What is the worst Warhammer 40,000 army for a beginning player to start with, and why?

Looks like dark eldar might just be the hardest for new players. But then again, you never know, I guess it depends on the person playing.

Witch Hunters or Dark Eldar. Witch Hunters because of obscene model pricing and complexity, Dark Eldar because it takes a while to get used to them.

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

Demonhunters was the first thing to pop into my head when I read the question, but after taking a look at the choices I remembered Dark Eldar are an incredible finesse army. Sisters are a very close second though.

Daemon hunters were one of the first armies I had. Using inquisitorial henchmen, and allying with other imperial forces can be difficult for a new player. The rules are outdated as well so that can be confusing when your just learning the basic rules in the BGB.

I voted for DE because they require a good bit of skill to play well, and its quite easy to be wiped out completely with the DE. The units are abit more fragile than most other armies and unless handled carefully, with a specific plan in mind, the whole army can evaporate. Exactly the sort of army that a new player still learning the basic rules is going to have problems with.


Sliggoth

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.

DE. Seeing as they havn't had a new codex since... 3rd ED? Very fragile too, But daemon hunters and witch hunters are a close 2nd. Very high prices indeed...

Dark Eldar,as has been said, it is one of the least forgiving armies when dealing with "tactical errors" & requires a bit of skill to use effectively.

liquidjoshi wrote:DE. Seeing as they havn't had a new codex since... 3rd ED? Very fragile too, But daemon hunters and witch hunters are a close 2nd. Very high prices indeed...

Actually, 2nd ED, iirc

Gavo wrote:

liquidjoshi wrote:DE. Seeing as they havn't had a new codex since... 3rd ED? Very fragile too, But daemon hunters and witch hunters are a close 2nd. Very high prices indeed...

Actually, 2nd ED, iirc

Dark Eldar codex first appeared in 3rd ed.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Dark_Eldar_(3rd_Edition)

Daemons, they can go very well, or horribly wrong, also demoralizing if you start with them and get bad rolls causing you to loose the game.

Yeah, Dark Elfdar are 3rd ed, and very unforgiving, though the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters are a close 2nd.

Who said Space Marines? They're arguably the best army for a beginner.

I agree with Dark Eldar; they are a very, very unforgiving army to play if you make a mistake. However, they can also be one of the strongest armies in the game (30-ish Dark Lances at 1500 ), so there you go.

I did not vote as I could argue for every army:

Metal armies: DH, WH, Chaos Daemons; too expensive and can put beginners off

Armies Needing Updates: DH, WH, Necrons, DE; Not worth starting at the minute

Armies that are unforgiving and therefore not fun: DE, DH; too hard too use and not fun if you muck up

Boring armies that everyone else has: All SM, Orks, Tyranids; could be different at certain stores but everyone has one of these armies (I have BA)

I think every army is both the worst and best for a beginner. It depends entirely on the individuals mindset and personal circumstances.

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

Ditto!

In the current mechanized metagame, DE are incredibly easy. Spam dark lances, pick targets and roll dice. Never seen a DE army in recent years that required a lot of strategy to use effectively. Long ago there were Wyches, Talos, even Warp Beasts. Now just Dark Lances.

Daemons seem much harder to beat. Even Fatecrusher can go horribly wrong with a few bad scatters, Fateweaver running away at the wrong time, etc. And the army suffers against mechanized lists.

DE might be unforgiving of the wrong decisions, but with Daemons sometimes there just IS no right decision, you just get hosed.

Demons belong in fantasy, or even better in an actual forces of chaos codex.

Spellbound wrote:In the current mechanized metagame, DE are incredibly easy. Spam dark lances, pick targets and roll dice. Never seen a DE army in recent years that required a lot of strategy to use effectively. Long ago there were Wyches, Talos, even Warp Beasts. Now just Dark Lances.

Daemons seem much harder to beat. Even Fatecrusher can go horribly wrong with a few bad scatters, Fateweaver running away at the wrong time, etc. And the army suffers against mechanized lists.

DE might be unforgiving of the wrong decisions, but with Daemons sometimes there just IS no right decision, you just get hosed.

Now thats not fair. I run Wyches with Blasters too, so I can assault the units inside the transports

I still think Dark Eldar are awesome, even if you don't win. The game's not solely about winning?

I don't have enough experience with DE to make an educated statement so I went with WH because of the faith rules, finess army, and the rules that don't matter anymore. DH would be close second to me due to the irrelevant daemon rules that still float in the codex.

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 have to disagree. I'm a (comparatively) new player, and I've never lost as the Eldar. I think they're a fine starting army, considering their obvious "this one kills this thing" style of using infantry. They're right there next to IG and Orks in terms of simplicity of use.

