50331
Post by: usmcmidn
What do you guys feel are the worst possible troops choice in the game?
Game wise.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Ripper Swarms
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Fire Warriors
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Ripper swarms
-can't score (eliminating the purpose of troops)
-mediocre close combat
-Susceptible to blasts and S6+
-Die outside of synapse range
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Firewarriors
44119
Post by: kinratha
I would have to say ripper warms and FW. I find it funny that a Squad of IG conscripts beat a FW squad in CC ....
52540
Post by: Bluetau
Troops: Ripper swarms by far.
Off topic: Elite slot: Pyrovores.... hands down.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Ripper swarms are objectively the worst troop unit out there. The number 2 slot is subject to debate.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
Tau already won both the "Worst HQ" and "Worst SC" contest, so I guess the Ripper Swarms can take the troop award.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
rippers, and guardians.
53708
Post by: TedNugent
Gretchin?
Can there be any other?
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
TedNugent wrote:Gretchin?
Can there be any other?
Gretchin are amazing for their points, dude.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Gretchin are awesome for holding that home field objective without socking a mob of 30 boys to it.
Worst ever.....Fire Warriors....because of their point cost. Ripper Swarms are worse, but Fire Warriors are less effective because of point cost.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
Only compared to their alternatives. Compared to their opponents, they really aren't that bad.
My top picks would be Fire Warriors, Conscripts, Penal Legion, and Eldar Guardians.
Rippers and Gretchin have some synergistic uses that can make them somewhat useful enough for their cost in some ways at least.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Vaktathi wrote:Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
Only compared to their alternatives. Compared to their opponents, they really aren't that bad.
My top picks would be Fire Warriors, Conscripts, Penal Legion, and Eldar Guardians.
Rippers and Gretchin have some synergistic uses that can make them somewhat useful enough for their cost in some ways at least.
Yeah BA tacs are good. They have all the stuff of normal tacs and more......how is that bad?
27683
Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx
TedNugent wrote:Gretchin?
Can there be any other?
They do suck, but then you look at their points costs and go:
I would agree about Tau holding the triple threat of worst HQ, SC and Troop.
Not that FW are horrendous, but the points cost for them are a bit high...
Off-topic: a good contender for worst Elites: Triarch Praetorians. Overcosted and not very well equipped for their job with that 1 base attack. If they got another attack and a 10-15 point deduction, they'd be worth considering.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Lol, firewarriors? Give me a break. Yeah, a S5 AP5 small arm that can shoot at 30" away on a unit that doesn't need cover saves against small arms is "bad".
I agree that rippers, gretchin, and conscripts all look pretty bad up front, but are designed not to be looked at in a vacuum, and aren't actually AS bad as they initially appear once you look at them in the context of an army as a whole.
The worst one that I can think of on the top of my head is penal legionnaires. They have scouts, but can't take any upgrades whatsoever, so they outflank without the ability to do anything but shoot some lasguns. They have stubborn, but only on Ld7 with no source of reroll, and they're still a 10-man squad of T3 Sv5+ models - not exactly a challenge to wipe out. Add to this, their only real special ability is determined randomly before the game, so you can't even plan out a role for them while building your list, especially since one of the abilities makes you better in shooting and another makes you better in close combat.
For a unit that is just as fragile as a regular guard squad, except without any of the upgrade abilities that make platoon infantry squads worth taking at all, you have to pay a 60% markup.
70 points of penal legionnaires against 70 other points of properly equipped troops and I can pretty well guarantee that the penal legionnaires are going to lose.
The problem is that, unlike conscripts, the penal legionnaires don't synergize with anything...
27683
Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx
Vaktathi wrote:Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
Only compared to their alternatives. Compared to their opponents, they really aren't that bad.
My top picks would be Fire Warriors, Conscripts, Penal Legion, and Eldar Guardians.
Conscripts are outclassed IMO by normal guardsmen. For 1 point more the guardsmen get better WS and BS and Ld (and a Sergeant)
Penal Legion however are very nice for their points. They're a good screen and they could outflank and tie up a backfield unit depending on the roll. And unlike Possessed you roll before deploying so you know what buffs they get and how to use it.
53708
Post by: TedNugent
Are Fire Warriors really that bad for the points? They put out some pretty substantial firepower.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Ailaros wrote:Lol, firewarriors? Give me a break. Yeah, a S5 AP5 small arm that can shoot at 30" away on a unit that doesn't need cover saves against small arms is "bad".
At 10ppm, BS3, Ld7/8, WS2 I2, they certainly aren't really pulling their weight in 5E. S5 30" guns were spectacular in 3E, when orks were 9pts with and guardsmen squads were almost 80pts for the base squad they get now for 50, and cover was much less prevalent and glancing hits could kill tanks. Now...not so much. There's a reason they are a consistent player here.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Against GEQ in cover at 12":
50 pts of Firewarriors: 2 casualties
50 pts of Guardsmen: 3 casualties
The Guardsmen also have more wounds to absorb incoming ordnance and are much better at close combat.
53708
Post by: TedNugent
Unit1126PLL wrote:Against GEQ in cover at 12":
50 pts of Firewarriors: 2 casualties
50 pts of Guardsmen: 3 casualties
The Guardsmen also have more wounds to absorb incoming ordnance and are much better at close combat.
How about at 30 inches where the Guardsmen can't fire back? They'd have to spend an entire round of movement closing the distance between 30" and 24" and then wouldn't be able to fire their rapid fire weapons for an entire turn.
That means conceivably you could have 2 rounds, literally, 2 full rounds of shooting before 50 points of guardsmen with no heavy weapons were able to return fire.
Not to mention the fact that you gave the Guardsmen cover, which is ludicrous considering that the Fire Warriors have superior range. If anything, it's the Fire Warriors that would be in cover whereas the Guardsmen would have to advance 6 inches consecutively for 2 turns, getting shot at each time, just to be able to shoot. Are you going to be traversing your Guardsmen through two precisely equal 6" increments of cover?
The only case in which Guardsmen would spontaneously show up at 12" next to a Fire Warrior squad would be if you put them in a transport, which costs money, and we're talking about a contrived scenario in a vaccuum, and you make it to 12 inches unscathed before disembarking at exactly 12 inches range, where there happens to be a conveniently placed piece of cover for the Guardsmen to sit in while they rapid fire.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Unit1126PLL wrote:Against GEQ in cover at 12":
50 pts of Firewarriors: 2 casualties
50 pts of Guardsmen: 3 casualties
But that's not a fair comparison. The firewarrior's extra range means that the firewarriors get to shoot at the guard squad with 4 shots a model before the guard player even gets to shoot that single 12" volley. And they have to do it with never breaking cover saves, because they're screwed without them, unlike the tau player.
