What do YOU think?

Someone not enjoying their codex?

Tyranids.

Every chance GW has to nerf them hard, they take.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

Blood Angels.

 Happyjew wrote:
Tyranids.

Every chance GW has to nerf them hard, they take.

Well...80% of the nid codex, yes, but you can make a lot out of that 20%.

But I agree with your statement.

 Iechine wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Tyranids.

Every chance GW has to nerf them hard, they take.

Well...80% of the nid codex, yes, but you can make a lot out of that 20%.

But I agree with your statement.

To be fair, there isn't much I hate about the current codex.

The 2 big things - Psychic Disciplines, no Pod for massed DS.

 Iechine wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Tyranids.

Every chance GW has to nerf them hard, they take.

Well...80% of the nid codex, yes, but you can make a lot out of that 20%.

But I agree with your statement.

Tyranids used to be the most versatile race there was. Like Genestealers but find em too squishy? Take Extended Carapace for an Armor Save buff. Like Tyrants but think they're too weak when in CC, take toxin sacs for a S buff. Like Carnifex but want them to shoot better? Take Enhanced Senses for a BS buff. All that is gone and now a Tyranid army is nothing but Flyrants, Dakkafex and Tervigons with big broods. There is no variety anymore because we only have 20% of the codex left to use at any level of competitive or even 'want to win occassionally' builds. So Tyranids. Tyranids get the vote as worst army now. The competitive list might be great, but there's no variety anymore and that's what Nids used to be.

Based on the BAO numbers I would say the bottom three armoires currently in this order are, Orks. Astra Militarium, and blood angels

All I want is for Lictors to work properly.

Orks are never the worst army even when they are the worst army o_O

I'd say Blood Angels.

They're an awesome army, but currently they're assaulty marines, who aren't as good at it as some codex space marine armies currently.

Really they're just too expensive for what they do, and they don't feel as special as they used to (with some assault focused other marine armies). Imo.

Have you read the new ork codex?

5 kannons with 5 ammo runts for 105pts. That is 20 st7 wounds, you can buy upto 10 more t7 wounds for 3pts each. 5 bs3 st8 ap3 shots a turn with a reroll each (so 75% accuracy).

5 lobbas with ammo runts for 105pts. Again the same with t and wounds. 5 st5 barrage blasts with 56% chance of a direct hit. Scatter reduced by 3".

Traktor cannons, against flyers - wow.

Warbuggies with twin linked rokkit launcher (56% accuracy) for 25pts! With the option to outflank! That is a fast av10 platform with a st8 ap3 gun which is better than ballistic skill 3 and the outflank usr for a point cheaper than 2 necron warriors/CSM etc.

Deffkoptas which fill the same roll as warbuggies but have a t value instead and the assault ability and scout.

MANz missile. 150ish depending on upgrades points to cause a massive distraction to opponents that is not easy to shift!

Basic troops which are 6pts for t4, and 4 st4 attacks on the charge. They also are tough to get rid of in large numbers.

Even cheaper objective holders for a mere 35pts (grots) which the opponent HAS to waste shooting on to stop them scoring easy VPs.

A warbosses stats (and a warlord trait to boot) for 60pts. That is amazing.

Painboyz giving huge squads fnp.

Nob biker star terrifying opponents. Or the even cheaper option of a normal bike unit with nob + warboss + painboy.

A stompa IN THE CODEX! Not in some 'apocolypse', 'escalation' or 'forgeworld' book that some people don't like.

There are some units whoch are average in comparison to all the above but still worth taking such as lootas and tankbustas.

Yeh there is some tripe such as bubble chuckas, morka/gaukanaughts, in fact all the walkers and a few other units. But the majority is pretty good now. Not top dex but most certainly not bottom!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The old ork dex was weak and previous tournament results will reflect that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My vote would go with BA, DA and Tyranids.

what is with these influxes of "orks suck" threads lately?

i dont even think i heard this much "the army as a whole sucks" about Tyranids in the slightest, and they are by far worse off than orks. Least orks still function, i win a majority of my games with them with almost none of them being total stomps, so they were fun and challenging.

To the tyranids 20% of the codex comment. That makes the codex bad in my opinion. Theres literally ONE list for tyranids that actually works and has a chance if your opponent isnt a deadbeat moron, and i dont know about you but i for one hate mono-list races. This is why old-dex orks pissed me off, it was field Nob Bikers and crush my opponent or dont use them and lose by turn3. I got bored of using the same damn thing every time.

Orks literally only have 1.5 totally useless units. Burnas are total gak like usual thanks to the "out of range" nerf in 6th and Deffdredds are the .5 since they are still feasible, just not ideal. Every other unit...repeat...EVERY other unit can be used if you build the list properly. I love the idea i can field any unit provided i think about what its going to do, it allows me to have a very different game every time.

 Vineheart01 wrote:

i dont even think i heard this much "the army as a whole sucks" about Tyranids in the slightest, and they are by far worse off than orks. Least orks still function, i win a majority of my games with them with almost none of them being total stomps, so they were fun and challenging.

To the tyranids 20% of the codex comment. That makes the codex bad in my opinion. Theres literally ONE list for tyranids that actually works and has a chance if your opponent isnt a deadbeat moron, and i dont know about you but i for one hate mono-list races. This is why old-dex orks pissed me off, it was field Nob Bikers and crush my opponent or dont use them and lose by turn3. I got bored of using the same damn thing every time.

There are quite a few lists for Tyranids that do well. Most of the people that say Tyranids suck haven't played an experienced Tyranid player, they just look at individual units. That's just not how Tyranids work, it's all about the support and the army as a whole. Also, I have to disagree with the "dead beat moron" comment, there are plenty of instances of Tyranids doing pretty well in top GTs. Have they won them? No. But so far that's pretty much been space marines winning, so plenty of armies are left out.

The Tyranid codex is as because many of it's units and features don't work at all how they should, but that doesn't make the army bad. It's a huge distinction, because a properly built Tyranid army is scary as heck.

Back to the OP, Orks are not even close to the worst army. That has to be Blood Angels because of how much better SM are. Orks are mid tier at least, maybe higher.

Dark Eldar? They're so wishy washy. If you muck it up once, you're done and you can call it game. If everything goes to plan, you can table your opponent.
I haven't had a chance to play against Orks or Nids, so I wouldn't know, but I think the fact that our local Nid player reverted back to the marines he used when he started the hobby means something.

people can stop crying over orks now, they got their update. now BA are the weakest, cant say any codex is the worst as half the battle is who is playing them

Any codex can produce a "worst" army. You just have to focus on the crap units and bloat them all to heck with useless and unnecessary wargear.

Sisters of Battle, due to no support from GW. In all seriousness, I would argue BA or DA, as they get no access to the shiny stuff SM gets, and even then I would argue DA beat out BA.

Sisters and probably BA, my two main armies

My army is the weakest.
I've got Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Blood Angels.
Yeah, I'm a trio of "please update me."

I'm considering doing an unbound of all three, just because.

-Matt

..Grey Knights are...pretty strong? I think so at least despite not having an update.

Worst army? I'd have to go with either blood angels or sisters.

BA player here. Update my codex please. And don't screw it up.

Need more armies to choose from.

I think Blood Angels are currently worst off, simply by dint of the codex cycle. Every unit is about 10% overcosted compared to its C:SM/DA equivalents. Bring their costs in line with the newer SM codexes and fix their special characters (most of which were hit with harsh Init/AP penalties with the weapon changes between 5th and 6th), and then you've got a decent codex. Until then, they're probably the least effective army.

Other than that, I'm not sure. Even the 'bad' (read: internet speak for 'not the absolute best') codexes are more than capable of holding up against the competition. Pretty much everything except Triptide Tau, Serpent Eldar and Summoning/Screamerstar Demons are pretty much balanced.