Why is everyone picking Dark Eldar? Have you actually played against them recently, or better yet, ever? My guess is no.
I say that Dark Eldar and Eldar are far from being the worst for starters. They have amazing fire and mobility, and with Dark Eldar, since nobody obviously plays against them very often, no one knows what unit does what or the typical strategies. And just because rules are old doesn't mean its a bad army for starters.

As was said before, just spam the Dark Lances and there you go. It's even perfect for killing Marines, which is worth it in itself since almost everyone plays them.

I pick Tau. Shoot, shoot again, and then you die in CC...

Dammit I thought it said best and went Necrons Doh!!

Id say what most others on here said and go w DE being worst due to the oldest codex (and no i havent played against them) and difficult to find models...

Locclo wrote:Who said Space Marines?

The people who misread the question.

I'm surprised nobody but ZacktheChaosChild have brought up Tau yet; they have hardly any tactical flexibility, not to mention it's very hard to even give your opponent a challenge unless you know exactly how to play Tau. Though I suppose the same could be said with DE.

Dark Eldar are not as fragile as everyone says. Their just easy to rip on for having the most outlandish play style.

I saw a new player come in with Dark Eldar and ripped up the field, was no joke guy tabled IG in his first game.

I think my second army ever will be them if anything.

I have no experience with Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters, or Demon Hunters. I do have a lot of playing experience with Tau and I can honestly say that I would never recommend them to a beginner. So much depend on your ability to keep the other guy off you and at the same time keep clear firing lanes. You also have to learn how to feed enemies roadblocks and use other units for blocking. And it's expensive too.

Dedrith wrote:
I'm surprised nobody but ZacktheChaosChild have brought up Tau yet; they have hardly any tactical flexibility, not to mention it's very hard to even give your opponent a challenge unless you know exactly how to play Tau. Though I suppose the same could be said with DE.

Hardly any tactical flexibility?
Maybe you don't really play Tau or havent met anyone who knows how to play Tau yet :-).
Or maybe you mean "hardly any tactical flexibility in the hands of a newbie/noob" ? That sounds more correct.

Dark Eldar, due to the clear age of the models (they all look really terrible) and the difficulty in actually getting them (most places dont stock them anymore.)

Davicus wrote:

Dedrith wrote:
I'm surprised nobody but ZacktheChaosChild have brought up Tau yet; they have hardly any tactical flexibility, not to mention it's very hard to even give your opponent a challenge unless you know exactly how to play Tau. Though I suppose the same could be said with DE.

Hardly any tactical flexibility?
Maybe you don't really play Tau or havent met anyone who knows how to play Tau yet :-).
Or maybe you mean "hardly any tactical flexibility in the hands of a newbie/noob" ? That sounds more correct.

Well this thread IS about beginners after all. However i started with Tau and won on my 3rd game so i dont see whats so hard about them

dark eldar are not bad for beginners? they were in the 3rd edition starter set after all, but general inquisition would be very hard for a starter

I would say witch hunters, since cost is going to be a huge thing to consider for new players.

I voted SM but then, that is what I know.

For a beginner:
Too many options in your basic troop and support troops.

The SM codex is like brining out baking powder, flour, butter, sugar, eggs, and water. You can make bread, you can make tortillas, you can make muffins, you can make cookies, you can make pies, you can make scrambled eggs and toast.

You can also make a bunch of stuff that tastes like Bleh.

A beginner needs to learn how to play and learn tactics. They need a recipe book which the SM codex certainly is not.

They may be losing games b/c they have issues constructing an army that is cohesive and plays well together.

Sure, the SM are forgiving but that doesn't make for a good for a beginner learning the game, just lets them survive a bit longer.

Give me some Necrons to learn on any day. Limited choices, Upgrades only on the Lord. Not horrible to play and rules are not overly complicated.

I can make cookies everyday with Necrons. Sure my cookies aren't Chocolate chip, Oatmeal Raisin, or Snickerdoodles but with the Crons, Shortbread is no problem.

I honestly would pick any one of the armies as the worst one. I remember when I started how foreign this all looked to me. Having someone there who could have helped me more then the person I had would've helped. When I tried playing before I bought it my friend assembled the army for me. I wish he had walked me through it and explained some of that part to me before I bought it and tried to figure it out on my own.

@jgemrich: I started with a SM army and found the amount of options to be too many as you stated.

Whilst Space Marines have a bewildering array of options almost anything you pick will work to some degree as everything does nearly everything quite well.

SM are by far the best choice for a beginner IMO.

I was struck between Dark Eldar as they're so tough and unforgiving and Witchhunters as they have such a bewildering array of complex special rules expensive models and likewise are fairly unforgiving. I was edging toward DE because the basic trooper for the witch hunters is so good.