Plus, I'd like to see a lasgun take down a raider or a wraithlord - something which is plenty possible with firewarriors.
Vaktathi wrote:At 10ppm... S5 30" guns were spectacular in 3E, when orks were 9pts with and guardsmen squads were almost 80pts
Yes, they have lost some of their relative potency, and I won't say that firewarriors are the best troops choice in the game, but they're still not the worst by a long shot. They may have become less efficient against the usual recipients of small arms fire, but they haven't gotten much worse against those things that firewarriors could take down that anyone else's small arm can't. Pulse rifles do everything that other small arms do, but they also come with a bag of other things they can handle that nobody else's small arm can (well, outside of GK's superstormbolters).
Give me a small arm that can reliably take down monstrous creatures, light vehicles AND ignores GEq's armor on a unit that always gets a 4+ against small arms wherever they go, and you've got something pretty useful, especially once you start looking at them in the context of the army (that can support them with markerlights, etc.).
Tau players at the moment like to bait people into pitying them, which I don't fall for. It's not the strongest codex, certainly, but that doesn't mean we all need to join the pity-party...
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
And I would like to see firewarriors ever take out a Land Raider with shooting.
Guard troops do it all the time (YAY SPECIAL AND HEAVY WEAPONS).
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
bmoleski wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
Only compared to their alternatives. Compared to their opponents, they really aren't that bad.
My top picks would be Fire Warriors, Conscripts, Penal Legion, and Eldar Guardians.
Rippers and Gretchin have some synergistic uses that can make them somewhat useful enough for their cost in some ways at least.
Yeah BA tacs are good. They have all the stuff of normal tacs and more......how is that bad?
Because they're totally outclassed by Assault Marines?
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Well yeah they're not as good as the Assaults....but the topic is the worst troops choice ever.....and tac marines from any codex are FAR form the worst.
We're not comparing troops from the same dex. We're comparing troops from other dex's
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
You can't just compare Guardsmen vs Firewarriors and say that Firewarriors are therefore good. Guard get upgrades and numbers. Firewarriors get neither. And giving FW the ONLY situation that they stand a chance in, long range shooting vs T3 blob, is kinda BS.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Let's do to the firewarriors what people are trying to do to the guard.
60pts of Guard at 48" get 8 shots of Str 7 AP 4 before any equivalent points of firewarriors can shoot back.
So hah.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen. Automatically Appended Next Post: Savageconvoy wrote:You can't just compare Guardsmen vs Firewarriors and say that Firewarriors are therefore good. Guard get upgrades and numbers. Firewarriors get neither. And giving FW the ONLY situation that they stand a chance in, long range shooting vs T3 blob, is kinda BS.
+1 that situation will only ever occur if your opponent is playing for the lols and tries to bayonet charge you. I've tried it, actually and it was pretty fun. Turned into a complete rout and my army was wiped out but a thoroughly enjoyable game.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Totalwar1402 wrote:Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen.
They're pretty useful when used in conjunction with Tervigons
53708
Post by: TedNugent
Unit1126PLL wrote:Let's do to the firewarriors what people are trying to do to the guard.
60pts of Guard at 48" get 8 shots of Str 7 AP 4 before any equivalent points of firewarriors can shoot back.
So hah.
This might turn out to be an academic point, but it turns out that it's not possible to get 8 shots of Str 7 AP 4 for 60 pts of IG Troops.
It is possible to get 2 Str 7 AP 4 shots for 60 points of Guard using a Guardsman Squad and I suppose you could say that for 50 points you could get 4 Str 7 AP 4 shots if you spliced out a Heavy Weapons Squad.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
TedNugent wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:Let's do to the firewarriors what people are trying to do to the guard.
60pts of Guard at 48" get 8 shots of Str 7 AP 4 before any equivalent points of firewarriors can shoot back.
So hah.
This might turn out to be an academic point, but it turns out that it's not possible to get 8 shots of Str 7 AP 4 for 60 pts of IG Troops. It is possible to get 2 Str 7 AP 4 shots for 60 points of Guard using a Guardsman Squad and I suppose you could say that for 50 points you could get 4 Str 7 AP 4 shots if you spliced out a Heavy Weapons Squad.
He said that the firewarriors get two shots at 30" range before the guard can respond, which is one turn of movement and then the guard must wait another turn to shoot at max range. I'm saying that the single autocannon gets eight shots at 48" range before the Firewarriors can respond, because it is 3 turns of movement and then the firewarriors must wait another turn to shoot at max range.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Honestly, Firewarriors are bad, but they don't hold a candle to rippers, for two reasons.
1) They don't kill themselves.
2) They are scoring.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Honestly, Firewarriors are bad, but they don't hold a candle to rippers, for two reasons.
1) They don't kill themselves.
2) They are scoring.
True. But you don't have to take rippers. You get no choice with Firewarriors.
And the Guard examples are flawed. If Firewarriors could have some embedded special weapons and Chimera-priced transports with fire points, they'd immediately jump from the bottom they are to be near the top.
24196
Post by: KingDeath
Ailaros wrote:Lol, firewarriors? Give me a break. Yeah, a S5 AP5 small arm that can shoot at 30" away on a unit that doesn't need cover saves against small arms is "bad".
Do the math and you will realise that spessmuhreens shoot just as well with their bolters.
Of course they have a bunch of extrarules, free ( or at least very cheap, depending on the weapon ) special and heavy weapons, much better stats and powerarmour. Oh, and nobody buys spacemarines for their bolters.
The extra range is utterly irrelevant mainly because there is nothing useful to shoot at these ranges ( infantry is still in their transports, the heavy support is too far away ).
So yes, the poor firewarrior squad remains one of the worst troopchoices around. Firewarriors kill nothing of value, survive nothing ( oh yes, t3 and carapace is so impressive these days ) and are, on top of this, burdened by their high cost. Their only use is to make the almost equaly bad Devilfish scoring, just like Dire Avengers, but even worse.
52540
Post by: Bluetau
Totalwar1402 wrote:Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen.
Two squads of 20 devourer equipped gaunts in drop pods? Deep Strike within 18 inches and reign down 60 s4 shots per pod?
Edit added squad size.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Unit1126PLL wrote:And I would like to see firewarriors ever take out a Land Raider with shooting.
Guard troops do it all the time (YAY SPECIAL AND HEAVY WEAPONS).
Right, so we come to a point where there are some things that infantry squads can do that firewarriors can't, and there are some things that firewarriors can do that guardsmen can't.
Savageconvoy wrote:You can't just compare Guardsmen vs Firewarriors and say that Firewarriors are therefore good.
Then you can't just compare Guardsmen vs Firewarriors and say that Firewarriors are therefore bad...
Unit1126PLL wrote:60pts of Guard at 48" get 8 shots of Str 7 AP 4 before any equivalent points of firewarriors can shoot back.
