BoLS's army rankings rebuttal (40k army analysis): Bad armies

So JWolf has posted his 'bottom' tier armies in relation to 40k competitiveness so it's only fair about my rebuttal to his previous post to do the same here. You can see my previous post here which has the appropriate backlinks. The beginning of that post should also be read in relation to my army rankings. I've also had a question relating to what is "competitive." The short answer is lists which come from a certain book and are good in any environment. No meta-game. No fluff or "friendly" crap. So without any handicaps the armies that I explain here are not competitive generally because they cannot deal with a certain type of army (generally mech) or rely on super-units to get anywhere near "competitive" and are thus unbalanced. So, like my previous post I'll list what I think are the worst armies with the last being the worst and will relate this back to what JWolf has posted. I will also be writing specific bits on Tau & DE because they are excellent armies and were included in the other post whilst JWolf has put them in his bottom armies. So for the lazy, JWolf's continuing list is as follows:

1. Daemonhunters (9)
2. Orks (10)
3. Dark Eldar (11)
4. Tau (12)
5. Black Templars (13)
6. Chaos Daemons (14)
7. Dark Angels (15)
8. Necrons (16)

Again, what the hell are Tau and DE doing here? Let's look at my list then continuing on from the end of the list I posted in the previous post.


Black Templars

JWolf is spot on in pointing out "Codex Marines and newer armies are simply more effective and capable" but not why. BT still have a couple of builds open to them (foot Termies, shooty, Pods & Raider lists) due to their Marine nature (i.e. Preds/Speeders/Dreads/Termies/Tacs) but don't do it as efficiently due to the points decrease for the newer Marine books. However, BT are still capable of making a balanced 5th edition list which is capable of deal with mech & hordes whilst maintaining some form of mobility. Whilst BA are certainly a better book atm, preferred enemy across the army is nothing to be sneered at and BT termies are still some of the best in the game thanks to Furious Charge and Tank Hunters but suffer in terms of survivability.

Dark Angels

The "lesser" bike army compared to Vanilla marines. Whilst you can pack in more meltas/MM's into a Ravenwing list, there is a lot less staying power and anti-infantry power across the army due to the smaller squads necessary for this. Scout is pretty awesome (imagine Scouting Command Squads) and Fearless has its own bonuses but with the lack of combat tactics and Command Squads, this list isn't as balanced in terms of being able to deal with everything as effectively as a Vanilla biker list. Otherwise JWolf is again pretty much spot on with "Nothing in the Dark Angel Codex is better than the same thing in Codex Space Marines, and in a lot of cases you pay more for less."

Orks

With the FAQ change to making deff-rollas doing what they should be doing, well Orks have a somewhat reliable way to deal with heavy mech. This still doesn't make them any decent though as their primary army style (lots of guys in assault) doesn't work. Mob rule sees to that and their ineffectiveness in small squads highlights it. Their reliance on using Elites & FA slots for suppression fire/anti-tank for the rest of the army to actually be able to move around, there is little flexibility in the codex.

JWolf thinks Orks used to be good...not sure what changed but they never have been highlighted by this quote "Orks used to be able to charge out of their Trukks and Battle Wagons and decimate almost any opponent." What....? Orks never scared good armies with their charges out of Trukks and Wagons because Trukks suck and Wagons aren't spammable enough. Add in Orks' inability to shut down mech en mass and I'm wondering where this comes from. Remember Orks relying on numbers to do damage in combat? Trukks kill that. Battlewagons don't get AV14 against most armies, not just BA JWolf. Everyone else is mobile, too (you know, Eldar? Dark Eldar? they're even more mobile :O!). Nob Bikers were never good either. Massive point sink for a unit which is still less efficient than TH/SS termies...let's make an army around it and fail but get called cheesy WAAC gamers because people don't understand how to play. BA & SW didn't invalidate the Ork codex (it's become better since then thanks to the FAQ), they were always bad. 40k mechanics FTW.

Chaos

Jwolf put these guys as number 5 overall...we'll get to that later. Chaos are essentially more expensive Marines much like BT & DA but have crap Fast Attack choices (and JWolf placed them 8 & 10 spots higher than these armies...). Simply reducing the price of Bikes/Raptors to something actually usable as sac melta would make the book just a bit better. Lash is a terrible power which no one understands because all good lists are mobile now anyway and shooting at clumped units with Oblits means you're not shooting at Mech. Oblits and havoc launchers on Rhinos are about the only good things this book has going for them.

So JWolf seems to understand Chaos are just crap Marines through "Yes, they are overpriced and weaker versions of Marines" but I'm still not understanding the discrepancy between DA/BT and Chaos and especially why Chaos are above armies like Eldar, DE, Tau, Witchunters & Tyranids. Cult troops outside of Plague Marines are terrible and Plagues are just plain excellent at holding midfield being no more killy than your regular Tactical Marine/Grey Hunter. Were Lesser Daemons really referenced as a pro for a codex...?