However in the end I plumbed for Tau as they are just the worst army. So there is no real learning curve even as you start to learn and improve your list it will still suck as they are the worst army which can be demoralising and well as reducing your learning as you rarely see the benefits of the correct decisions you make as the army is so weak.

SM for me are excellent for beginers, poor for moderate players and excellent again for experts which represents a nice learning curve. DE are tough on the beginner but start rewarding relatively quickly and a bit of DL spam can give even moderate players good results. I'd say similar with Eldar who are also tough for beginners and even moderate players and only when you get really competant do you start to reap rewards.

I voted Daemonhunters. Building an effective army from the Codex itself is very difficult. If you are using Allies that makes it a bit easier, but if we are talking about one Codex then what kind of build can you have? Pure Grey Knight, Radical Inquisitor with Storm Troopers?

Almost every new player I have seen who takes up the forces of either Necrons or daemonhunters gives up on the game after about a year. You can only go so far into the hobby based on a cool concept. When you have a firm grasp of an armies tactics and still lose 80% of your matches you start to hate the game.

I'm surprised to see dark eldar topping this list.
Even though they are the most difficult army to play you can still develop strategies that will win you the majority of your games, unlike daemonhunters and necrons.

Dark Eldar. Easily, because they are such a complex army.

I don't know why everyone is saying Tau. They have a suprisisngly simple tactic: shoot and keep out of combat. Of course as you get better you learn which units to target, but once you learn target priority it really isnt that hard. Also they do have a lot of flexibility, it's just aimed at weapon types, which for tau is still a lot of options.

Everyone saying how bad Tau are really over reacting, DH, WH, DE and crons are much harder.

InventionThirteen wrote:I still think Dark Eldar are awesome, even if you don't win. The game's not solely about winning?

Hmm gonna have to disagree here. The game is solely about winning. Can you point to somewhere in the BRB that states the object is to try and lose? The object of the game is to win the game, simple and straightforward its called a goal state. However you could also have fun building, painting, chatting, etc. while playing the game, but this is not the objective of the game as set in the rules.

I would side with most of the people here on the DE arguments.

My vote is for deamons. As all the rest of the armies follow similar principals, Armor, movement, deployment. Deamons throw all that into disarray. I think they are a great army, and a starter could play them, but you'd have trouble figuring out how they play. Just my thoughts though.


And FYI you play the game to have fun, you can actually DO that every time, where as you probably won't win every time. And if you're the type of person who ONLY has fun when they win, you might have some issues.

I said WH cos they have the most metal models, and as a beginner plastic is much better to work with! Then they are pretty boring to play also IMO

Strimen wrote:

InventionThirteen wrote:I still think Dark Eldar are awesome, even if you don't win. The game's not solely about winning?

Hmm gonna have to disagree here. The game is solely about winning. Can you point to somewhere in the BRB that states the object is to try and lose?

I take it you're not an Ork player... the game can totally be about having fun. I don't believe there's anywhere in the BRB that states you have to win either. Acting out a battle with a mate is great fun, win or lose. Winning is for tournaments

Anyway, back on topic. I plumped for DE too. They are very fragile and their basic weapon (Splinter Rifle) is very weak compared to those of other races. However, if you're good at unit positioning and combining attacks, they can very effective. Kitting out a Warrior unit with a load of Dark Lances can be pretty useful against Mech armies too.

Daemons - because someone starting with daemons would never learn the intricacies of sound deployment or the application of long range firepower.

They would become expert deepstrikers however.

An idea beginner army should be balanced and have a little bit of everything for the novice to try out. All-rounders like SM, CSM and Eldar therefore come to the top of the list and "specialty armies" like Daemons, Tau fall to the bottom. Actual "army power" is less important than giving the beginner the complete suite of troop types to play with. Ideally they will find their specialty and go for it in their second army.

I was thinking monetary wise, so i picked imperial guard.

I don't know why everyone is saying Tau. They have a suprisisngly simple tactic: shoot and keep out of combat. Of course as you get better you learn which units to target, but once you learn target priority it really isnt that hard. Also they do have a lot of flexibility, it's just aimed at weapon types, which for tau is still a lot of options.

Given that loads of armies can assault you in turn 1 staying out of combat is simply not possible. Or are you suggesting beginners try going Ninja or set their armies lists and deployment up to effectively castle (which still isn't effective against a decent assault list).

Tau suck hard I'm a Tau player (a long with other armies). They suck hard compare them with IG. IG will beat Tau in CC a guardsmen will beat a FW in CC (by the maths striking first and hiting on 3s is more important than the improved saved) yet is half the cost so point for point will nail Tau in CC. Guard armies are now as mobile if not more so than Tau armies and have more access to heavier fire power and cruicially loads of fire power that ignore the cover pervailent in 5th Ed. Something Tau are totally lacking.