In a straight-up firefight between a guard squad with an autocannon and their points in firewarriors, the firewarriors are still going to win easily.
KingDeath wrote:Do the math and you will realise that spessmuhreens shoot just as well with their bolters.
Space marines actually being not too shabby at shooting. Plus, there are plenty of things out there that bolters will struggle against that the +1S gives a firewarrior a chance to handle.
They don't need to have guns that can dominate every possible unit on the board in order to still be worth taking.
bmoleski wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen.
They're pretty useful when used in conjunction with Tervigons
Yeah, tervigons on their own are rather pants as well, but in the context of tervigons, they're pretty mean.
Especially if you're lucky with them. We have a guy at our FLGS that takes two or three tervigons every game and I swear he hasn't ever managed to have one shut down before turn 4, and he always has one that manages to make it to the end of the game still pooping out the little bastards. I saw a game he played against someone where he took three tervigons and in one turn had his tervigons put out 14 (no doubles) 15 (no doubles) and 18 for a total of 48 new infantry models on the board in a single turn! I also played against him once where my opponent had two tervigons throw down 67 little dudes in 4 turns. It's pretty hard to kill a tervigon in the best of times, but with all those little critters in your way, it's practically impossible.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, tervigons on their own are rather pants as well, but in the context of tervigons, they're pretty mean.
Especially if you're lucky with them. We have a guy at our FLGS that takes two or three tervigons every game and I swear he hasn't ever managed to have one shut down before turn 4, and he always has one that manages to make it to the end of the game still pooping out the little bastards. I saw a game he played against someone where he took three tervigons and in one turn had his tervigons put out 14 (no doubles) 15 (no doubles) and 18 for a total of 48 new infantry models on the board in a single turn! I also played against him once where my opponent had two tervigons throw down 67 little dudes in 4 turns. It's pretty hard to kill a tervigon in the best of times, but with all those little critters in your way, it's practically impossible.
Yeah plus upgrades on your Tervigon means upgrades on your gaunts! For free! And you can take Tervigons as troops to a maximum of 5 in your standard army! That's a lot of gaunts.....not so useless now huh? lol
47480
Post by: Rocky1
Not going to lie I'm surprised guardians haven't been said more.They are 1 pt less than a kabalite and have a worse ws,bs, initiative and a worse weapon.
24196
Post by: KingDeath
Ailaros wrote:
KingDeath wrote:Do the math and you will realise that spessmuhreens shoot just as well with their bolters.
Space marines actually being not too shabby at shooting. Plus, there are plenty of things out there that bolters will struggle against that the +1S gives a firewarrior a chance to handle.
They don't need to have guns that can dominate every possible unit on the board in order to still be worth taking.
First, Spacemarines are adequate at shooting because they can take cheap special/ heavy weapons and not because bolters are particularly good weapons.
Second, against everything up to t4 spacemarine bolters (thanks to BS 4, even at t5 the difference is rather marginal, the gap only starts to truly wide at t6 ) are just as good as firewarriors. If you ever come to the point of having to use S5 weapons against monstrous creatures or light transports then you might wish to reconsider your heavy support/ elite choices.
Third, unless a unit is truly specialised or cheap then it does in fact need guns to deal with every possible unit on the board to be worth taking. Since firewarriors are expensive yet deeply mediocre at taking out infantry and almost utterly unable to deal with vehicles, they are not worth taking.
Of course, unlike firewarriors spacemarines are well able to use their weapons within rapid fireing range without getting utterly annihilated in cc the following turn.
sm bolters vs fw pulse rifles
4/9 chance to wound t3 ( 2/3x2/3)sm
5/12 chance to wound t3( 1/2x5/6) fw
1/3 chance to wound t4 ( 2/3x1/2)sm
1/3 chance to wound t4 ( 1/2x2/3) fw
2/9 chance to wound t5 ( 2/3x1/3) sm
1/4 chance to wound t5 ( 1/2 x1/2) fw
1/9 chance to wound t6 ( 2/3x1/6)sm
1/6 chance to wound t6 ( 1/2x1/3) fw
51606
Post by: TheCrazyCryptek
Rocky1 wrote:Not going to lie I'm surprised guardians haven't been said more.They are 1 pt less than a kabalite and have a worse ws,bs, initiative and a worse weapon.
Agreed, Guardians are pretty weak for their points cost.
Also, as stated somewhere above, Blood Claws are pretty crappy. WS 3 is.....meh.
51259
Post by: KplKeegan
I'd have to agree with Fire Warriors being the worst Troops choice.
They're overcosted, BS 3, Armor +4, and have I2 and WS2 and LD8.
They just can't compete in 5th edition. A full squad of twelve is a twenty-man guard blob WITH heavy bolters. And that's not even with a Shas'ui leading them!
Stop smoking the Obscura Ailaros!
53708
Post by: TedNugent
Edit, never mind, utterly wrong.
29934
Post by: Durza
CSM possessed. 26 points each, can't shoot, can't buy any upgrades, and there's no guarantee they'll even get an ability for their daemonkin roll.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Durza wrote:CSM possessed. 26 points each, can't shoot, can't buy any upgrades, and there's no guarantee they'll even get an ability for their daemonkin roll.
Those are elites not troops
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
Oh yeah. I keep forgetting how bad ass Pulse Rifles and Firewarriors are. Thats why you always see 4x12 squads in every Tau list and nobody plays Marines or Guard anymore. I keep forgetting that this is 2012 and that this happens all the time.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ailaros wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:And I would like to see firewarriors ever take out a Land Raider with shooting.
Guard troops do it all the time (YAY SPECIAL AND HEAVY WEAPONS).
Right, so we come to a point where there are some things that infantry squads can do that firewarriors can't, and there are some things that firewarriors can do that guardsmen can't.
Like what?
Seriously, what can a squad of Fire Warriors do that guardsmen can't?
Don't say "they can kill transports with their basic gun" IG squads do the same for cheaper. Granted it isn't with their lasguns but with the special weapon spam IG can do you really can't pu the Pulse Rifle as a selling point.
Fire Warriors are easily 4 points too expensive and the mandatory choice of them gets annoying.
Even if Fire Warriors dropped to 6 points each and we no longer mandatory I think people would take Kroot each and every time.
33910
Post by: Ajroo
Easily Rippers
50331
Post by: usmcmidn
Raise you guys one...
Worst unit in the game?
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
usmcmidn wrote:Raise you guys one...
Worst unit in the game?
Ethereal. Debate over.
51259
Post by: KplKeegan
usmcmidn wrote:Raise you guys one...
Worst unit in the game?
Ethereal
Vespid
Kroot Hounds
Priests
Tech-Priest Enginseers
Ogryns
Ratlings
In that order.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Wait, Kroot Hounds are bad?
