Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd say
Dark Eldar
Necron
Chaos Deamons

Xanthos wrote:Yup, I went with witch hunters too. Pricey, and their rules are very complex.

Yarp, faith prayer thingies, weird arsed rules for the HQ choices, frenzied and relatively rubbish units self wounding and getting popped at range.

Penitent engines, Archo-flagellants, relics, sisters repentia, priests making units worse...

Horrible and unforgiving codex imo. Also a relatively fragile army to be playing the whole 'short range template/melta assault-shooting' game.

And then, yes, metal range of old models with high monetary cost.

Dark Eldar are obscenely hard for a first-time player. They require a great deal of finesse and it also takes significant painting skill to make a DA army look good.

Witch/Daemonhunters are pricey model-wise and the rules, being outdated, are hard to master.

Chaos Demons, I suppose, could give a new player trouble if only due to the wacky deployment.

Lastly, T'au can do terribly in the hands of an inept player; without a solid understanding of how to position your units and a steady hand, a clumsy T'au player will get charged and butchered in minutes.

My opinion, it just depends on how the player intends to fight in 40k. There is no best or worst army. Some might be more broken than others, but there are no best or worst.

I would say Demons, because they are the only army who need to complicate things with their own deplyoment rules, which can also be a bit more of a tactical challenge.

Also, I accidently clicked on CSM first and then went back to vote again, so the one SCM vote is from me.

Chaos Daemons, because they break so many game rules that a beginner has a hard time actually learning the game playing them.

Ravenous D wrote:Eldar for sure.

Its one fo those armies that if you dont know how to use the rules in your favour you're going to get wrecked up every game.

I second that. The Eldar are absolutely sick if you know how to use them well, but completely wimpy gimpy to any little mistake you make in battle planning. They are the surgeons scalpel. One mistake is crucial. When no mistakes are made, they blow people away how effective they are and everyone cries 'cheese' or whatever... but when they do make a mistake they are SO fragile and vulnerable that it wrecks your whole game.

I think it has to be tau, for the fact that they look awesome and have big guns, so are very misleading for new players that they are going to be asskickers and easy to play. when you lose your first 3 months of games, its very demoralising. even as a veteran player, its a hard army to play well

I feel that Eldar would be the worst army for a beginner for it takes so much skill and paicence to pull of any of the schemes.

thanks ~UnDeAd~

It is similar in vulnerability to DE but more multifaceted, which is confusing to new players. DE, no matter how old their list may be, have an open topped fast skimmer dropping off a wad of CC havoc in charge range in 1 turn. Their tactic is a little more no-brainer: move fast-charge-follow-up-charge-follow-up-etc... While (non-dark) Eldar have a much less obvious strength to exploit. Since the new rules about not being able to follow into cc, I expect the DE will be seriously reconsidering this no-brainer technique and, if not abandoned altogether, seriously rethought in usage. One brain-dead assault tactic spammed is not a good way to learn... because rules change, and new codex constantly churn up issues with older codex. Eldar are almost the same as they were in 2nd ed. Each unit has a VERY specific usage in the facets of the game that is is completely intended towards, which in a way makes it the BEST army to learn with, but until you have figured all of those facets and learn to intertwine, it will be the most easily killed and most frustrating army.

I think the easiest stuff to start with is balanced SMs or green-tide orks. You can screw up, you can play how you want, you can make your 3+ "player save" not to get hosed for every stupid move you make... plus you get some with the rulebook, and have far more options for expanding than any other army.

Dark Eldar really aren’t that bad because when you look at their list pretty much any random assortment of 'cool' models can make an easy to play army which can win some matches.

Witch Hunters? Like common guys, every model is metal (with no element for customization) and super expensive (10 sisters is almost the same price as an elite unit in any other army). And unless you have a good combination of units supporting each other and a list tailored to fighting a certain type of army you will lose almost no doubted. And the whole faith points system which is worded so awkwardly in the codex that it may well be nonsensical.

So even though I love using them along side my Guard, Witch Hunters are the hardest to learn.

I'd say witch hunter and dark eldar just for the fact that they have such old codexs that many of the rules they have or reference to dont exist and having to buy every little piece of wargear and not getting the same bang for your buck that a lot of newer codexs to have. Plus their armies are very much about finesse and finding the exact right amount of weapons/troops/elite and many things are misleading in the codex that seem like great choices and are really just terrible.. (like most of the units in the DE codex :/)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Turalon wrote:Dark Eldar really aren’t that bad because when you look at their list pretty much any random assortment of 'cool' models can make an easy to play army which can win some matches.