Are we talking 'worst' in terms of pure competitiveness?

e.g. I think the tyranid codex was written by a team of drunkards, but it's still a reasonably strong codex (just not a very interesting one).

If it's pure competitiveness, I'd say:

- SoB - because GW seems to despise them and anyone who plays them. They're only marginally cheaper than marines, yet worse in virtually every way (although, marines were probably made too cheap in 6th, so that didn't help either). Their HQs are pretty abysmal, as are several of their squads (and it's not like they're overloaded with options). Powers of faith basically stayed the same but become one use per game (even when it crippled the squad), and they have just one troop choice. Oh, and to make things even more fun, they're all metal - so enjoy playing an inflated price for a terrible army. I guess it's your own fault for not playing space marines. Shame on you.

- DE - Not as bad as the above, but I think they're really starting to suffer in this edition. The changes to vehicle damage basically crippled their only ranged anti-tank. And, unlike most other armies, they don't have any hull point-stripping weapons to fall back on. And, whilst jinking helps to some degree, their own vehicles are still pretty vulnerable.

Also, they're just one of those armies that has been hit by progressive nerfs. Their combat units are now virtually unusable, their selection of special weapons is tiny, and filled with worthless, overcosted crap. You could remove their wargear pages and they probably wouldn't notice. Also, 4+ poisoned weapons aren't nearly as useful/powerful as GW thinks to think.

- CSM - Not awful, but suffer similar problems as tyranids in that their book just isn't very interesting, has terrible internal balance (external isn't much better), and a lot of units that are either outright bad, or just worse than a competing unit.

Orks highest rank at BAO was 52nd... Coincidence?
Torrent of Fire said 'nids are dead center of the pack. Blood Angels still lack a codex. They'll feel the love soon.

Orks... With low Av, open topped transports, they are made of explodium. Thats about a 45% kill rate in the explosion. Then da Boyz are no longer immune to pinning fail that and another d6ish die there. Then that's your 25% in the shooting phase so let's just kill off another d6. Orks will stay at the bottom. Regarding the cheap guns... Try to keep those guys on the table after a morale check... Ld 5.

Where are DE, Daemons, DAs, SoB etc.?

Are they so bad that they've fallen off the map entirely?

Actually, come to think of it, what the heck is that graph supposed to be showing? There are no labels on either axis - just a lot of meaningless percentages and months.

Yeah, I don't quite get this bias against Orks from the OP, I've played them in 7th ed. against the new Guard book, CSM, Daemons and annoying Necrons with their Tesla and Wraiths. So far I have to say they have done pretty damn well. The addition of 'Ere We Go! and the change to WAAAGH! allow us to get stuck in that much faster and reliably compared to our previous book and Mob Rule now actually makes a good difference on the units like MegaNobz who never managed to get anything out of it. Also the Mek Gunz are cheap as heck and if you're playing them right the Ld 5 won't be an issue to begin with (i.e. Lobbas shouldn't be in line of sight and for guns like KMK being T7 with multiple models is a lot harder to hurt than it looks, especially if you're in cover). Plus if they really waste time shooting at a measly portion of your army then you've already diverted firepower from your more immediate threats and gained an advantage. Furthermore, you can always attach a 15 point Ld7 Mek to the unit if you really are that paranoid about leadership tests. Have you actually played Orks? Or tried different builds? It really seems like you phoned it in without trying to make it work.

The armies mentioned had limited number of players I think, so data is unreliable. The chart is from torrent of fire and I believe is %wins per month.




That kid said GKs were weak?! Ugh. They're OP in my local meta....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I play Orks.... Nearly exclusively. Check my gallery if you doubt my experience w different Ork builds.

Pin the grots. One Wave Serpent knocks them out for a turn. An FMC or MC will make them book.

The worst 40k army is one whose player throws up their hands and whines rather than experimenting to see the possibilities of a new codex. So if you play Orks, I can see why you think they're bad.

 Bludbaff wrote:
The worst 40k army is one whose player throws up their hands and whines rather than experimenting to see the possibilities of a new codex.

Indeed - experiment first, then come back and whine properly.

Here's my "experiment." smarty pants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have models that GW doesn't even produce...
how about a biker painboy...

Why several people have mentioned DE? I'm aware the change to Vehicle damage table hurt us more than it helped, but from what I gather a very mobile army with considerable firepower excels at the Maelstrom of War missions. Sprinkle some Eldar allies and the DE really should be able to show up at tournaments and expect to win a few games.

 SarisKhan wrote:
Why several people have mentioned DE? I'm aware the change to Vehicle damage table hurt us more than it helped, but from what I gather a very mobile army with considerable firepower excels at the Maelstrom of War missions. Sprinkle some Eldar allies and the DE really should be able to show up at tournaments and expect to win a few games.

I'm rating the books by their own merits - not by what they can do with allies.

As far as I'm concerned, allies should not be needed to make a book viable.

 doktor_g wrote:
Orks highest rank at BAO was 52nd... Coincidence?
Torrent of Fire said 'nids are dead center of the pack. Blood Angels still lack a codex. They'll feel the love soon.

Orks... With low Av, open topped transports, they are made of explodium. Thats about a 45% kill rate in the explosion. Then da Boyz are no longer immune to pinning fail that and another d6ish die there. Then that's your 25% in the shooting phase so let's just kill off another d6. Orks will stay at the bottom. Regarding the cheap guns... Try to keep those guys on the table after a morale check... Ld 5.

I have a few problems with that graph. Firstly it doesn't have SOB, DA, SW, DE, GK, Demons, IK, or inquisition. That is A LOT of armies missing, some of them 'major' armies.
Secondly it doesn't have a year - by looking at the fact it still lists 'imperial guard' that would suggest it is not recent. Both AM and Orks have had recent new dexes which makes a huge difference.
Thirdly it doesn't state the size of the sample pool.

The worst one is the one that has the worst luck with the dice and having the wrong units on the table so they are unable to deal with what the enemy brings.

This year. Not my graph. Go to Torrent of Fire. The armies you mentioned were removed because their numerical power (sample size) was too small and was removed for clarity. IIRC.

 vipoid wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
Why several people have mentioned DE? I'm aware the change to Vehicle damage table hurt us more than it helped, but from what I gather a very mobile army with considerable firepower excels at the Maelstrom of War missions. Sprinkle some Eldar allies and the DE really should be able to show up at tournaments and expect to win a few games.

I'm rating the books by their own merits - not by what they can do with allies.

As far as I'm concerned, allies should not be needed to make a book viable.

You do have a point. They aren't as strong without allies, but one of the worst? That's a bit harsh, IMHO.

 SarisKhan wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
Why several people have mentioned DE? I'm aware the change to Vehicle damage table hurt us more than it helped, but from what I gather a very mobile army with considerable firepower excels at the Maelstrom of War missions. Sprinkle some Eldar allies and the DE really should be able to show up at tournaments and expect to win a few games.

I'm rating the books by their own merits - not by what they can do with allies.

As far as I'm concerned, allies should not be needed to make a book viable.

You do have a point. They aren't as strong without allies, but one of the worst? That's a bit harsh, IMHO.

That is a bit harsh on dark eldar. I've seen them do very well, especially with maelstrom. They may be weaker in certain non-maelstrom missions, but maelstrom is often quite different from the normal missions. It's one of the reasons I like Maelstrom; it's more chaotic, but it gives a lot more options to armies that might not typically succeed in more convential missions.

I agree that DE are hard pressed in Eternal War missions, where survivability is a major factor. However, they perform well in Maelstrom, where mobility is much more important. I'd say they're a middle-tier army on their own, far from the bottom.

I was thinking MTS since they have only 5 different units, so they ability to make an army that can take most things on the tabletop with reasonable success is totally borked. But OP says Orks so I guess he's right.

i forgot about DE lol. I think that army needs a complete rework in order to function without making their gameplay backass backwards to the fluff.