I have always heard and seen them being quite viable additions to a kroot unit.
49496
Post by: Great White
Savageconvoy wrote:usmcmidn wrote:Raise you guys one...
Worst unit in the game?
Ethereal. Debate over.
Raise you one...
Aun'va
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
kinratha wrote:I would have to say ripper warms and FW. I find it funny that a Squad of IG conscripts beat a FW squad in CC ....
I have to ask? Why? In the fluff the tau literally think humans are brutal close combat monsters. Not space marines, Humans. It is kind of sad that the Tau empire values its human allies for their close combat potential. Tau should always remain the worst close combat army in the game to the point where even other shooty armies should think it is advantageous to be in close combat to prevent the tau from firing back. But in order for that to happen tau need much better shooting first.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
IDK. I'm almost sure the worst unit in the game is the Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Squad...
...only because they suffer from an acute case of nonexistence.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
usmcmidn wrote:Worst unit in the game?
Spawn.
Spawn.
Spawn.
A unit that can not shoot in the shooting phase. A unit that has neither an armor save NOR an invul save (that's right, no saves), that are "beast" type, which means you can't put them in a transport, are slow and purposeful, so they always trudge through difficult terrain, even in clear terrain, have a random, unreliable number of regular old close combat attacks...
... and you have absolutely no control over where they move in the movement phase. None whatsoever.
... for 40 points apiece...
Worst. Unit. Ever.
53708
Post by: TedNugent
Aun'va, a model that is both useless and hideous.
There's always Commander Farsight, the supposed anti-Ork melee specialist of the Tau 'dex who can get krumped from a single Power Klaw wound.
42034
Post by: Scipio Africanus
Totalwar1402 wrote:Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen.
Are... are you fething kidding me?
They're mediocre in combat, yes. but they are great for their points. At 5 points a model you can potentially field 180 of them for just 900 points. IF you think about it, 90 of those(600 points) would absolutely wipe in conjunction with 3 tervigons. You would absolutely bone in objectives games
Vaktathi wrote:Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
Only compared to their alternatives. Compared to their opponents, they really aren't that bad.
My top picks would be Fire Warriors, Conscripts, Penal Legion, and Eldar Guardians.
Rippers and Gretchin have some synergistic uses that can make them somewhat useful enough for their cost in some ways at least.
"Only compared to their alternatives" is enough to make them a bad choice. It's like Rippers: Potentially they have a place, but they are outclassed by tervigons and termagants.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:rippers, and guardians.
No arguments, though if guardians were 6 points a model, we'd all be singing a different tune.
TedNugent wrote:Gretchin?
Can there be any other?
You were serious...
Gretchin are amazing. I love them more than I love a block of cheese. (by that, of course I am referring to blood angels Storm Raven's)
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
Ailaros wrote:usmcmidn wrote:Worst unit in the game?
Spawn.
A unit that can not shoot in the shooting phase. A unit that has neither an armor save NOR an invul save (that's right, no saves), that are "beast" type, which means you can't put them in a transport, are slow and purposeful, so they always trudge through difficult terrain, even in clear terrain, have a random, unreliable number of regular old close combat attacks...
... and you have absolutely no control over where they move in the movement phase. None whatsoever.
... for 40 points apiece...
Worst. Unit. Ever.
Unless the spawn causes other units on its side to take a moral test, average of ld7, or run off the board when they die then they are still leagues ahead of the ethereal.
Oh and at T3 with no save of any kind.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
Totalwar1402 wrote:Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Savageconvoy wrote:You can't just compare Guardsmen vs Firewarriors and say that Firewarriors are therefore good. Guard get upgrades and numbers. Firewarriors get neither. And giving FW the ONLY situation that they stand a chance in, long range shooting vs T3 blob, is kinda BS.
+1 that situation will only ever occur if your opponent is playing for the lols and tries to bayonet charge you. I've tried it, actually and it was pretty fun. Turned into a complete rout and my army was wiped out but a thoroughly enjoyable game.
I agree. +1 to Termagaunts.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
Worst unit? Tankbusters?
23534
Post by: Macok
Rocky1 wrote:Not going to lie I'm surprised guardians haven't been said more.They are 1 pt less than a kabalite and have a worse ws,bs, initiative and a worse weapon.
Me too. Guardians will die to FireWarriors in shooting and CC I think. Besides, any 30" gun is much better than 12" gun on a S3 T3 A1 5+save model. One surviving GH has a decent chance of killing 10 guardians in CC next turn. And he WILL be in assault range.
24196
Post by: KingDeath
Macok wrote:Rocky1 wrote:Not going to lie I'm surprised guardians haven't been said more.They are 1 pt less than a kabalite and have a worse ws,bs, initiative and a worse weapon.
Me too. Guardians will die to FireWarriors in shooting and CC I think. Besides, any 30" gun is much better than 12" gun on a S3 T3 A1 5+save model. One surviving GH has a decent chance of killing 10 guardians in CC next turn. And he WILL be in assault range.
At least Guardians can buy a relentless heavy weapon. Of course they still suck badly.
55093
Post by: Winterkit
I'll throw a token on the pile for Fire Warriors.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
Worst Troops unit in the game? I'd go with Bloodletters myself.
An assault unit with 0 shooting, a 5++ save, no transport option of any kind and is forced to always deep strike into play! At least Daemonettes have 'fleet', Bloodletters are crap or else super expensive because you're forced to use units of 12-14+ if you want them to actually achive anything worthwhile. Oh, and a unit of 12 runs you just shy of 200pts.
Worst unit in the game? I'd say it belongs to Chaos Furies.
Sure spawn are pretty bad, but you can get them for 'free' if you really want them! 
32482
Post by: Lord Solar Awesome
I'm going to have to go with fire warriors but I think conscripts deserve an honorable mention.
For 1 point less you get: ws2 bs2 ld5 with no option for special or heavy weapons... a joke of a unit.
The only thing that stops them from being worse than fire warriors is that you have several other options to choose from in the IG codex.
17692
Post by: Farmer
It's sad how everyone hates on tau.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Firewarriors have earned their place in the 'worst units of the 5th edition" list. They simply are outclassed by all other Troop choices, even in shooting. Lord Solar Awesome wrote:I'm going to have to go with fire warriors but I think conscripts deserve an honorable mention.
For 1 point less you get: ws2 bs2 ld5 with no option for special or heavy weapons... a joke of a unit.
The only thing that stops them from being worse than fire warriors is that you have several other options to choose from in the IG codex.
Make an excellent meat shield when accompanied by Space Stalin, they can be a real pain in close combat and are still quite cheap. Experiment 626 wrote: Worst Troops unit in the game? I'd go with Bloodletters myself.