The game is totally set up to favour assault armies. Tau can only shoot and aren't even the best at that anymore. Whilst IG can out shoot the Tau they can also tarpit enemy assaulters again something Tau have no access to.

That is the porblem with Tau if you are just learning against other beginners sure at first you'll do alright (I admittedly still win 6 out of 10 games with my Tau). But once they get clued up on assault and getting to you quickly game over. When you start to learn with your Tau your results will actually get worse as by then your opponents will have figured out how to get into CC without you having a single chance to shoot at them (turn 1 assaults and fast out flankers or massed out flankers). Then as you try to improve you army you'll never really learn anything as your army won't ever be competitive.

Tau are based largely on luck of that crucial tuirn of shooting they will get at some point. That maybe turn 1 after you've alphastruck them with what's left of their army it might be later. If that turn doesn't go well (I'm sure we've all had our pathfinders miss every ML on that criucial turn before) that is it game over. If it does go well, you'll probably still stuggle to stop your opponent.

Nothing dies like Tau in CC and many other armies can match them in a shooting battle (IG, Puppies, Vulkan, DE DL spam etc). It is just a lose lose for Tau as they can't out do other armies at anything.

I say Eldar.

I said WH because it was really hard to figure out the short distance shooting thing. I can say that for a beginner trying to learn the basic rules, too, this was really challenging. At least it was for me. I still mix up when I should use what AoF and with which unit...

What? Kroot didn't make the list?

I think that Dark Eldar are hard to play.

odinsgrandson wrote:What? Kroot didn't make the list?

You have to exist to make the list. Otherwise the Lost and the Damned would probably be up here too

Along with the Armored Company (or does the list still exist?).

I voted for Crons because, as my brother found, they can become really boring. Only having one plastic set makies it hard for begginers as it makes the army even more expensive that normal.

Yeah I'm going with Tau for all the reasons flingitnow listed, and the fact that even assault aside you need to have perfect target priority, deployment, and all the special tau specifics tricks down perfect in order to make the army work. All that being something I new player simply will not have.

deamons because they all deepstrike and are often hard to play because there very hit and miss

Davicus wrote:

Dedrith wrote:
I'm surprised nobody but ZacktheChaosChild have brought up Tau yet; they have hardly any tactical flexibility, not to mention it's very hard to even give your opponent a challenge unless you know exactly how to play Tau. Though I suppose the same could be said with DE.

Hardly any tactical flexibility?
Maybe you don't really play Tau or havent met anyone who knows how to play Tau yet :-).
Or maybe you mean "hardly any tactical flexibility in the hands of a newbie/noob" ? That sounds more correct.

I think he meant the last one, since Tau aren't for the newbies.

Overall, i'd have to say DH

i have to give it to deamonhunters becouse they dtuff is so expenisve znd you need them to do alot of stuff

Dark Eldar by far. Due to price of range for a good list and age of codex.

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!

Why does everyone say the DA are weak? They still have their 4-across-the-board statline and possibility for LR/termie spam. Is it just because the SW out spammed them? I am asking this out of curiosity because I have never once played against a DA list. Seems like regular mariners with just a few potential advantages and potential disadvantages. They still have bolter and power armor, and the same vehicles as anyone else in the SM world.

Guitardian wrote:Why does everyone say the DA are weak? They still have their 4-across-the-board statline and possibility for LR/termie spam. Is it just because the SW out spammed them? I am asking this out of curiosity because I have never once played against a DA list. Seems like regular mariners with just a few potential advantages and potential disadvantages. They still have bolter and power armor, and the same vehicles as anyone else in the SM world.

They're lacking a few vehicles found in the Vanilla codex, and they're lacking a few things (Mortis Dreadnought) that they should have, which I think is what spawns a lot of the DA whine, but the truth is they can be played brilliantly.

I personally think they're no less viable a codex than our good friends the Black Templars, who can also be a beast when played certain ways.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say an entire army of Terminators scares the crap out of me.

I believe that Chaos Demons would be the hardest for beginners to play, just because you have to split your army into two different groups and pray that you get the right wave.

Orkz because of all the strange rules.

I voted for space marines. After reading all of the other posts on this poll I thought "maybe DE isn't such a beginner friendly army". Dark eldar was my second army and is currently my main. I love them to bits and when I first started them I had a solid grasp on the basic rules and a full sized army before they were taken off the shelves. However now that they are off the shelf I'd say that no one would even start them to begin with.

The reason I voted for space marines is the same reason as mentioned earlier on. They were too varied. I picked up the space wolf codex 8 years ago with much excitement, only to find out that I needed the main book too. Then there were alot of items and universal rules that referred to the main rulebook which my parents wouldn't buy me (sad face). I also didn't know how to glue on bolters and since I was young and a bit nervous at the local shop I never asked how to and so I struggled through every model.