Something along the lines of their vehicles should be VERY hard to hit if they move X distance (say, 8+) by forcing snaps, since theyre fluff indicates they prize speed and agility over durability. Right now they have speed, but nothing to prevent them from dying the moment they show their face. That 5++ their vehicles have is pretty garbage, even before Jink went to a 4+ cover.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Orks highest rank at BAO was 52nd... Coincidence?
Torrent of Fire said 'nids are dead center of the pack. Blood Angels still lack a codex. They'll feel the love soon.

Orks... With low Av, open topped transports, they are made of explodium. Thats about a 45% kill rate in the explosion. Then da Boyz are no longer immune to pinning fail that and another d6ish die there. Then that's your 25% in the shooting phase so let's just kill off another d6. Orks will stay at the bottom. Regarding the cheap guns... Try to keep those guys on the table after a morale check... Ld 5.

I have a few problems with that graph. Firstly it doesn't have SOB, DA, SW, DE, GK, Demons, IK, or inquisition. That is A LOT of armies missing, some of them 'major' armies.
Secondly it doesn't have a year - by looking at the fact it still lists 'imperial guard' that would suggest it is not recent. Both AM and Orks have had recent new dexes which makes a huge difference.
Thirdly it doesn't state the size of the sample pool.

Thats because its a part of a larger article from this years BAO (which was a few weeks ago). That actually answers all of your problems with it.

Heres the whole article http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

Grey Knights. They have dumb lumpy faces and only fight teenage girls and imaginary monsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Tau, they have dumber lumpier faces and can't take a punch, but at least they aren't misogynist inbreds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But mostly Grey Knights

How can we have a discussion with merit when the OP has given us one option for the worst army?

jakl277 wrote:
..Grey Knights are...pretty strong? I think so at least despite not having an update.

Worst army? I'd have to go with either blood angels or sisters.

I'll agree with GKs still being strong, I've got a GK army and I STILL think BAs and DE should proably get their new codexes fitst

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i forgot about DE lol. I think that army needs a complete rework in order to function without making their gameplay backass backwards to the fluff.
Something along the lines of their vehicles should be VERY hard to hit if they move X distance (say, 8+) by forcing snaps, since theyre fluff indicates they prize speed and agility over durability. Right now they have speed, but nothing to prevent them from dying the moment they show their face. That 5++ their vehicles have is pretty garbage, even before Jink went to a 4+ cover.

This is what I'm finding. I've got 3 options to compete.
1) Run Codex Beast Pack.
2) Run codex eldar, with a few token units of dark eldar.
3) Lose games.

Any army with ignore cover shooting tears them apart.
That's now Tau, AM (IG), Chaos Marines, Space Marines. That's a big chunk of the armies or allies I see.

The poll was a joke that I thought was funny. I was hoping I could make a one option poll, but couldn't. Not sure BA is that particularly bad as I got beat by them in my last tourney. GK are great IMO. Watching Skared Cast Battle Reports, I think Skari is kind of a ringer/ace at DE. He's been being handled lately by his opponents, but our doubles tourney came down DE and Tau on top. In retrospect, it was probably due to the Tau.... And more a reflection on them than DE. Tyranids are doing OK. Adeptus Sororitas can't be competitive or we'd see them popping up. Someone above mentioned MTS, but I'm not certain who they are talking about... Militarum Tempestus? I hope they suck, because that Grey Knight player just bought them and he beats me like a rented mule.

The Orks I think have the ability to excell at the Maelstrom missions, but the Eternal War ones will continue to be mostly beyond our reach.

My main issue with the codex, is that the most substantial change (Mob Rule) was a kind of a kick in the pants to mech Orks. There are great buffs, admittedly. Painboy ICs. 'ard Boyz for everyone! Cheaper buggies and Free rokkits for the poor! Those are awesome. But everything is purchased at a premium. But our troop choice (of choice) was increased in price. Lootas moved to heavy. Kans nerfed and more expensive. KFF nerf/buff (a wash).

i play the greentide, and have since the formation came out. it's amazing, i have alot of fun, and I'm winning all of my games so far. the ghaz book goes a long way in making the codex very playable.l

niv-mizzet wrote:
BA player here. Update my codex please. And don't screw it up.

Ditto. We were the worst pre-7th. Now that we lost our book powers we lost many of the "fun" gimmicks to army that offered seriously needed assistance in viability and a lot of what made playing that gakky dex worthwhile. RiP Mephiston, once the Lord of Death, now the Lord of Dick

BaalSNAFU wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
BA player here. Update my codex please. And don't screw it up.

Ditto. We were the worst pre-7th. Now that we lost our osychic.powers we lost many of the "fun" gimmicks to army that offered seriously needed assistance in viability and a lot of what made playing that gakky dex worthwhile. RiP Mephiston.

Haven't most people resorted to running their BA with the SM codex? I know it's not a good situation, but it's workable.

Then one must ask are they even BA anymore? No fluff, no Chapter Unique rules or tactics, no playable characters. People shelving their BA dexes and running them as red space marinesdoes not a better ssituation for BA make IMO

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Then one must ask are they even BA anymore? No fluff, no Chapter Unique rules or tactics, no playable characters. People shelving their BA dexes and running them as red space marinesdoes not a better ssituation for BA make IMO

That's why I said "I know it's not a good situation".

It's the Sisters of battle by a landslide. They don't even get a real codex. They have a tiny pool of miniatures and there rules were terribly written. Add in that the miniatures are overpriced and metals and you' can see that they're the worst off.

I'm torn between Blood Angels and Sisters of Battle.

My gut says Blood Angels though. Sisters of Battle at the least aren't gimped in the sense that their entire playstyle hasn't repeatedly been fethed by edition changes basically hating them for even existing. Blood Angels are a melee-oriented army in two editions that don't like melee combat, but unlike other melee armies like Orks (though Orks have great dakka) they pay out the nose for their melee prowess. Their units are all ridiculously overpriced for what they bring to the table in today's 40K environment.

I'd say Tyranids for the updated armies. Essentially for the reasons listed before - one list, "bad" units and prices, etc. The gradual changes from losing eternal warrior on synapse to now instinctive behavior possible wounding your own unit.

I do agree with many posters that BA are overpriced though. I was looking into doing a 'Black Rage' themed army but wow. Supposedly they're around the next bend or so, while nids got a book fairly recently - so in a year's time we'll see.

The only viable BA list as far as I'm concerned is Dread spam. Namely because the Death Company Dreads score and have objective secured so throw them in a drop pod and they are funny to watch kill everything.

The worst 40k army? This thread and the pointless "poll options".

This thread is a 40K army?

Your post makes no sense.

Didn't BAO not use the new Ork codex?

Blood angels.

PS- orks iz da biggest and da best!!!

Threads like this make me sad as SoB and BA are my two main armies.

Hopefully BA will get an update soon...

D

Worst armies are eldar necrons and some times tau ! Bekuz they are op , only thing I hate about new orks is Ghaz change and cyborg body ! And baby stompa loocks like trash but I have alot more useful units in hs so I can never purchase him or see him in my army

 CrownAxe wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Orks highest rank at BAO was 52nd... Coincidence?
Torrent of Fire said 'nids are dead center of the pack. Blood Angels still lack a codex. They'll feel the love soon.

Orks... With low Av, open topped transports, they are made of explodium. Thats about a 45% kill rate in the explosion. Then da Boyz are no longer immune to pinning fail that and another d6ish die there. Then that's your 25% in the shooting phase so let's just kill off another d6. Orks will stay at the bottom. Regarding the cheap guns... Try to keep those guys on the table after a morale check... Ld 5.

I have a few problems with that graph. Firstly it doesn't have SOB, DA, SW, DE, GK, Demons, IK, or inquisition. That is A LOT of armies missing, some of them 'major' armies.
Secondly it doesn't have a year - by looking at the fact it still lists 'imperial guard' that would suggest it is not recent. Both AM and Orks have had recent new dexes which makes a huge difference.
Thirdly it doesn't state the size of the sample pool.