Daemonhunters

Based on the pure merits of their army list they are again expensive and worse Marines. Adding in IG platoons to Daemonhunters and they vault up behind Witchunters but still aren't great and are really only good because of the platoons so they slip down behind Chaos in this list. Outside of this Daemonhunters are lacking across the board in anti-infantry and anti-tank due to super expensive units and a lot of useless units.

JWolf put these guys as the best of the crap armies and when taking IG platoons, this is spot on but mystics have nothing to do with their effectiveness here. Most armies don't DS anymore because it's crap (hi daemons) or if they do (i.e. Blood Angels) they aren't going to drop within range of your mystics. Whilst this is a good tactical move, it's not a singular reason to make them a better army than others when they are crap to begin with. If they were on par with Space Marines though, well that might vault them higher. They invalidate Fateweaver? He was valid? Why?

Necrons

Necrons have some awesome shooting. Unfortunately their only way to deal with heavy mech is luck and mass glancing due to guass weaponry. WBB on Destroyers is just awesome fun and keeping this type of army viable with the new codex would be fantastic. As it stands, Necrons are just too weak in combat (Stubborn please), too vulnerable to a wipe out thanks to the Phase Out rule and just don't have enough oomph to deal with mass mech. Add in everyone continues to use C'Tan & Monoliths which making Phasing Out easier and don't add a huge amount to the army...well you can see why Necrons don't get the respect of walking robots of doom they deserve. JWolf is pretty spot on here again though so no need to whine =D.

Daemons

Hi my name is Daemons and I am forced to Deep Strike half my army on T1 and I don't even get to choose which half. My shooting is also only okay and my assaults kick ass! Shame anyone with a brain is going to stick some bubble-wrap around and shoot me to death. Shame I can't deal with tanks either because of my poor shooting. It's almost like the world is against me! That's the life of a Daemons army. Whilst against other assault armies (like the Blood Rodeo & Jumpers) which rely on combined arms and mass assaulting to win Daemons are particularly effective, against the majority of competitive lists out there they just die due to being stranded in midfield. JWolf is again correct with his analysis on Daemons (wow that was 2 in a row).

Summary

Again, most of these armies have trouble dealing with a specific type of army list and are therefore unbalanced. The lists which can deal with all army types and be classified as balanced are generally more expensive and inefficient in comparison to the newer books & the older books which do have competitive builds (i.e. Eldar, DE, Tau & Witchunters). So let's now look at JWolf's comments on DE & Tau. These two armies (and Chaos) are the biggest discrepancies in JWolf's rankings (ignoring his analysis) so let's see why he thinks these two rather excellent armies are crap.

We'll start with Dark Eldar as JWolf rated them above Tau. In my list I ranked them 5th tied with Eldar due to their similar playstyle. The main problem with DE is poor Fast Attack and scaling past 2000pts. Neither of these are mentioned by JWolf. Whilst SW Long Fangs are annoying to Raiders, they do die to Ravagers thanks to Disens and due to Night Shields, DE get to start out of range. Go fast vehicle status and long ranged weaponry coupled with Night Shields. It's almost like that's their defenses... add in DE's horrendous amount of S8 lance weaponry and your tank army isn't going to be shooting that much unless you get the first punch in which thanks to Night Shields & fast tank status isn't always easy unless you have weapon ranges greater than 48". They certainly aren't afraid of Tyranid MCs (oh how will I kill TMCs with my 20+ lances!?) and if they are in combat with BA or SW significantly, well they've already lost. DE aren't a combat army. This is again a misunderstanding of 40k mechanics and specifically the DE book as I believe JWolf isn't actually analysing from their effective list of DL Raider/Ravager spam but something like Wych Cult or assault based. DE do not do assault well but shoot very well. Play to their strengths.

And now Tau. These guys ranked 2nd on my list and are easily one of the best 2 armies in the game atm. As I stated before they are just below IG for me because they really have to be used well and are not forgiving at all (compared to IG) but have the firepower to knock any army off the table. The "rocket science" JWolf describes of getting close to Tau is lot easier said than done. Here are my Piranhas. Here are my drones. Here are my Kroot. Here is my firepower hitting you all the time and I don't care if you kill my Pathfinders or not because that means my guns are still shooting. How to lose against Tau 101. I recommend everyone who thinks JWolf is right reads this article. Not sure how bubble-wrap to limit alpha strikes hurts Tau either...you know, they practically invented it with Kroot right? Tau don't rely on close shooting meltas or getting close so bubble-wraps do...well nothing against Tau. What game are you playing? Uphill struggle my rear. Another classic example of not understanding game mechanics and specific army mechanics.

So there we have it. All the armies have been ordered with appropriate analysis. To reiterate, the top armies are all capable of beating each other due to the balance GW has created in their game (if there wasn't balance, how could all of these armies beat each other...?) whilst the older books who didn't have the 'good fortune' of fitting into 5th edition and are waiting for updates either are not costed correctly or can't create balanced lists which deal with all opposing armies.