All I have to say is.. really? The majority of the DE codex is just terrible. Like hmm all of the elite choices besides wyches, the troops are good but you know you have to take a bunch of good ole troop transports that pop really easy, the fast attack section bubbles down to.. Jet bikes.. maybe. Heavy support is.. ravagers because well everything else is terrible. so you are looking at 5 different types of units you are going to field and the right combo to make them competitive or even on par with most of the newer codexs is a daunting task for even experienced players.

I think they will be a lot better in the new codex when you dont have to buy every little thing but since you do you have to find the right combination of wargear and for someone just learning the game I dont think that they are the right fit. Also you have a lot of things to keep track of in most stranded DE armies like combat drugs and such.

i voted black templars purely because a.) ive never had an interest in other 40k armies besides SM, Tau and IG, meaning i dont know what the other armies are like and
b.) the only way you can have a proper DA army without it being just an SM army is buying that 18 quid upgrade pack, and you need a hell of a lot them.

I don't know the DE codex that well, but there are some really awesome options for them if you know how to tailor a list, and all the options for wargear are mind boggling. I wouldn't say it's a weak codex at all, just a very steep learning curve to do it well. Both E and DE are like that. The difference is that DE excell at just one thing... so any 'good' DE army will be essentially based on that one tactic. Nobody uses gunline DE and for good reason. fast fast fast assault where they kicked my butt, is what they rock at. While Eldar have so many different approaches from mech to gunline to wraithwall to x-men that a new player can at least learn several styles of play with the same army, even if he gets loses every battle as the learning curve is climbed, I think it is more rewarding for a player learning the nuances of the rules to use an Eldar army that just suffers defeat after defeat as they figure it out. DE would teach them a one-trick pony...

Still, after reading the thread, I believe the worst army to start on would be eldar, because there's such a lot of stuff to take in and understand and juggle around in order for it to work well. Best to learn with, yes, but it might discourage people when they get the gak kicked out of them over and over. At least the DE have a one trick pony that is a really good trick.

Still, I believe everyone should learn the game with marines. they are very forgiving and very multifaceted. Not so specialized as some, but with the possibility of leaning in all sorts of directions of playstyle. GW has known this for a long time. Why else would every starter set included Marines?

Throw the kids that don't know how to swim in the shallow end of the pool. Deep end will just make them not want to go swimming again.

Voted for DE. Reason being they are fragile, so if you make a mistake with them then you can really pay for it against most enemys. They lack the numbers of other easily killed armies like IG so loosing only a few models makes a big difference. They lack the obviously powerful stuff that can help new players, like Fire Dragons and a huge range of S6 weaponry that Craftworld Eldar have.

DE.
They are the worst, most wretched, most frustrating and utterly difficult army in the entire game...
for a beginner.
They require more skill than any other army in the entire game.
I have seen a guy who probably played them for a while get completely stomped on twice in a row by kids. That's not funny. Ever.
Although they have some very huge advantages, like heavy AT without even trying and the relative ambiguity of the list to the general gaming population,
MOVE YOUR FETHING RAIDERS AWAY FROM YOUR WYCHES IN COMBAT. I can't believe how many times I've seen them parked next to a squad and take them out entirely when it explodes.

I'm going to have to go with orks. Not because I think they are hard to play, but because an ork army has so many models. The process of modeling/painting all of them can be a daunting task for a new player.

Yeah but painting orks is like an assembly line. I did about 100 of them for my brother in less than a month. base (metal stuff is scorched brown, skin is DA green) brush up (boltgun metal and snot green) final highlight (goblin green)... poof 100 boyz. Some had burnas, some had big shootas, some had big 'ardboyz shoulders but it was a pretty easy paint job.

What he had to do was pick out some details here and there he wanted and give them a good wash and it was tournament ready and prize winning in about 2 months or so at a huge tournament.

One month I did all the coloring, next month he did all the wicky little finishing (neither of us working particularly fast due to work and life). It would have taken even less time if I had painted more than a couple of hours a day. This... plus they come in AoBR so theres a lot of models to mess with as you learn to paint. Finally, Orks are very forgiving because they are tough and have a variety to them. I think other than SM they are the next best army to deal with for a noob.