Necrons was very easy to start instead. I was able to quickly grasp their rules and since they were so solid back then I actually won several games. I don't know if it would be the same if I had started them in 5th edition.

yakface wrote:
What is the worst Warhammer 40,000 army for a beginning player to start with, and why?

Cygnar

I went with Tau, my reason being that you just can't learn so much from playing them as your first army.

I guess any army that is too lop-sided into one aspect of the game, and weak in other aspects would be a bad choice. Tau won't teach you effective cc, DE won't teach you anything but. You wouldn't want a new player getting the impression that the game is ALL about cc (DE), or ALL about gunlines (Tau/Necrons), or ALL about transports (Eldar/DE), ALL about huge tanks and masses of heavy weapons (IG) ALL about massive power characters (SW) or all about hordes (Ork).

All of these armies have their strengths and are cool armies, but a beginner should get a little bit of everything, not an army that almost insists on a certain play style in order to be competetive.

Marines have a bit of everything. Anything less would skew the poor newbie's impression of what is most important in the game.

Or we could asume new players aren't complete idiots, and let them start with what they like.

HoverBoy wrote:Or we could asume new players aren't complete idiots, and let them start with what they like.

New players nowadays are 8 or 9.

I've seen newbies start with Tau, but never seen one win.
But I'd have to go with the flow, and say DE or Daemonhunters.

and they lose all the time, annoy all the vets who drew the lot to play against them... not necessarily because they are annoying or ask questions, but because it's like a wasted hour where you could have been playing a challenging game.
Safest army to go with is the most forgiving one, where you can make mistakes and still have your nice 3+ save, ridiculously tough land raiders, termies, etc. That can sometimes just shrug it off if you do a dumb move and get fire poured down on you. Worst army to go with is the one that absolutely needs a certain playstyle to pull off a win. Marines can just stomp around even if the player is dumb as a stump and still be a challenge to outwit or outmaneuver.

I voted no opinion why??...becasue having NO army was not an option..

Any army is better than none for a new player!... at least they get in on the fun!

In the hands of an experienced player DE is one of the most powerful armies in the game (with their current yet outdated codex). BUT in the hands of a new gamer the slightest misstake will cost you the game, and more often make you lose a very devastating defeat and not a close one...

witch hunters
namely because they cost a freakin fortune and are really annoying to paint.

I voted Tau. I think until you get a sense of tactics on the battlefield...its good to start with a more formidable, all around army. Eldar is another tough race to start with

Any inquisitorial force really, i've mastered the lists, but new players just don't know what to take and how to balance it

I voted Dark Eldar as the hardest, simply because it is easier to screw yourself over with a dumb move and harder to recover than most others. Tau are, in my opinion, the army with the cheapest, easiest tactics to pull off. Some flexibility is there, but who in their right mind who plays Tau does anything other than hug the board edge and blow away whatever comes into range? Space Marines are probably the best for survivability, Imperial Guard are....well, Imperial Guard, when you lose a squad, you've got 10 more where they came from, and Eldar may be specialized and all that, but if you've looked at their gear, stats and rules and stuff before playing, you can figure it out easy enough. Every other army has some things that it's designed to do and things it isn't built for, I just think the Dark Eldar are harder because of their "hit fast and make sure they can't hit back" style. And because they are squishy and few in number.

I think, it's Imperial Guard. It's easy to get cozy in the gunline, forgetting that some of the missions doesnt follow just standing on a corner blasting away your enemy, nor would your enemy just stand there on the opposite side of your gunline waiting to be blasted away.

I wonder if this poll has not been overtaken by events, as it had it's heyday before the last major released and has veered into Necro territory.

mindfield wrote:I think, it's Imperial Guard. It's easy to get cozy in the gunline, forgetting that some of the missions doesnt follow just standing on a corner blasting away your enemy, nor would your enemy just stand there on the opposite side of your gunline waiting to be blasted away.

Wait, people still play gunline guard?
I thought we all moved on to the mid-speed full mech

I chose DE because new players will not likely know to what extent that army is capable of. Its definately a great army. However a unexperienced DE player would likely get chewed on by a player of same skill level sitting across the table in power armor...

Witch Hunters - Hard Rules, Overpriced Models and a realy old codex mean that they are really hard to start with.

I restarted with Warhammer 40k last year and started daemons. It might just be me but i have had no luck with the army ive won 2 out of the 30 games ive played with it.

shadeyaces wrote:I restarted with Warhammer 40k last year and started daemons. It might just be me but i have had no luck with the army ive won 2 out of the 30 games ive played with it.