Thats because its a part of a larger article from this years BAO (which was a few weeks ago). That actually answers all of your problems with it.

Heres the whole article http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

Thanks for the link! Interesting read. Although with the ork dex JUST out I don't think we can draw any ork conclusions from that graph. The sample pool is still very small too. A reasonable indicator though.
Eldar, Tau, Crons, CSM, SM and BA are right where I would expect them. Im exceptionally surprised at both guard and nids. Guard I would expect much higher - although I suppose their dex is new as well so the results may not have adjusted as expected yet. And nids I thought would be down with BA! That is a nice surprise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can't call it a pattern yet (with only 2 results to go on) but the SM and Tyranid percentage both increased 4 to 5 months after the release of the new dexes... could be an indicator that it takes that long for armies to be theorized, built, tested, practiced and taken to tournament...

BA are the worst currently. Overpriced assaulty army in (again) a shooty edition. Old codex that has aged very poorly.

Then i'd say Nids. Sure they can win, but their list creation is so limited that they arent even fun to play.

I'd say DE after that due to a poorly aging codex. While they have a few lists that work if you ally in half another army, they dont function well on their own and have taken poorly to the 6th and 7th rule changes.

SoB are somewhere down there, but i dont even consider them a full codex. They are something like Codex Inquisition. A half-assed job of throwing together old rules and not caring if its useful or competitive.

Blood Angels are by far the most over costed and underpowered army out there and to be honest I can't see how GW are going to make them better in this day and age of shooting based warfare.

DE I don't really see as a weak army they are just unforgiving in there play style, sure they could do with an update but I don't see it as urgent as the Blood Angel one.

To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

 techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Can't tell if you are joking, or you don't know how strength of schedule is calculated....

 techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Nice find. Out of the top 20 finishers (115 players listed); 15 of those 20 had the softest Strength of Schedule.
I don't know how BAO is setting up strength of schedule, but it sure looks like the formula to win is play kick the baby.

I think BA are really bad. I've not used them at all, but every time I use my crons against them I instantly have 6 points In my 2nd turn

BA are bad for the same reason old-dex orks were bad. The general game's rules counter their playstyle and no compensation was given via FAQ/Errata. Half their crap only worked because the BRB allowed it to work, not a codex specific rule - well, the BRB changed to prevent assault from reserves as a whole except for old-dex Zagstruk and ....whatever that BA unit was that can do it (name escapes me). Considering they removed that feature from Zagstruk, i imagine BA will lose it too. But, they will most likely give them something else. After all, Kommandos started to blow goats when they couldnt assault after infiltrate but now they get Stealth (shroud with snikrot) so they can survive the barrage upon them much easier.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Can't tell if you are joking, or you don't know how strength of schedule is calculated....

He's not joking.

Strength of schedule in the BAO is, to my knowledge, the total number of points given up to your opponents. So the winner of the event just happened to allow the least amount of points to his opponents... I bet that's how he won six games!

The name "strength of schedule" logically sounds like it should be how tough your opponents were, I'll give you that one. But, that's not what the actual statistic is. It's just how many total point you gave up. Each win awards 1000 points, each draw 500, so the player with wins and one draw only gave up 500 and something points.

Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

Chaos Space Marines. Because they have such potential yet fall so short. Half their dex is useless or doesn't fit the fluff.

 Kriswall wrote:
Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

I think we might have a winner...

 Kriswall wrote:
Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

Nah, you might get a draw, your opponent could also reserve everything, ending the game with a double elimination.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Codex: Legion of the Damned is the worst army. You automatically lose unless you take allies. It is literally impossible to win with a LotD army without help from another army.

Nah, you might get a draw, your opponent could also reserve everything, ending the game with a double elimination.

-Matt

So if your opponent is literally brain dead, it's not the worst.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
It's the Sisters of battle by a landslide. They don't even get a real codex. They have a tiny pool of miniatures and there rules were terribly written. Add in that the miniatures are overpriced and metals and you' can see that they're the worst off.

I have run sisters for quite a while. They make power armor armies and terminator heavy armies cry.

They may not be top tier, but they have their moments where its not even fair.

Well, I guess you can't blame an ork player for a lack of understanding statistics as well as reading comprehension.

BA really should be next in line for a codex. We need more stuff speeding across the board and smashing faces to force shooty lists to invest in countermeasures again.

I would say Tyranids.

Granted 7th ed changes made Dark Eldar a lot weaker and, Blood Angels though effective at what they do are just too overpriced to be otherwise good.

Tyranids have a new codex, new units, new point costs and, outside of a few specific builds (which themselves aren't that great), they are bad. Not just bad but, -bits of gelatin with smaller bits of old spam stuck to it at the bottom of a rusty container- bad.

Opponents that beat me often still can't win with Nids, in fact I've never lost against Nids. The Nid codex definitely didn't benefit from codex creep. Blood Angels have some good tricks and the only thing they need to be good is point reductions (significant ones though). I can understand BA or DE being bad due to dated rules and costs, happens to every army but, for an army to be released with the intent of making it sucky? That's bad.

 RancidHate wrote:
I would say Tyranids.

Granted 7th ed changes made Dark Eldar a lot weaker and, Blood Angels though effective at what they do are just too overpriced to be otherwise good.

Tyranids have a new codex, new units, new point costs and, outside of a few specific builds (which themselves aren't that great), they are bad. Not just bad but, -bits of gelatin with smaller bits of old spam stuck to it at the bottom of a rusty container- bad.

Opponents that beat me often still can't win with Nids, in fact I've never lost against Nids. The Nid codex definitely didn't benefit from codex creep. Blood Angels have some good tricks and the only thing they need to be good is point reductions (significant ones though). I can understand BA or DE being bad due to dated rules and costs, happens to every army but, for an army to be released with the intent of making it sucky? That's bad.

Based on your avatar and sig, I see you are a Dark Eldar player. I think virtually every Nid player around would agree that DEldar are a bad matchup for Nids - maybe the worst possible matchup because of all the Poison (which Nid MCs tend not to like). That may be skewing your view a bit.

To Asmodas; a very reasonable interpretation. However, I been playin Eldar since '06 and DE since '11. Yes Big Nids are weak against DE poison, Little Nids might swarm OK. Just the same, those other 5 years, I had dozens of matches against Nids, never lost! Now they're even worse...

EDIT: Damn shame, too. The Haruspex is an awesome model. I can imagine it eating and halfway digesting a Rhino and its' occupants before it finishes stuffing it in its' maw. One friend of mine converted a Tervigon into what I called the BallsFex. Instead of the female birthing of gaunts, it did the male ...uh... dissemination... of gaunts

Haruspex shoulda had S10 AP2 Fleshbane Armorbane attacks with the 'Cavernous Maw' codex made-up imaginary pretend special rule: If it is in melee with a vehicle and it causes an Explodes result with a melee attack, the vehicle does not exactly explode instead it is instantly, and horribly, digested. The vehicle and all embarked occupants are immediately removed from play!

 RancidHate wrote:
To Asmodas; a very reasonable interpretation. However, I been playin Eldar since '06 and DE since '11. Yes Big Nids are weak against DE poison, Little Nids might swarm OK. Just the same, those other 5 years, I had dozens of matches against Nids, never lost! Now they're even worse...

I wouldn't put too much faith in DEldar vs Nids these days... 7th edition flipped that matchup completely. Tyranid FMCs are complete death to all DEldar units, and DEldar have no anti Nid FMC. Sure thy can kill the stuff on the ground, but few good Nid lists have a lot of land MCs. True in 5th and 6th it sucked, but try playing Tyranids in 7th. I've played two DEldar lists in 7th, after 5 turns in each one player had 3 warriors left, the other was tabled. DEldar simply can't handle FMCs now.