An assault unit with 0 shooting, a 5++ save, no transport option of any kind and is forced to always deep strike into play! At least Daemonettes have 'fleet', Bloodletters are crap or else super expensive because you're forced to use units of 12-14+ if you want them to actually achive anything worthwhile. Oh, and a unit of 12 runs you just shy of 200pts.
In all respects, when used correctly they can be amazing, though I agree Letters really need a boost to be more effective (4+ Save for starts.)
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Ailaros wrote:
But that's not a fair comparison. The firewarrior's extra range means that the firewarriors get to shoot at the guard squad with 4 shots a model before the guard player even gets to shoot that single 12" volley.
This is assuming LoS, no movement, etc. I can count on one hand the number of times the 30" over 24" I've seen come into play in games with and against Tau in the last two years. Firewarriors just are not effective shooting platforms for their cost. Given the mechanized metagame, prevalence of outflanking/deepstriking units, and much greater access to high speed units across the board, that 30" range doesn't mean much.
Plus, I'd like to see a lasgun take down a raider or a wraithlord - something which is plenty possible with firewarriors.
Possible, not probable or easy, it's desperation shooting when you've got nothing better to shoot at. Yeah, nice, but that still doesn't mean that they're anything approaching good for their cost.
The guardsmen also have the option of taking things like Lascannons for those jobs, giving them range and firepower superiority.
Yes, they have lost some of their relative potency, and I won't say that firewarriors are the best troops choice in the game, but they're still not the worst by a long shot. They may have become less efficient against the usual recipients of small arms fire, but they haven't gotten much worse against those things that firewarriors could take down that anyone else's small arm can't.
Which isn't saying much given that just about everything in the game can do that well..
Pulse rifles do everything that other small arms do, but they also come with a bag of other things they can handle that nobody else's small arm can (well, outside of GK's superstormbolters).
Which most other units make up for by having access to organic special and heavy weaponry. A guardsmen squad can be equipped to present a lethal threat to a Land Raider at any range or pack enough AP2 firepower to potentially kill a Wraithlord in 1 round of shooting with no saves. Fire Warriors cannot.
Give me a small arm that can reliably take down monstrous creatures, light vehicles AND ignores GEq's armor on a unit that always gets a 4+ against small arms wherever they go, and you've got something pretty useful, especially once you start looking at them in the context of the army (that can support them with markerlights, etc.).
As a player with 3 4+ sv armies ( IG Stormtrooper/Carapace Vets army, Tau, and Eldar), the combination of these three things isn't what it seems to be in conjunction with their cost and lack of CC/ Ld ability. They also aren't particularly good at most of those things whereas other units like guardsmen and the like can be much more capable of engaging enemy units with organic heavy weapons.
Tau players at the moment like to bait people into pitying them, which I don't fall for. It's not the strongest codex, certainly, but that doesn't mean we all need to join the pity-party...
Methinks you're projecting an entirely different lense onto this than what people were going for here.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
For everyone that thinks the worst unit is anything other than an Ethereal; I want you to ask yourself something. Is your unit capable of fighting, shooting, making an armor or invul save, and not kill your own units when it dies. If you answer yes to ANY OF THESE then it does not claim the title.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Vaktathi wrote:I can count on one hand the number of times the 30" over 24" I've seen come into play in games with and against Tau in the last two years. Firewarriors just are not effective shooting platforms for their cost. Given the mechanized metagame, prevalence of outflanking/deepstriking units, and much greater access to high speed units across the board, that 30" range doesn't mean much.
People not taking advantage of a unit does not mean the unit itself is bad. Certainly the inability to do anything to AV12+ prevents them from being one of the best troops choices in the game, but the lack of does not automatically make it the worst, especially in an army that can field a LOT of deepstriking melta and railguns. Why do firewarriors need to be able to take a lascannon analogue when they're in an army that otherwise has little problem handling heavy vehicles.
Vaktathi wrote:Yes, they have lost some of their relative potency, and I won't say that firewarriors are the best troops choice in the game, but they're still not the worst by a long shot. They may have become less efficient against the usual recipients of small arms fire, but they haven't gotten much worse against those things that firewarriors could take down that anyone else's small arm can't.
Which isn't saying much given that just about everything in the game can do that well.
Then you're saying that firewarriors can do things that other things do well. That's a great reason for why they're not the worst.
Vaktathi wrote:Pulse rifles do everything that other small arms do, but they also come with a bag of other things they can handle that nobody else's small arm can (well, outside of GK's superstormbolters).
Which most other units make up for by having access to organic special and heavy weaponry.
If access to organic heavy weaponry is important, then certainly there are much worse troops choices out there that also lack organic heavy weapons that also have much, much worse statlines. Of course, a lack of heavy weapons upgrades hurts (once again, disqualifying them from best troops choice), but last I checked, tau armies didn't have problems with long-range shooting despite the lack of firewarriors bringing heavy weapons. Likewise, tau armies can still pack a serious amount of special weapons making the lack of them in firewarriors, in context, not so bad.
Vaktathi wrote:
Tau players at the moment like to bait people into pitying them, which I don't fall for. It's not the strongest codex, certainly, but that doesn't mean we all need to join the pity-party...
Methinks you're projecting an entirely different lense onto this than what people were going for here.
Farmer wrote:It's sad how everyone hates on tau.
Trust me, I've seen this before. Once people's armies stop being "good enough", lots of people go into a total cognitive break - there suddenly become absolutely no redeemable qualities whatsoever. Even basic facts are completely ignored in order to placate the person's drive for self pity. Eventually it devolves into a maelstorm of whining. In some people's mind, everything is either cheesy overpowered or totally broken not even possibly worth considering. The attitude becomes self-reinforcing, and when you go onto an internet forum, you start other-reinforcing as well.
You've seen it recently with things like the warptime "nerf" in which suddenly CSM wasn't even an army worth playing anymore. You've seen it in eldar players in their current codex, and when CSM switched over. I mean, it's already clear here that tau players have collectively succumbed to this level. Self-loathing has become as a religion, and like with most people who totally get wrapped up in an idea... the results are ugly...
54814
Post by: Seanaust
Conscripts plus SITNW kick butt. I'm going with small ork/ gaunt squads, so easy to kill.
26519
Post by: xttz
Totalwar1402 wrote:Termagaunts. Over-priced, near useless in CC, mediocre at range and vulnerable to any shooting; thats before you consider paying through the nose for synapse support. I've had hoardes of them bounce of guardsmen.
This is me quoting someone who does not know how to play Tyranids. Hi!
If you take Termagants in a vacuum, then sure; they're weak, do little damage and are unlikely to win you the game alone. However the same can be said for alot of Tyranid units, as none are meant to used alone. Nids work best when you combine their abilities with nearby units in - excuse me while I use a dirty business word - synergy.