I think youre saying youre no longer new at the game. But I think Daemons can be one of the hardest army for a beginner to adapt. Only one daemon player in our local community here :( and he doesnt play often :(

Dark Eldar for sure. Even with the new codex (thank God, er, the Emprah), they're very unforgiving of tactical mistakes, very squishy. It takes a real master to use them effectively. But insanely deadly if used with skill.

Honestly, it was close between DE, Witch hunters, and my beloved Tau...I had to say DE because there's a certain thought process you need to play them and do decent

Eldar....too many special rules.

My top choices would be Tao and Witch Hunters.

Tao because their wargear is so incredibly complex and they are akwardly named too boot (and I guess they are hard to me being a vetran marine player because they are very very tactically different)

Witch Hunters due to the complexity of their special rules.

Does anyone notice a trend here? Both of these armies have some of the oldest codecies in print! Time for a revamp GW

It looks like DE is winning this poll but I don't know anything about them so I couldn't tell you if they are hard to play or not!

Orks are simple: CHARGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AtraAngelis wrote:I voted no opinion why??...becasue having NO army was not an option..

Any army is better than none for a new player!... at least they get in on the fun!

That's why I chose Tyranids for the hardest to play. I've seen too many new players get discouraged because so many people have learned how to counter the nids' typical strategies. The worst army may be no army at all, but the second worst is the army that drives you from the game.

DE coz it is a veterans choice

IMHO, it's Grey Knights. A designed from the ground assault army, it takes careful army building to get the most of.

eldar, tooooo complicated, have to learn what each unit specificly does, which is hard in the beggining

Id say necrons. Requiring Monoliths and all to do well.

Eldar by far!!!!!!!
When I was deciding which army to start off i was contemplating Eldar, but it is far too complex for a beginner.

Mr.Awesome1 wrote:Eldar by far!!!!!!!
When I was deciding which army to start off i was contemplating Eldar, but it is far too complex for a beginner.

Such a thing should never deter you. An army is a huge investment. Start with the one that you like the most, since it might be your only one. Learning how to play that army will come eventually.

Archonate wrote:

Mr.Awesome1 wrote:Eldar by far!!!!!!!
When I was deciding which army to start off i was contemplating Eldar, but it is far too complex for a beginner.

Such a thing should never deter you. An army is a huge investment. Start with the one that you like the most, since it might be your only one. Learning how to play that army will come eventually.

But even the models made no sense for me, let alone the rules...

Orks and Tyranids can be bad if the beginner wishes to paint his or her army. The sheer amount of models coupled with the prices of said models, the price of the painting necessities and the time spent painting yet another gaunt or ork boy can easily put someone off.

Gaming-wise, i'm not too sure. Tau are difficult since you need to stay out of combat but still threaten the enmy with your weapons, which can be difficult to learn. Eldar require knowledge to each unit to create synergy. Sisters need clever use of faith and target priority (in the sense of you deciding which target needs to be destroyed, not the old edition test).

Necrons can be difficult simply because of phase out and unit costs/ability. Orks require the ability to get your boyz over there intact, Nids require your MCs staying alive to kill stuff AND your troops staying alive for obj. matches. CSMs require knowing what combinations of what work well and which units are down-right crap. GKs require learning how to keep your small units alive. IG requires learning how to balance infantry and vehicles.

SMs are the most forgiving by far, but even they require knowing how to use cover and exploit the enemy weaknesses, with BAs needing their close combat squads to stay alive, BTs needing stuff (never seen a BT army in my life), DAs needing knowledge of how DW/RW works and basic SM knowledge, SW requires knowing how to proxy missile launcher long fangs and las/plas razorbacks...

It really depends on the beginner.

Surely it is sisters of battle purely on cost per model each squads going to set you back £20 ish and so for 2 troops and one hq choice it is about £60 an you will not have any tactical options for that.

I'm saying Eldar, because that's what I started with, and they're really difficult to play.

i picked tau. probably becuase when i played against tau it was to confusing. myabe becasue my ork mind isnt used to other stuff. Drones, signal beams, and hunter killer missles. WTF

It was a toss up for Chaos Daemons and Dark Eldar. Then I remembered the total lousy random reserves that Chaos Daemons have and I cast my vote for them. At least Dark Eldar can be deployed with an amount of fun factor. The daemons just sit there and get shot, crossing their fingers to hope they have enough models left over to assault with.

Witch Hunters.

"The bank just called. They want to know why your account was suddenly emptied."

Gaming-wise, probably Tau. They are allergic to a third of the game and not that great in the other two thirds.