I genuinely don't understand the continued Tyranid hate. The book is bland, sure, but the army is consistently placing around or above the middle of the pack on ToF and the two big GTs we've had so far.

 jifel wrote:

I wouldn't put too much faith in DEldar vs Nids these days... 7th edition flipped that matchup completely. Tyranid FMCs are complete death to all DEldar units, and DEldar have no anti Nid FMC. Sure thy can kill the stuff on the ground, but few good Nid lists have a lot of land MCs.

To be fair, it does depend on the list.

Not all nid players will want to use the flying MC, regardless of their strength (possibly in the hope that if flyers are ignored for long enough they might all sod off and die).

 jifel wrote:

I genuinely don't understand the continued Tyranid hate. The book is bland, sure, but the army is consistently placing around or above the middle of the pack on ToF and the two big GTs we've had so far.

Emphasis mine - I think you answered your own question.

Many people care more about having an interesting book than a strong one. And, on that front, the nid book just doesn't deliver.

Splinter racked raiders full of warriors are death to Tyranid FMCs. Twin linked poison shooting. Not sky fire, but it's got the volume of shots.

Eldar...... because of what they do to the game right now.

Sisters

The first Big tournament in 7th - Bay Area Open - proved, that so far the worst codex in 7th edition is Imperial guard.

Look at the numbers, read the article, its pretty interesting (and short - for those of you who do not read often...)

http://www.torrentoffire.com/5416/bay-area-open-inside-the-numbers

That article is nice, but it has two issues:

1) Sample size is low. Even for necrons and eldar, it's hard to tell if they are a good army or if the eldar players simply were more lucky/got better matchups etc.
2) Assuming luck is a constant, there are two factors to being successful in tournaments: The quality of your army and they quality of the players. In order to make a reliable statement about an army, you'd have to make players play different armies. There could be more good eldar players than good imperial guard players simply because eldar are more attractive to players, because players who ditched their previous army went to eldar because its 6th edition power or because it's the flavor of the month. Space marine prevalence might either be sign of a good army, or simply a sign for more players sticking to their army and thus gaining more experience.

Unless you differentiate between player skill and army power level, there is no way to tell if a faction is better than another, or if players of a faction are better in general than players of other faction.

 Jidmah wrote:
That article is nice, but it has two issues:

1) Sample size is low. Even for necrons and eldar, it's hard to tell if they are a good army or if the eldar players simply were more lucky/got better matchups etc.
2) Assuming luck is a constant, there are two factors to being successful in tournaments: The quality of your army and they quality of the players. In order to make a reliable statement about an army, you'd have to make players play different armies. There could be more good eldar players than good imperial guard players simply because eldar are more attractive to players, because players who ditched their previous army went to eldar because its 6th edition power or because it's the flavor of the month. Space marine prevalence might either be sign of a good army, or simply a sign for more players sticking to their army and thus gaining more experience.

Unless you differentiate between player skill and army power level, there is no way to tell if a faction is better than another, or if players of a faction are better in general than players of other faction.

While I agree with the 2nd point, and your first point certainly seems true, no one takes either of these things into account when they look at the same statistics and see that Blood Angels and Orks, for example, are near the bottom. They just see data that backs up what they already believe to be true and say "See?! I told ya!!" So, while it doesn't "seem right" that Imperial guard are near the bottom as well...it may just be the beginning of a new trend.

Or... Blood Angels and Orks are also underused and only played by bad generals. *shrugs*

Unless we can clone a person and have said clones play every army in a tournament against themselves, the ToF chart, while useful in a lot of ways, doesn't do a great job with power rankings beyond the top 5 or so. After the top 5ish armies (which, as the quoted poster points out, are the armies that the quality players most likely field)...the strength of general and thin representation of an army are too wild of variables to accurately predict anything.

I just didn't orks as an example because the are pretty much brand new and tatics are yet in the making. At the same stage for other codices people were complaining about the wave serpent price hike, the end of tzeench daemons due to flamer and Kairos nerf and how GW could have dared to give Space Marines those useless centurions

As for blood angels - it is very likely that a great deal of competitive players is current playing their blood angel collection as counts-as space marines and only the few ones who refuse to jump ship or don't care about winning keep playing them.

The best example how this system can fall appart would be what Dashofpepper did in 5th. He purposely picked up armies which were called bad and crushed his opposition with them. He defeated the top tier armies of that time (SW, IG, BA) with orks, close combat necrons from the old codex and later dark eldar. However, he would massively increase the average winning percentage of the three other players playing the same army as him, simply because he was an exceptionally good player.

Whatever happened to DashofPepper? I haven't seen his posts in a long time......

..... a long time.

 Green is Best! wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
It's the Sisters of battle by a landslide. They don't even get a real codex. They have a tiny pool of miniatures and there rules were terribly written. Add in that the miniatures are overpriced and metals and you' can see that they're the worst off.

I have run sisters for quite a while. They make power armor armies and terminator heavy armies cry.

They may not be top tier, but they have their moments where its not even fair.

Agreed - they are a nasty firefight MSU army - have asome great units -

Scouting Dominions with 2-4 Melta guns is always fun,
Celestine works well - much fun when they say, so whats her WS 4,5 maybe? - nope 7, Iniaitive? 3 or 4?,nope 7 and so on...........
Exorcists - AV13 front, D6 S8 AP 1 missiles every turn

Oh and everything ,even the vehicles gets a least a 6++ nice

Hey, it's your opinion, if you think this Codex is bad...I guess just use the old one if it makes you feel better. But, ever since I got this codex, I haven't looked back at the old one. This has such better balance over all, cost drops on an army already known for cheap units, and a few minor tweaks here or there (For better or for worse), but we ended up with a BETTER book.

I think Ork players have to understand we will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage. We are the 'punching bag' race of 40k. But I always tend to have fun in every game I play, because...Orks! Are they 'competitive'? Maybe not without using some cheese. But every army does that. We just don't have 'Da best cheese!', or at least not that we have yet to discover. It's still a bit early in our Codex's lifespan to determine it's overall competitiveness.

Other armies have it much worse. But it seems GW plans on rolling out overdue Codecies pretty quick, since they put the pedal down to get Space Wolves going, and who knows what's next. I hope BA players get their due next, since they seem to be in a rough way right now.

If you are unhappy with your army, maybe it's time to cash in your chips, or take a break, or start a new army...and by new army I mean the 'always wins' army since you wouldn't want to play an army that actually has spirit, has the best models and the most individualism of any single faction in pretty much any game out there right now.

Ork units are individually good and the ork codex as a whole is good against most armies.

That being said they can't compete in a tournament because they are hard countered by Eldar who are a very common sight. Every ork unit is strong against some eldar units and weak against others, but Eldar will win because superior maneuverability allows them to pick the fights.

Ork mek guns are practically immune to dakka as T7 grots laugh off damage. It's all fun and games until 2 eldar jetbikes land 4 hammer of wrath attacks and 4 regular swings that hit on a 3+ and wound on a 2+

Manz can laugh at eldar dakka even shuriken weapon pseudo rends until a rape knight jumps their bones.

It all comes down to speed. Manz are slow and purposeful while rape knights are fast. GJB are ultra fast and will curbstomp mek guns unless an ork assault unit sits back and baby sits them. Ork truks are fast until they meet a high volume of eldar s6/s7 dakka. Wagons also give maneuverability until they eat shots in their AV12 sides.

It all comes down to this. A highly skilled Eldar player should be able to beat a highly skilled ork player because orks have weaknesses that are easily exploited by Eldar.

"....they are made of explodium."

Honestly. I love the new codex, but the Heavy Support slot is packed full of things to take, making it difficult to make choices.

Lootas should never have been moved to the slot, or conversely Gitz should have been made an elites choice.

That being said, there are three things that are really hurting the current Ork codex.