Screening - While Termagants aren't known for any natural talent in cinema, they are pretty good at forming a DON'T MELEE THIS shield around key units. Don't want your precious Zoanthropes tied up and distracted from exploding nearby tanks? A dozen cheap termagants will see them through safely!
Tarpit - You know what I do when I see a Dreadnought or other big scary walker heading toward my big fleshy MC's? Well, what I do after I stop laughing anyway. I spawn 3D6 termies and send them skittering off to meet their new bestest friend. And they'll be great friends too, because chances are they're spending the rest of the game together. Sure the big mean dread might stomp a couple of the little guys each turn as he plays with them, but that's a small price to pay for keeping him happy and not running off trying to hug your larger bugs with his big power fists.
Objectives - So yeah, T3 troops with virtually no save aren't the best option for holding an objective, right? Well maybe not. You see these T3 troops with virtually no save have a plethora of other abilities sitting in the Tyranid codex just waiting to be piled on. Free poision and counter-attack from a nearby Terivgon. Preferred Enemy from mister Swarmlord. Defensive grenades, cover save and dangerous terrain protection from a Venomthrope. And let's not forget the best one of the lot - FNP from a Ld10 psyker. Now don't they seem like some nice ingredients for that objective you just have to hold?
Dakka - What's better than a Termagant that fire once a turn and takes forever to get in range of the enemy? Why it's 20 Termagants that fire 3 shots each as they arrive right in face**** range on an enemy objective in their spore pod! Devilguants are the perfect tool for that situation where you just bought too many dice and are now sad at not getting to use them. Also they're pretty useful for clearing bunkers out too. Just remember not to drop your 60 dice directly on the enemy models - it may save time but some opponents consider it rude.
But yeah, Rippers ****ing suck.
35704
Post by: DPBellathrom
worst infantry? mandrakes -_- I have tried so hard to make those pretty models work and they just dont
48929
Post by: Unreg1stered
Am I the only one that thinks most players severely underplay small arms fire? They seem to think that all that matters in a squad is the special/heavy weapon. I don't know what game they're playing, but my guard kill nearly as many troops with their lasguns as the flamer or autocannon does. It's absurd that they complete discount basic small arms fire when considering units, like in the case of fire warriors.
An enemy tervigon spawned three units of termagaunts. They took up a lot of fire, got in range of a 20 man blob in cover, and almost wiped them out once in 12" range.
24196
Post by: KingDeath
Ailaros wrote:Vaktathi wrote:I can count on one hand the number of times the 30" over 24" I've seen come into play in games with and against Tau in the last two years. Firewarriors just are not effective shooting platforms for their cost. Given the mechanized metagame, prevalence of outflanking/deepstriking units, and much greater access to high speed units across the board, that 30" range doesn't mean much.
People not taking advantage of a unit does not mean the unit itself is bad. Certainly the inability to do anything to AV12+ prevents them from being one of the best troops choices in the game, but the lack of does not automatically make it the worst, especially in an army that can field a LOT of deepstriking melta and railguns. Why do firewarriors need to be able to take a lascannon analogue when they're in an army that otherwise has little problem handling heavy vehicles.
Nonsense. Tau get almost all of their anti vehicle shooting from their crisis suits ( twinlinked missile pod or missile pod + plasma ) or their heavy support choices. The actual amount of reliable anti vehicle firepower is, especialy if we consider the Tau army's dire need to destroy enemy transports before they get close, rather on the low side ( perhaps 10 crisis suits and 9 broadsides, not bad but also not that impressive ). Wasting suits by deepstriking them into your enemy's lines is the height of idiocy. Usualy the only melta that a tau army gets is from Piranhas. You might assume that we think, that firewarriors have to be able to deal with heavy vehicles. We don't. Their weakness is that, unlike other, actualy adequate troopchoices they also fail at disabling light and medium vehicles, which make up the majority of tanks in the current gameplay. S5 is basicaly useless in that regard. If your crisis suits/ broadsides failed to stop a vehicle then your Firewarriors are very unlikely to help in that regard.
Ailaros wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:Yes, they have lost some of their relative potency, and I won't say that firewarriors are the best troops choice in the game, but they're still not the worst by a long shot. They may have become less efficient against the usual recipients of small arms fire, but they haven't gotten much worse against those things that firewarriors could take down that anyone else's small arm can't.
Which isn't saying much given that just about everything in the game can do that well.
Then you're saying that firewarriors can do things that other things do well. That's a great reason for why they're not the worst.
Everyone and his dog is ok at shooting infantry outside of cover. Hells even bogstandard IG squads can easily compete in that regard ( orders, flamethrowers, whatever ). Firewarriors suck because, unlike adequate troopchoices, that is all they can do.
Ailaros wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:Pulse rifles do everything that other small arms do, but they also come with a bag of other things they can handle that nobody else's small arm can (well, outside of GK's superstormbolters).
Which most other units make up for by having access to organic special and heavy weaponry.
If access to organic heavy weaponry is important, then certainly there are much worse troops choices out there that also lack organic heavy weapons that also have much, much worse statlines. Of course, a lack of heavy weapons upgrades hurts (once again, disqualifying them from best troops choice), but last I checked, tau armies didn't have problems with long-range shooting despite the lack of firewarriors bringing heavy weapons. Likewise, tau armies can still pack a serious amount of special weapons making the lack of them in firewarriors, in context, not so bad.
Which ones are worse? Guardians? They are cheaper can take at least one heavy weapon ( and still suck badly doing so ). Bloodclaws? Terribly bad but even they can carry extra weapons. Dire Avengers? They suck for the same reason that Firewarriors suck, well done. Gaunts and Gants? They are cheap enough not to be problematic. Perhaps some of the abysmal daemon troopchoices can compete but even they tend to be, unlike Firewarriors, good in at least one role. So yes,Firewarriors currently occupy the throne of suck for being at best deeply mediocre and at worst utterly useless. Besides that, you continue to excuse the suckiness of Firewarriors with the lame statement that their weaknesses can be made up by other elements of the Tau army. Sadly this doesn't make Firewarriors any better, it just highlights that the
rest of the army has to be picked in a way that minimises the damage done by the requirement to take at least one squad of Firewarriors.
Ailaros wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Tau players at the moment like to bait people into pitying them, which I don't fall for. It's not the strongest codex, certainly, but that doesn't mean we all need to join the pity-party...
Methinks you're projecting an entirely different lense onto this than what people were going for here.
Farmer wrote:It's sad how everyone hates on tau.
Trust me, I've seen this before. Once people's armies stop being "good enough", lots of people go into a total cognitive break - there suddenly become absolutely no redeemable qualities whatsoever. Even basic facts are completely ignored in order to placate the person's drive for self pity. Eventually it devolves into a maelstorm of whining. In some people's mind, everything is either cheesy overpowered or totally broken not even possibly worth considering. The attitude becomes self-reinforcing, and when you go onto an internet forum, you start other-reinforcing as well.
