whereas SW and GK are more of an 'injection mould' lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Deceit Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I would argue that list building skill and personal ability go a lot farther to winning then whether or not certain 'people' consider a codex competitive or not. Granted a good codex does help, ie. the Necrons where nigh unplayable in 5th until they got a new codex, but on the same coin the Dark Eldar went 10 years without a new codex, but a clever player could still make them quite competitive. I can't believe a topic based of a wildly left field comment has gone on for so long. Way to correct the enlighten the ignorant, Sons of Sanguinius :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breng77 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Morticon I agree with you that it is hard to rank armies, and tha tlocal meta has a lot to do with it. In my head I try to look at things like does a particular army have any really terrible match-ups as a book. Take Daemons for example, it is damn near impossible to beat DE venom spam with any daemon list if you assume equal level of skill among players. I have won this match-up but my opponent screwed up for me to do so. Nids, share this bad match-up and add things like GKs and Wolves. I also tend to look at how players perform with different books as to the level of skill needed to win with them. IG for example took one player in my local area from being near the bottom consistently with Tau and Nids, to winning events. Hard to argue it is not a stronger book. This does not mean those other books cannot win, but they are much harder to win with. For me as soon as you add "in the hands of a skilled player..." to the mix, that drops a codex a tier for me as that means it is not competitive for any player. I.e. Tau are competitive in the hands of a skilled player, but give them to most people and they lose horribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 "In the hands of a skilled player" is irrelevant when tiering codices because if I am a skilled player I could get even more out of the point and click GK list than I could out of using gimmicks and new unknown tactics from an average to good tier book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 IG for example took one player in my local area from being near the bottom consistently with Tau and Nids, to winning events. Hard to argue it is not a stronger book. This does not mean those other books cannot win, but they are much harder to win with. Or it could mean that C:IG fits your friends playstyle and preferences better than C:Tau or C:Tyranids. Just as some marine players will perform better with C:SM than they will with C:BA or C:SW (both routinely held up as "superior" to C:SM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOvious Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I'm saying that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof..... By your own concessing here, ordinary proof here wouldn't be good enough for you, so giving you the regional tournie results would have no affect on your opinion. Just saying..... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Adrak Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I don't know why people are saying BA are competitive, I say no they very uncompetitive then every time I win it's because I'm such a great general with an 'uncompetitive" codex :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breng77 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Or it could mean that C:IG fits your friends playstyle and preferences better than C:Tau or C:Tyranids. Just as some marine players will perform better with C:SM than they will with C:BA or C:SW (both routinely held up as "superior" to C:SM). I would buy that if it were bottom to middle or middle to top.but worst to first? He is still not a good player, now he just has the tools to make up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Or it could mean that C:IG fits your friends playstyle and preferences better than C:Tau or C:Tyranids. Just as some marine players will perform better with C:SM than they will with C:BA or C:SW (both routinely held up as "superior" to C:SM). I would buy that if it were bottom to middle or middle to top.but worst to first? He is still not a good player, now he just has the tools to make up for it. I don't know, I've seen it happen. Something similar happened with me when I started using the BA White Dwarf codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.