1.) Low AV dedicated transport choice(s), there are games where I lose ALL five of my trukks turn one. It makes me feel sad.

2.) Not much of anything above T5, with the exception being EXTREMELY low points costed, "real dollar" inefficient Mek Gunz. I have ranted over this. 47 Dollars for a box that produces ONE gun when you can spend ~65 and make FOUR with trukk parts is absolutely insane. They need to rework this product boxing if anything imo.

3.)Players that don't know how to work around the bad parts of a codex, and instead bitch about the codex on here, as if it makes them win more, which is obviously the only measure for "good" by which they follow.
[sarcasm] Because playing the game purely for fun apparently isn't a thing. [/sarcasm]

So far, my Orks have won every game I've played with them. The ability to take large mobs of boyz in fairly cheap AV 14 has really made them tough to deal with. At 1500 points I've been taking 2-3 Battlewagons filled with Boyz or MANz, with an allied Waaagh!!! Ghazghkull detatchment with a Big Mek with the Mega Force Field on a Bike ripping up behind them giving it all a 4++ bubble. Even if they pop a transport turn 2, the Boyz are pretty much where they need to be already, and with a re-roll on the Ork warlord table, it makes it very likely that your warboss can make your Boyz fearless for a turn, or at least allow them to re-roll moral if he's nearby. This is without even getting into formations like the Blitz Brigade or Bully Boyz. Orks have a lot of decent tools this edition, and I think that once the Codex has been out a little longer people will start finding ways to combine everything properly.

As for what is the worst army overall right now, I really don't have tons of experience with many of the armies (DE, BA, SoB, and Crons specifically), so I have no real idea. Still, wouldn't say Orks are the worst at all.

I know this is supposed to be focused on Orks, but I have to chime in about the Tyranid comments I keep reading. Since the Tyranid codex came out, my nids are 7 and 0 and I play nothing that looks anything like the net lists I see, or even the same list twice in a row. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I lost with my Tyranids. That's not just me bragging, I can't remember the last time I beat Rythem's Nids either and I also don't think he uses net lists.

So I have to echo Bludbaff's above statement. I was on a terrible losing streak with my chaos marines until I started thinking outside the box of my usual lists and I've had some very positive results since.

There's no "worst army" in 40k. There are "worst armies for you". I don't think I'd do well as Tau, no matter if I used nothing but the most "competative" list I could find, but my Tyranids and I have a very hard time losing because regardless of the units I take the army as a whole suits my favourite playstyle.

I'm working on an Ork army now, but it probably won't see the light of day for a while as I'm worried that if I start playing Orks, I'll literally never play any other army again.

kungfujew wrote:
I know this is supposed to be focused on Orks, but I have to chime in about the Tyranid comments I keep reading. Since the Tyranid codex came out, my nids are 7 and 0 and I play nothing that looks anything like the net lists I see, or even the same list twice in a row. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I lost with my Tyranids. That's not just me bragging, I can't remember the last time I beat Rythem's Nids either and I also don't think he uses net lists.

So I have to echo Bludbaff's above statement. I was on a terrible losing streak with my chaos marines until I started thinking outside the box of my usual lists and I've had some very positive results since.

There's no "worst army" in 40k. There are "worst armies for you". I don't think I'd do well as Tau, no matter if I used nothing but the most "competative" list I could find, but my Tyranids and I have a very hard time losing because regardless of the units I take the army as a whole suits my favourite playstyle.

As a Nid player, what kind of lists do you run? I like hearing about uncommon lists doing well!

I absolutely love hordes of hormagaunts. 2 or 3 units of 20 just own the board with move through cover and +3 to run. Raveners and lictors are tied as my favourite unit. With rending claws Raveners eat hordes and elites alike, while the lictors pop up exactly where they're needed to shoot some flesh hooks into rear armour or pop up ut of LOS to really threaten support units. Also, Shrikes for the rediculous mobility. I just make sure that my shrikes and raveners are protected from turn 1 shooting if I go second, but I find that target overload is too easy with nids as everything can be too fast. Also, units of warriors add a surprising amount of firepower and who cares if they die. Now your Str 8 weapons aren't blowing apart my MC's. Outflanking genestealers can cause more mayhem just by showing up then by actually getting into combat and multiple mawlocks put the fear of god into everything. My favourite HQ is the walking hive tyrant w/2 or 3 guard. People get nervous seeing him coming as they can't choose to shoot at him first, since there are too many faster threats, but if he gets to their lines then he beats face and there's not much that he's scared of that can't be killed by the mass medium/short range shooting that nids can put out. Plus people always underestimate what a hormaguant support charge can do. If you kill 15 of the 20 hormaguants then they're still amasing charge support. I use them as frag grenades. They base with enemies and force them to kill them off while the biggies tear a chunk out of the squad. The next round, they're not at I1 and have much less to worry about.

My fastest, most rediculous nid win was with an army that consisted completely of infiltrating genestealers, mawlocks and lictors. When 2 squads of three lictors popped up along with 2 mawlocs and deathleaper, the game was over turn 2 just before the genestealers got to tighten the noose.

I've played almost every army in 6th and seeing as how 7th didn't shake things up too much I feel like my experiences will carry over for the armies I no longer play...

I have to agree with the sentiment that Tyranids are the worse suffering army right now. The codex is just bland, full of terrible units, and has a devastatingly punishing special rule that doesn't give them much of a buff. People say an army wide fearless is amazing but considering how little psychology plays in 40k in general it isn't that great of a boon and if the army didn't have fearless it would crumble even worse than it already does. It feels like no one at GW has any idea of what direction to take Tyranids so we get stuck with generic and bland units, few special rules and abilities, and pricing that is all over the board. Tyranids are stuck in 3rd while the game has moved on for years, a Hive Tyrant used to be a walking tank that could take multiple rounds of shooting and walk its way into combat. Now, it is hard to keep a Tyrant on the board more than a single turn unless he is flying and then he might last a couple more. 7th sure as hell didn't help with the nerf that MCs took that was obviously targeting all other MCs and not the TMCs, yet TMCs felt the nerf worse than the targets.

SoB are not a bad codex at all! I love playing my girls and they can do so much right that it makes up for their terrible codex. That's right, it is a terrible codex, but power level wise it is mid tier at worse. Being able to take 4x Meltas, a combi-melta, and a immolator with a multi-melta that can outflank right into your enemy is pretty awesome, even if you don't outflank it you can scout it up and get into range first turn anyway. Heavy Flamer, Flamer, 2x Combi-flamer troop choices are great for clearing and holding objectives. Exorcist are just nasty if you can get even average roles with them, sure you will have that one game where they can't roll higher than a 1 for shots but then you will have a game where you roll nothing but 6's. The SoB codex needs some serious work to make half of it even worth putting on the table, but you can still put out some nice armies and I can say that I love the way SoB play because they feel right. I feel like I am purging the heretics with all of the flamers and meltas that I am throwing around, it is just fun.

EDIT:

I absolutely love hordes of hormagaunts. 2 or 3 units of 20 just own the board with move through cover and +3 to run. Raveners and lictors are tied as my favourite unit. With rending claws Raveners eat hordes and elites alike, while the lictors pop up exactly where they're needed to shoot some flesh hooks into rear armour or pop up ut of LOS to really threaten support units. Also, Shrikes for the rediculous mobility. I just make sure that my shrikes and raveners are protected from turn 1 shooting if I go second, but I find that target overload is too easy with nids as everything can be too fast. Also, units of warriors add a surprising amount of firepower and who cares if they die. Now your Str 8 weapons aren't blowing apart my MC's. Outflanking genestealers can cause more mayhem just by showing up then by actually getting into combat and multiple mawlocks put the fear of god into everything. My favourite HQ is the walking hive tyrant w/2 or 3 guard. People get nervous seeing him coming as they can't choose to shoot at him first, since there are too many faster threats, but if he gets to their lines then he beats face and there's not much that he's scared of that can't be killed by the mass medium/short range shooting that nids can put out. Plus people always underestimate what a hormaguant support charge can do. If you kill 15 of the 20 hormaguants then they're still amasing charge support. I use them as frag grenades. They base with enemies and force them to kill them off while the biggies tear a chunk out of the squad. The next round, they're not at I1 and have much less to worry about.