You've seen it recently with things like the warptime "nerf" in which suddenly CSM wasn't even an army worth playing anymore. You've seen it in eldar players in their current codex, and when CSM switched over. I mean, it's already clear here that tau players have collectively succumbed to this level. Self-loathing has become as a religion, and like with most people who totally get wrapped up in an idea... the results are ugly...
CSM haven't been a useful ( that is, competative ) army since long before the warptime nerf. Tau hang on by virtue of their railguns ( and their overcosted suits ). Their Firewarriors do nothing for the army, except perhaps by providing a 60points scoring upgrade for the Devilfish. Your armchair psychology is amusing to read but has little bearing to the actual merrits of the humble ( and unfortunately rather useless ) Firewarrior. Automatically Appended Next Post: Unreg1stered wrote:Am I the only one that thinks most players severely underplay small arms fire? They seem to think that all that matters in a squad is the special/heavy weapon. I don't know what game they're playing, but my guard kill nearly as many troops with their lasguns as the flamer or autocannon does. It's absurd that they complete discount basic small arms fire when considering units, like in the case of fire warriors.
An enemy tervigon spawned three units of termagaunts. They took up a lot of fire, got in range of a 20 man blob in cover, and almost wiped them out once in 12" range.
Do the math yourself if you wish but a squad of Firewarriors is just as good ( or rather, mediocre ) against infantry outside of cover as a squad of pure boltermarines. Of course the boltermarines get much better stats, extremely effective special rules, free grenades/ bolt pistols as well as free or at least quite cheap special/ heavy weapons.
Firewarriors get..well, 6 inch more range.
51259
Post by: KplKeegan
KingDeath wrote:[ Unreg1stered wrote:Am I the only one that thinks most players severely underplay small arms fire? They seem to think that all that matters in a squad is the special/heavy weapon. I don't know what game they're playing, but my guard kill nearly as many troops with their lasguns as the flamer or autocannon does. It's absurd that they complete discount basic small arms fire when considering units, like in the case of fire warriors.
An enemy tervigon spawned three units of termagaunts. They took up a lot of fire, got in range of a 20 man blob in cover, and almost wiped them out once in 12" range.
Do the math yourself if you wish but a squad of Firewarriors is just as good ( or rather, mediocre ) against infantry outside of cover as a squad of pure boltermarines. Of course the boltermarines get much better stats, extremely effective special rules, free grenades/ bolt pistols as well as free or at least quite cheap special/ heavy weapons.
Firewarriors get..well, 6 inch more range.
^This pretty much. A whole Squad of FIre Warriors with a Shas'ui and Bonding Knife (So they're Ld 8 and can regroup below 25%) is 135 Points, just for twelve fire warriors and it's sergeant. Compared to the 170 Point Space Marine squad, with Sergeant, Leadership 9, with ATKNF, Combat Tactics, Chapter Tactics, a free special and heavy weapon, AND access to a decent armory.
Fire Warriors are starting to show their 4th edition economy.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
KingDeath wrote:Do the math yourself if you wish but a squad of Firewarriors is just as good ( or rather, mediocre ) against infantry outside of cover as a squad of pure boltermarines.
Firewarriors get..well, 6 inch more range.
Firstly, they're just as good in that one role, but tell me how well boltguns are doing against DE skimmer spam and other things that pulse weapons can handle that bolters can't.
Secondly, a 10-man squad puts out as much damage to the same target types that boltguns can hurt. That's not terrible. Yes, the marines also get a bunch of neat other add-ons, but the marines also cost 50% more than the firewarriors do too.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
I don't understand how Fire Warriors are coming out worse than Guardians, is it the point difference? 
24196
Post by: KingDeath
Ailaros wrote:KingDeath wrote:Do the math yourself if you wish but a squad of Firewarriors is just as good ( or rather, mediocre ) against infantry outside of cover as a squad of pure boltermarines.
Firewarriors get..well, 6 inch more range.
Firstly, they're just as good in that one role, but tell me how well boltguns are doing against DE skimmer spam and other things that pulse weapons can handle that bolters can't.
Secondly, a 10-man squad puts out as much damage to the same target types that boltguns can hurt. That's not terrible. Yes, the marines also get a bunch of neat other add-ons, but the marines also cost 50% more than the firewarriors do too.
I think you still did not grasp the problem. Spacemarine Bolters don't have to down vehicles because the squad gets free/cheap special/ heavy weapons for the job.
The number of targets that a pulserifle can realisticaly hurt better than a marine bolter is limited to av10 vehicles ( w00t, Dark Eldar, which are better dealt with by crisis/ broadside suits ) and t6 creatures ( if you come to the point at which you have to take a 1/6 chance + save to actualy hurt a monstrous creature then you are in some real trouble ). Against t3 and t4, the intended targets for anti infantry weapons, they are just as meh as marine bolters. Unlike marines they suck against everything else ( and no, 2 damage results for an entire firewarrior squad against a Dark Eldar vehicle isn't good ).
The increased cost of spacemarines is more than payed for by their much better stats and free equipment and extra rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't understand how Fire Warriors are coming out worse than Guardians, is it the point difference?
Both are limited by their inability to influence the battle in a meaningful way.
I would still rank Guardians a tiny bit higher than Firewarriors because they can take a relentless heavy weapon and their lower cost.
Still, the difference is small.
50331
Post by: usmcmidn
How about the best?
21204
Post by: Nelson
DPBellathrom wrote:worst infantry? mandrakes -_- I have tried so hard to make those pretty models work and they just dont
Dude sometimes they accidentally work! Outflanked 10 of em against my necron friend, finished off a single scarab base and a spider, and managed to pin a 10 man squad of lychguard the following turn before getting ripped apart. It was pretty glorious.
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
Anyone mention Necron Scarab swarms? They're just like rippers...
50331
Post by: usmcmidn
DemetriDominov wrote:Anyone mention Necron Scarab swarms? They're just like rippers...
Eh IDK... Ive seen them get into base with a LR and took it down with ease... Yeh they die easily but if you use them right they are a pretty good little unit.
38341
Post by: akkados
Well do your codex allow more then 1 type to be a scoring unit?
Crusader squads as its the only option for BT's 
42370
Post by: Rampage
To be honest I don't think that Blood Claws are awesomely bad. I just think that they are overshadowed by Grey Hunters, which are brilliant, so when you compare the two, of course they are going to look bad.
The difference between Rippers and Scarabs is that Scarabs eat tanks.
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
akkados wrote:Well do your codex allow more then 1 type to be a scoring unit?
Crusader squads as its the only option for BT's
DA Tactical Squad. Nuff said.