Space Marines. Far too forgiving. The best ways to learn a game and to pick up good tactics is to choose an army that punishes you severely when you make mistakes. Play Eldar, you'll soon learn how to keep your T3 army alive, kicking and screaming to victory. With your MEQ's, you could scrape a few victories simply because the T4 3+ covered your mistakes, which means you'll probably fail notice them, and correct them.

Dark eldar definatly. 3 guesses for what arm I started with...

I would like to see a beginner buy and build the current all-metal witch hunters

Kungfuhustler wrote:Almost every new player I have seen who takes up the forces of either Necrons or daemonhunters gives up on the game after about a year. You can only go so far into the hobby based on a cool concept. When you have a firm grasp of an armies tactics and still lose 80% of your matches you start to hate the game.

Well even though I play friendlies, and I must say it is still competitive, I win roughly half of the games I play when using Crons. I will note that the higher in points the game is the better off I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ysclyth wrote:Id say necrons. Requiring Monoliths and all to do well.

I have no monoliths. And yet I can still win roughly half of my games.

Imperial Guard because the are really hard to play well.

rockerbikie wrote:Imperial Guard because the are really hard to play well.

No the reason is it's hard for noobs to handle so many models.

Thats the problem with the 40k rules. People can't pick an army they like without the rules screwing them over, its really silly on how the rules are set out, thats the problem with coming out with 1 or 2 new codex's at a time, it's to over balanced for the armies with new(er) codex's like GK, SM, DE, and etc.

If they come out with a new codex for every army at the same time, the game will work much much better, sure it will take longer, but its worth it for the players

Why is no body choosing witch hunters? They don't even have a codex!

Rogueyopants wrote:Thats the problem with the 40k rules. People can't pick an army they like without the rules screwing them over, its really silly on how the rules are set out, thats the problem with coming out with 1 or 2 new codex's at a time, it's to over balanced for the armies with new(er) codex's like GK, SM, DE, and etc.

If they come out with a new codex for every army at the same time, the game will work much much better, sure it will take longer, but its worth it for the players

The thing you need to ask yourself is, "Is GW for the players or the business"

Rogueyopants wrote:
Thats the problem with the 40k rules. People can't pick an army they like without the rules screwing them over, its really silly on how the rules are set out, thats the problem with coming out with 1 or 2 new codex's at a time, it's to over balanced for the armies with new(er) codex's like GK, SM, DE, and etc.

If they come out with a new codex for every army at the same time, the game will work much much better, sure it will take longer, but its worth it for the players

The thing you need to ask yourself is, "Is GW for the players or the business"

Surely by definition the answer is both. Unless they keep the players happy how can they sustain their business and if they don't sustain their business how can they continue to exist and continue to bring out new models and rules?

I'd argue that the recent shift to a more business focus from GW has yielded the fastest increase in improvements of their models. In the last 5 years the models have come on leaps and bounds and their improvement seems to be just getting faster and faster.

They also did a new codex for everyone at the same time once for 3rd Ed and everyone hated it.

The facts of logistics mean doing this means no new models and the codexes have to be trimmed down to a pamphlet.

Or they could wait 10 years between releases which would mena they could have new codexes and models for everyone - once every 10 years and nothing in the game would change in between. Which would be totally boring and would quickly lead the company to bankruptcy and thus leave us with no models or rules at all...

Dark Eldar hands down. It is what I started with and I struggled alot. I lost almost every game for about a year. Granted there is now a new codex but alot of the weakness remain...ie you have weak transports, low toughness, and bad armor. My buddy who started BT at the same time took off doing well. DE is just a hard army to learn how to do right and there is not alot of satisfaction at the begining since you don't do well.

Normally i would say dark eldar... But right now I am siding with eldar since their codex is very weak at the moment. Both Eldar and dark Eldar are increadibly hard to use and require viness and great understanding of the rules and how to use the "Eldar Cheats"

I started with eldar... lost nearly my first 3 months of games strait, figured out my path, and have been slaughtering people since... My area fews eldar as one of the most powerful codexes, and no matter how i try to explain it sucks, i keep kicking their ass...

Standard Eldar. Why?
Units are too specialized. Wyches can kill tanks with Haywires, MC's with Agonizers, and infantry with everything else. Banshees are stuck fighting infantry. Warriors can kill infantry and vehicles. Fire Dragons can only kill tanks.
Vehicles are quite expensive, and some units are plain dumb (Storm Guardians, Swooping Hawks, Vypers, etc.)

Space marines in general are hard to collect because it requires some tactical knowledge on how to use them, where as orks or tyranids you can spam major army pieces. :/

I chose Black Templars because if a beginner tried to paint them they would look terrible.

I say eldar i tryed them when i started but after 3 months i only one 1 game
Do NOT use ELDAR


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I say eldar i tryed them when i started but after 3 months i only one 1 game
Do NOT use ELDAR

I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

Chaos Daemons have my vote

Eldar. They are horribly dependent on learning how each unit works together and can be really fragile....
If I could vote twice I would have gone for Tau. Horrible CC ability and you cannot avoid CC for long.