My fastest, most rediculous nid win was with an army that consisted completely of infiltrating genestealers, mawlocks and lictors. When 2 squads of three lictors popped up along with 2 mawlocs and deathleaper, the game was over turn 2 just before the genestealers got to tighten the noose.

A man after my own heart, I love Lictors and Raveners. Raveners are by far my favorite unit in the entire game!

That said...it is apparent to me that you don't play in a very competitive environment because those units are just awful, they aren't even really worthwhile in a casual setting. Medium bugs are in a horrible position because they are far to expensive to act as a distraction away from your MCs. I don't buy this idea that every S8 weapon firing at your Warriors/Raveners/Shrikes is one that isn't shooting at your MCs, because if you are running enough Warriors/Raveners/Shrikes to be threats then you obviously don't have enough points to buy that many MCs! Bare bones a Ravener is 30 points, a realistic squad of them is 6 and that comes out to 180...that cost as much as a 6W MC that is going to take the same number of krak missles to bring down as the squad, plus they are much more susceptible to small arms fire than a T6 MC. That and a single battle cannon is going to ruin your day with medium bugs, while they may not be popular in your meta I have to play against them rather frequently and have lost so many medium bugs all at once that it is just sad.

I wish lictors were better...the fact that they just have to take it on the chin for an entire turn when they are again susceptible to small arms fire is just bad. Chances are they are coming in turn 2 or 3 and at that time most small arms aren't going to have many targets to choose from and those lictors are going to be facing a ton of fire that they just don't have the proper defenses to take on.

The more i play with pure maelstrom missions, the more i believe that the current tier list is meaningless.

Well, that may be an exaggeration. The BAO results are a decent representation of current power levels amongst armies in 7th edition when playing eternal war, even when combined with maelstrom. But in a pure maelstrom game, everything gets turned upside down. In testing, ravenwing has been at the top. Each troop choice splitting into 3 obsec units (bikes, attack bike, speeder) is absolutely huge, and the ability to scout as well as turbo boost to quickly reposition, beside the added durability that things like the darkshroud provide, make them one of the armies to beat in MM.

Other highly mobile armies, specifically ones with fast moving troop choices and good transports, also do well in maelstrom. Eldar, blood angels, white scars, and to an extent necrons are all fantastic choices. Drop pods are good (though not as strong as you might expect) and tyranids/orks get a breath of fresh air. Gunline armies are, almost entirely, useless in maelstrom, as are FMC spam and air force lists.

Maelstrom is how the game is actually meant to be played.

 th3maninblak wrote:
The more i play with pure maelstrom missions, the more i believe that the current tier list is meaningless.

Well, that may be an exaggeration. The BAO results are a decent representation of current power levels amongst armies in 7th edition when playing eternal war, even when combined with maelstrom. But in a pure maelstrom game, everything gets turned upside down. In testing, ravenwing has been at the top. Each troop choice splitting into 3 obsec units (bikes, attack bike, speeder) is absolutely huge, and the ability to scout as well as turbo boost to quickly reposition, beside the added durability that things like the darkshroud provide, make them one of the armies to beat in MM.

Other highly mobile armies, specifically ones with fast moving troop choices and good transports, also do well in maelstrom. Eldar, blood angels, white scars, and to an extent necrons are all fantastic choices. Drop pods are good (though not as strong as you might expect) and tyranids/orks get a breath of fresh air. Gunline armies are, almost entirely, useless in maelstrom, as are FMC spam and air force lists.

Maelstrom is how the game is actually meant to be played.

Really? I think there's a reason why pure maelstrom was banned at most major tournaments.

The one maelstrom match I've played so far ended with my Guard blob-list completely ignoring the objectives and tabling my Blood Angels opponent at the top of the 4th round.

Which would totally not have happened in any other mission, right?

Maelstrom is an extremely awesome system, which brings more balance to the game than any other mission type, since the game is no longer decided by the game state of a single turn. How often did you have a game where you would have won if a game lasted one more/one less turn? In Maelstrom the first turns are just as important as later turns.

It's big problem for tournaments is being able to luck out on VP and win by nothing by good draws. If you draw two achievable missions with d3 VP and score 3 for each of them, the game is pretty much over for your opponent. It doesn't happen that much, but when it does, it's pretty frustrating. Since the goal of most tournaments is to measure the skill of the opponent, rather than their luck in drawing better cards than their opponents.

For example, in one of my recent game I had the objective to slay a character for one VP or three for d3 VP as well as d3 VP for holding three objectives at once. My opponents failed a LoS! roll on his herald and it instant-died to a rokkit, then I charged my warboss and some boyz into a screamer star which had failed its grimoire and killed another two heralds. I also had units on two objectives in my backfield. I scored first blood this way, slay the warlord, and rolled 2 VP for the objectives and another 3 VP for characters, for a total of 7 VP in a single round. My opponent, on the other hand had an objective to kill a flier or FMC (had none), issue a challenge (Tzeench Daemons vs Orks...) or score objective number three (blocked by three battlewagons parking on top of it). My opponent had pretty much no way to beat me due to me being seven points in the lead, and him only being able to get a single VP out of his three cards.

A simple rework of some cards could easily fix the problem of randomly outright winning you the game due to lucky circumstance. Also, the removal of some cards which are not achievable in half your games would help a lot (kill a psyker, use a psykic power, kill a flier, etc).

 Jidmah wrote:

A simple rework of some cards could easily fix the problem of randomly outright winning you the game due to lucky circumstance. Also, the removal of some cards which are not achievable in half your games would help a lot (kill a psyker, use a psykic power, kill a flier, etc).

My local tournaments allow to discard Tactical Objectives which cannot be achieved (destroy a Flyer whilst the enemy has none, etc.), and the D3 value is set to 2. Helps a lot.

Maelstrom can get out of hand though. Some armies have cheap fast units that can capture objectives very quickly which puts the opponent behind very quickly. 4th turn I was beating my opponent 17:2 and it was the first 7th ed game I had ever played. I had lost 1-2 units and his army was down to a couple of guys, so I was winning point wise and VP too

Some armies are at a distinct disadvantage for maelstrom games and some are at a great advantage for maelstrom is my point

If you manage to score 17 points while killing almost his entire army, your would have won any kind of game against him.

What kind of mission were you playing to enable you to score 17 VP in 4 turns anyways?

buckero0 wrote:
Maelstrom can get out of hand though. Some armies have cheap fast units that can capture objectives very quickly which puts the opponent behind very quickly. 4th turn I was beating my opponent 17:2 and it was the first 7th ed game I had ever played. I had lost 1-2 units and his army was down to a couple of guys, so I was winning point wise and VP too

Some armies are at a distinct disadvantage for maelstrom games and some are at a great advantage for maelstrom is my point

Like i said, it turns the tier list on its head. Armies with cheap, fast transports/obsec units: eldar, ravenwing, blood angels, dark eldar, and tyranids. Notice how, other than eldar, none of these armies are at the top of the charts in eternal war missions. It completely rebalances the game.

Not to say other armies cant adapt. Tau and guard cant play static gunlines anymore ( fine by me, those armies are boring to play with and against). Instead, they have to swap to transports and mobile units like crisis suits. Eldar can no longer turtle up and dart on top of objectives on turn 5, or invest half their army into a seer counsel. Maelstrom forces people to actually play a dynamic and evolving game.