Space Marines! Because everyone plays 'em, and everyone who doesn't hate 'em, and all your oponents will hate you! =O

Seriously though, DE are really hard for beginners.

I'd have to go for Dark Eldar, on the basis that they are so out of date now that it would be very difficult for a new player to get to grips with them. Oh, and the models haven't aged well.

But DE teaches you the assault finesse really well. Sucks that the S&M figs are too embarrassing to show to any sane person, but you will learn the ropes of rapid transport and assault phase, which is far more important nowadays than move, shoot, move, shoot, etc.

If you can learn DE you will have mastered assaulting, and if someone shows that to you in your first few games you can at least do some good slaughtering as you learn, which is encouraging for a new player. But yeah their codex is way too old. I wouldn't recommend it either, but it would teach some good gaming skills in the learning. Knowing the whole trannie drop charge with some wyches is a good intro to how to use assault to keep your fragile stuff safe.

Guitardian wrote:But DE teaches you the assault finesse really well. Sucks that the S&M figs are too embarrassing to show to any sane person, but you will learn the ropes of rapid transport and assault phase, which is far more important nowadays than move, shoot, move, shoot, etc.

If you can learn DE you will have mastered assaulting, and if someone shows that to you in your first few games you can at least do some good slaughtering as you learn, which is encouraging for a new player. But yeah their codex is way too old. I wouldn't recommend it either, but it would teach some good gaming skills in the learning. Knowing the whole trannie drop charge with some wyches is a good intro to how to use assault to keep your fragile stuff safe.

Maybe so, but my point is that there are easier ways to learn it. A Speed Freek force (personal bias alert!) will do the teaching just as well, and may even be a little more forgiving.
But yeah, now that I think of it, you make a good point, at least playing DE you will learn decent tactics that will put you in good stead.

But yeah, now that I think of it, you make a good point, at least playing DE you will learn decent tactics that will put you in good stead.

Unlike say playing Tau which will teach you nothing except failure. Even played well Tau are rather "untactical" and rely on the application of fire power and simple target prioritisation. To get the best out of them is more about army build that game choices and you either learn that the hard way (and get used to losing doing so) or go to the tinterweb and down load cookie cutter list A or B build accordingly and get marginal success without having really learnt anything...

Which is why I think they are the worst army for beginners rather than DE. Who whilst tough to learn can be devastating when used correctly and help teach you good tactics that will put you in good stead for future gaming.

I think DE are harder for a beginner to get to grips with but are ultimately rewarding for those thatr persist. Whilst Tau are easier to get to grips with but from a gaming perspective won't really teach you good tactics or much about how the wider game works and as you get better you'll probably not see any real improvement in your results...

It depends on if they are talking about gaming or not. WH would probably be the worst for gaming, what with all the complex rules. But to look at it another way, the worst army for a beginner to paint would be Eldar, and the worst for a beginner to convert and model would be Necrons.

Witch Hunters- Why?

1)Poorly formatted and written rules.
2)Overly complicated(For a Beginner) Faith System.
3)Older codex needs two others to have comlete unit information.
4)Allies rules entices new players to try to learn two codices at the same time(Thus leading to confusion and a slowed learning curve)
5)Expense of the model line

There are other reasons but that is enough

Any new players wanting to do Witchhunters had better have a fat wallet. So much metal. They are actually really tough when you have to deal with a hundred or so bolter wielding power armored horde of sisters (It's happened to me before and I got tabled BAD). Not a lot of beginner players really want to spend one thousand bucks on their first one thousand point army, but if they did, those SoB's (pun intended) can bring the hurt if they horde up.

orks because from my experience new players are scared to let models die and will not take the risks needed for playing orks

Dark Eldar. And Imperial guard. because imperial guard are the most expsenive army in the entire 40k game! as $25 can buy a 70 point squad.

Dark Angels purely because out of all the SM armies out there, Dark Angels have the weakest codex., im not sure on WH or DE because i havent really looked them up much

Nice threadomancy.

I do disagree with you, though. Even though the Dark Angels have arguably the most out of date Space Marine codex, I don't think they have the "weakest" codex.

I don't believe in weak codices.

I believe in weak players, who aren't able to make their out-of-date codex work.

That said, a newbie, with the proper tools, could, I believe, make the DA codex work for him. He'd probably see the potential for an army of Terminators and jump at it!