Space Marines.

The background makes them seem like ultimate, best-at-everything legends...

Then you realise that they are mediocre warriors with a decent save and crappy guns.

They suckered me in when I started (midway through 4th edition) when I was going to get necrons.

Even after 5000 points of Marines, I still wish I'd gone with Nids or Crons as I was going to.

Eldar, with Tau coming close second,
Everything must fall into place of it will fail miserably

The hate with space marines is strange. Yes their poster boys but i think with their large areas of flatness are the easiest to paint and not hard to play with.


Eldar, however have loads of detail and every unit must be in perfect coherency with another or you lose

We don't really hate SM as such, we just hate the way GW is cramming them down everyone's throats.

tau

with their lack of shooting and need to tailor everything they do to the army they play

all that = no way you going to win

also with the current edition and how tau are they just are not shotty enough better to take IG who can actually shoot well

I think the dark eldar isn't that newbie friendly

Tau.. because pulling of a win as even a seasoned player is getting harder and harder.

This must be a really old poll considering DE now do have a new codex and Demon Hunters are now GK. I think Tau are the hardest army to get started, personally.

I started with Witch Hunters because I liked their models and background and I lost pretty much every game I played in the first six months

my mate last week started his first army geuss what he colects dark eldar ha ha

Tau due to their fragility, I would have gone for DE if it was the previous edition codex

Witch Hunters, they are just a terribel army to have the misfortune to field.

I don't understand why people keep saying Tau. They lose a lot, but that's not what really makes it "good" or "bad" for a beginner. Tau are actually great for beginners because their strategy is closest to the real world military. Someone coming from another game or from RTS pc gaming will be able to grok the general tau gameplay very quickly.

Honestly, beginners shouldn't win too much. Excessive wins slow down a player's development.

My first army was Tau. I played them for six months and then went CSM and never looked back. I even sold my tau. I look back on them now and figure if I spent the money on Tau that I spent on CSM I might win occasionally. Age of the codex is a consideration, though I'll take the badly written and slightly old Chaos codex over the older tau codex any day. I went with a friend of mine to GW and he asked them to set him up with a tau force. They asked him how much he was swilling to spend. For about 700 dollars he walked out of there with about 1500 pts of Tau flexibility, and they still crapped in his wallet "hooking him up" with vespids.
If someone goes in there and says hook me up with a Space Marine force they'll end up buying a battleforce, an hq, some termies, and possibly a landraider for about $230-ish. It wont be 1500 pts, but the moral of the story is that it would still be playable.

Playable for lots of wins and good for a new player are two different things.

If our goal for "good for a new player" is "win all the time", then yes, it's obviously space marines.

But that shouldn't be the goal. Playing space marines to beat other scrubs is easy. Playing space marines really well has a crazy learning curve.

Playing tau alright to playing tau really well is a much smoother learning curve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think Eldar and Dark eldar are probably the hardest. I tried playing eldar for 2 years and ended up still not fully understanding what makes that book tick.

eldar or dark eldar as they are hard to play. maybe sob as they have old metal models

I pick the Orks. I've known so many kids get these from AoBR and then decide that they are sneaky, amazingly skilled super spies, and play them as such. If you show them a good way to play Orks, they will then proceed to get annoyed because they've modelled loads of Kommandos and just realized they need troops... Plus they get upset when one guy dies. That's the job of GK.

This is a tough question. I'd say Sisters of Battle (Witch Hunters) because of how little support there is for them from Games Workshop. It'll be tough for a beginner to track down a copy of the White Dwarf that has the Sisters update in it. Dark Eldar is a tough army to play at the start, but at least you can actually play with them. For Sisters, it'll take some work to even be able to start playing.

Tau.. for most all of the reasons already given or Sisters of Battle.

The rules are phase and turn dependant-- which can trip new players badly not to mention yes the abominable model costs, WD requirement, and current under-poweredness.

Space Marines (Codex)... Why cause all your buddies will take the piss out of you for playing with cheese, THATS WHY!

Im sorry, surely you meant Grey Knights?

Probebly dark eldar

I think tau not because their hard to play(I have never tried)but its hard to learn the game when you only use one phase of the game
I found it louds easier to learn in a game with someone than on my own,and with someone else you could loose the game if you try something that army doesn't do very well

Dark Eldar. They're just so tactics heavy that you really cant make beginner's mistakes.

Armies like Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Harlequins.
They are largely unforgivable. If you make a mistake, the whole game can be gone.
I suggest playing a Marine army at first. Rather boring, but you'll learn how to play.