38341
Post by: akkados
BlapBlapBlap wrote:akkados wrote:Well do your codex allow more then 1 type to be a scoring unit?
Crusader squads as its the only option for BT's
DA Tactical Squad. Nuff said.
Don't you have something that can make termies a scoring unit?
at least I think 1 SM faction could.
Please right if I'm wrong, I might be way off since I don't have DA codex 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah here it is yes you can in fact change all your deathwing terminators to be used at troop choice.... O.o I wish I had that
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
And fearless scouting bikers...
But, by default, we only have Tacs as scoring units.
55382
Post by: margomoh
Eldar guardians.
42370
Post by: Rampage
margomoh wrote:Eldar guardians.
I'd disagree with that. There's actually a pretty effective Footdar build which uses a lot of Guardians. Out of it, yeah they can be pretty bad, but I wouldn't say that they are the worst.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Rampage wrote:To be honest I don't think that Blood Claws are awesomely bad. I just think that they are overshadowed by Grey Hunters, which are brilliant, so when you compare the two, of course they are going to look bad.
The difference between Rippers and Scarabs is that Scarabs eat tanks.
And that scarabs don't eat themselves if they get too far away from a certain unit type.
That and Scarabs are FA instead of Troop - which actually benefits Rippers... Except they still can't score.
38341
Post by: akkados
BlapBlapBlap wrote:And fearless scouting bikers...
But, by default, we only have Tacs as scoring units.
At least you got options hehe, hard to kill termies and fast scoring bike, imagine BT only ever have crusader squad our version of the tac's as scoring.
But forgeworld has made the Storm eagle! now they can atleast move around faster.
On another note, If eldar is in the box. I know one of my friends will likely clap his 2 fingers together.
Why is it never 2 Xeno's in a box, dont they ever fight other then space marines.
42370
Post by: Rampage
rigeld2 wrote:And that scarabs don't eat themselves if they get too far away from a certain unit type.
Didn't know that, that's kind of a strange rule. I have the Tyranid Codex, maybe I should read it some time. 
51756
Post by: Nalathani
Rippers. I don't know the other codexes like I do the Tyranid and Necrons, but rippers are awful. They are the only unit in the Nid codex I've never even considered using.
IF they were scoring, and IF they didn't lose wounds if out of synapse, I'd use them like I do termagants, for holding objectives, screening, and/or tarpitting. I mean, for the rest of you non-Tyranid players, would you use a troop choice that didn't score and had to remain within 12 inches of another specialized unit or it commits suicide?
44749
Post by: Skriker
Andilus Greatsword wrote:Ripper Swarms
Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws
Ummm...what exactly causes blood angels tac marines to be outclassed, other than the fact that they are "only" basic tactical space marines? I mean basic tactical marines still have better stats, armor and weapon options that many other armies' elite troops. Blood claws are the same. What exactly is wrong with them? A blood angels army filled with tactical marines would be no worse off than a basic space marine army, which is to say they'd be pretty well off for sure.
Ripper swarms have tons of issues against them as troops. Fire warriors have neat guns, but that doesn't make up for their high price. I would really rather have an army of IG conscripts than Fire warriors. When I built my tyranid army I had a squad of rippers, but only because I the minis came with everything else I bought. I never actually used them, though.
Skriker
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Rampage wrote:rigeld2 wrote:And that scarabs don't eat themselves if they get too far away from a certain unit type.
Didn't know that, that's kind of a strange rule. I have the Tyranid Codex, maybe I should read it some time.
If they fail the IB test (with a LD of 5...) they take a wound for every point they fail by.
Yeah.
47170
Post by: Dunklezahn
My opinions on this:
Guardians are bad, but I field mine in big emboldened blocks with Doom and Guide on standby which alone means they can stop many infantry squads dead in their tracks, so not the worst, they have uses.
Fire Warriors are meh, pricey and terrible in CC but have a solid gun and access to markerlight hits to boost accuracy and reduce enemy cover saves in a pinch which means they can suddenly put out a hell of a volley against infantry.
Rippers are terrible, they eat themselves, *need* synapse to even vaguely function cost as much as a fire warrior and have no weapons and can't score. These guys get my vote for the worst troops crown, they are barely worth it when you get them for free from the Parasite, let alone pay points for them.
Someone earlier in the thread asked why AI firepower is underrated? Because lots of people seem to assume every game of 40k takes place against armies completely comprised of marines in Razorbacks, which it of course, does not...
42370
Post by: Rampage
Dunklezahn wrote:Guardians are bad, but I field mine in big emboldened blocks with Doom and Guide on standby which alone means they can stop many infantry squads dead in their tracks, so not the worst, they have uses.
Yep. What I like to do is take a couple of pretty large squads of guardians, then put Warlocks with conceal with them. Then take the Avatar and Eldrad as the HQs. Keep the Avatar nearby to make them fearless and keep using Eldrad to Fortune them, giving them something which is slightly better than a 4+ cover save. You can then stick Eldrad in a squad of Harlequins with a Shadowseer to give you a nice counter assault element for if the Guardians get charged and also to stop Eldrad from being shot at.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
I don't rank Guardians as the worst troop choice out there, I'm inclined to agree on the Rippers for that one. As far as Firewarriors are concerned, though, I'd take them any time over the gak that Guardians are.
A Guardian's only saving grace is the EML or more preferably Scatter Laser they can take. There is no point discussing their armament outside of the heavy weapon.
There are footdar builds that has Guardians as bubblewrap, yes, but this is more a case of the other Eldar troop choices being worse. Let's be honest, though, Conscripts (which have been mentioned in this thread) would be a much better unit for this.
47853
Post by: Isengard
Rippers work well in hanging back and acting as an emergency reserve to tarpit things like termies trying to assault zoanthropes. They are not by any means a good unit though!
I use a lot of guardians but only ever in defence. They sit on objectives and defend them. Once my mate drove up his LR with a squad of chaos termies in it. They dropped the assault ramp and went at it. They killed a few guardians but not enough to do too much. Next turn the guardians killed all 5 termies and to add insult to injury he had left his LR in assault range of my wraithlord who promptly stove it in. All good fun and it saved a whole flank in the battle which was in danger of complete collapse!
42179
Post by: ObliviousBlueCaboose
Since you have to take a platoon to unlock conscripts, you may as well just pay the 1 estra ppm to access the vastly superior guardsman, however conscripts are in no way the worst troops. I vote rippers. Troops that cant score? Why?
50331
Post by: usmcmidn
How about now since 6th has come out...? ? ?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Probably Kroot.
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
Rippers, by far Rippers.
64541
Post by: OhNoItsNot
Definately rippers. Although really a new thread should have been made in regards to 6th rather than massively necro'ing this one
|
|
