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

What do you guys feel are the worst possible troops choice in the game?

Game wise.

Ripper Swarms

Not necessarily bad, but outclassed:
-Blood Angels Tac Marines
-Blood Claws

Fire Warriors

Ripper swarms

-can't score (eliminating the purpose of troops)
-mediocre close combat
-Susceptible to blasts and S6+
-Die outside of synapse range

Firewarriors

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 ....

Troops: Ripper swarms by far.

Off topic: Elite slot: Pyrovores.... hands down.

Ripper swarms are objectively the worst troop unit out there. The number 2 slot is subject to debate.

Tau already won both the "Worst HQ" and "Worst SC" contest, so I guess the Ripper Swarms can take the troop award.

rippers, and guardians.

Gretchin?

Can there be any other?

TedNugent wrote:Gretchin?

Can there be any other?

Gretchin are amazing for their points, dude.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

Are Fire Warriors really that bad for the points? They put out some pretty substantial firepower.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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).

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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