Honestly, I've rarely seen speed make a difference in maelstrom games. Occasionally it does, but more often (at least in my experience) fast units can reach enemy objectives - but lack the strength/firepower to to actually clear the enemy unit off them and capture them.

The only exception to this is Drop Pods - because dropping an AV12 vehicle with Objective Secured, plus a 10-man squad goes a long way to holding an enemy objective.

That aside, what I see making the biggest difference is, sadly, luck. Usually one side will get 3 easy objectives (e.g. capturing objectives in their own side, cast a single psychic power etc.), whilst the other side ends up with 2-3 very difficult objectives (capture an enemy objective, capture every objective, declare a challenge etc.). And, once the first player gets ahead like this, it's very rare for their opponent to catch up. Certainly it's never happened on one of our games.

 th3maninblak wrote:

Like i said, it turns the tier list on its head. Armies with cheap, fast transports/obsec units: eldar, ravenwing, blood angels, dark eldar, and tyranids. Notice how, other than eldar, none of these armies are at the top of the charts in eternal war missions. It completely rebalances the game.

Agreed. That's why I was so confused when several people claimed that DE are one of the worst armies. They definitely aren't in Maelstrom of War missions, whenever I take them as an Allied Detachment to my primary CSM I notice a substantial increase in the performance of my army. Objective Secured Bikers, LRs or swarms of Termagants are pretty effective at claiming Tactical Objectives as well.

 vipoid wrote:
Honestly, I've rarely seen speed make a difference in maelstrom games. Occasionally it does, but more often (at least in my experience) fast units can reach enemy objectives - but lack the strength/firepower to to actually clear the enemy unit off them and capture them.

The only exception to this is Drop Pods - because dropping an AV12 vehicle with Objective Secured, plus a 10-man squad goes a long way to holding an enemy objective.

That aside, what I see making the biggest difference is, sadly, luck. Usually one side will get 3 easy objectives (e.g. capturing objectives in their own side, cast a single psychic power etc.), whilst the other side ends up with 2-3 very difficult objectives (capture an enemy objective, capture every objective, declare a challenge etc.). And, once the first player gets ahead like this, it's very rare for their opponent to catch up. Certainly it's never happened on one of our games.

Not speed as in "i have one unit that can dart in to claim an objective and then get blown up". Speed means that a sizeable portion of your army can reposition itself if need be. BA assault marines and transports, DE and eldar skimmers, white scars and ravenwing bikes (and in the case of ravenwing, land obsec land speeders), and nid gargoyles, deepstriking rippers and fast horms are all units that are usually taken in multiples that can secure objectives quickly and can be supported by the rest of the army. Drop pods havent even been THAT amazing, as once you secure an objective you commonly have to o grab another one, and youve lost your mobility.

And games are rarely, in my experience, that swingy. Usually each player will draw 1-3 dead cards a game, with the same number of easy objectives. Most of the time you can claim any objective if you havent misplayed and given up part of the table.

 doktor_g wrote:
Orks highest rank at BAO was 52nd... Coincidence?]

There apparently wasn't a single solely Dark Eldar army on that chart... Coincidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
This year. Not my graph. Go to Torrent of Fire. The armies you mentioned were removed because their numerical power (sample size) was too small and was removed for clarity. IIRC.

The lack of people playing them is, from a competitive stand point, quite telling.

 Jidmah wrote:
Which would totally not have happened in any other mission, right?

That was my point, yeah.

Why even post such a stupid poll?

The advantage of the new allies matrix is that it makes any army playable by being able to cover its weaknesses. However, many of these books are still not strong to stand on their own. Tyranids is the most shining example of this. While a few of the Tyranids lists do in fact place very well in tournaments, the better question is how many of those lists are strictly codex Tyranids armies. The powerful high placing builds always include the extra formations from the tyranids supplements. The book does not stand strong on its own. The missing pieces come mostly from supplements or forgeworld. Not to mention they are CTA with every other army so they are the most difficult to ally in with others. Tyranids are not the most in need of an update but they are certainly the worst of the new wave. Honestly even GK who were a late 5th edition can easily mop up most tyranids lists

 dmthomas7 wrote:
The advantage of the new allies matrix is that it makes any army playable by being able to cover its weaknesses. However, many of these books are still not strong to stand on their own.

Which is a really bad thing.

*Every* army should be able to stand up on its own - allies shouldn't be necessary for this.

 th3maninblak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Honestly, I've rarely seen speed make a difference in maelstrom games. Occasionally it does, but more often (at least in my experience) fast units can reach enemy objectives - but lack the strength/firepower to to actually clear the enemy unit off them and capture them.

The only exception to this is Drop Pods - because dropping an AV12 vehicle with Objective Secured, plus a 10-man squad goes a long way to holding an enemy objective.

That aside, what I see making the biggest difference is, sadly, luck. Usually one side will get 3 easy objectives (e.g. capturing objectives in their own side, cast a single psychic power etc.), whilst the other side ends up with 2-3 very difficult objectives (capture an enemy objective, capture every objective, declare a challenge etc.). And, once the first player gets ahead like this, it's very rare for their opponent to catch up. Certainly it's never happened on one of our games.

Not speed as in "i have one unit that can dart in to claim an objective and then get blown up". Speed means that a sizeable portion of your army can reposition itself if need be. BA assault marines and transports, DE and eldar skimmers, white scars and ravenwing bikes (and in the case of ravenwing, land obsec land speeders), and nid gargoyles, deepstriking rippers and fast horms are all units that are usually taken in multiples that can secure objectives quickly and can be supported by the rest of the army. Drop pods havent even been THAT amazing, as once you secure an objective you commonly have to o grab another one, and youve lost your mobility.

And games are rarely, in my experience, that swingy. Usually each player will draw 1-3 dead cards a game, with the same number of easy objectives. Most of the time you can claim any objective if you havent misplayed and given up part of the table.

Tyranids now count as a fast army? Since when? Tyranids are on the of the slowest armies out there...Deep striking Rippers are the best option for objective control but they aren't to hard to dislodge from an objective.

On the topic of Maelstrom of War missions, my buddy plays DE and hadn't played since mid 6th, he came back into the game and asked me to play a game. So I pulled out my Necron dual Monolith list and we set up to play and because of DE's speed and the mission type the game ended with a 18-2 points difference in favor of his DE. I only won because I table him at the bottom of turn 5. The entire game just felt silly because he mostly ignored my army, taking pot shots where he could, zooming around the table to grab objective after objective for the first couple of turns and it became quickly apparent that I couldn't hope to get close to him in VPs so I just focused on tabling him...

I think the Maelstrom of War missions are horrible, terribly designed with the best of intentions. I feel like with so many things GW does, it was a great idea that was executed horribly.

These missions favor anything with bikes that can boost around the table to grab objectives, actually fighting is secondary to just moving your units around...Think about that, movement wins games not because it is crucial but you literally win the game just by pushing your models on the table every turn. I feel like the objectives should only be scored at the end of the game and the cards should focus more on things like the last half of the table...but then you have the issue that some of the missions are unachievable.

I agree that maelstrom can balance out lists and armies in general. I'd add that this really functions well IF you allow the discard impossible objectives rule (and that really should just be FAQ'd).

Maelstrom evens things out by changing the ways armies work, and introducing more randomness. Typically I dislike too much randomness, but I think maelstrom does it right (when amended, see supra .) It forces you to field an army that can adapt to perform multiple rolls. If you do not, you're taking a gamble. In this way, it really provides power to more TAC lists that don't spam certain units.


Does that mean you can't have maelstrom stomps due to army lists? Of course not. If someone's army is built to throw out LOTS of anti-tank versus a very army heavy force, you'll probably have a bad time. But that list won't function as well over a long period of maelstrom games against multiple lists. In this way maelstrom really rewards more tactical flexibility.

Mobility will be good, but I think what'll drop Eldar down *to* top tier is that moving up to objectives early makes it easier for the enemy to reach out and touch you.