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.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you:


You have spent a lot of time, money, and passion planning, buying, building and painting your army. But there is a problem.

It's not that you can't win, you can't even enjoy the game. Face it, you've built a bad army.

Whether it was a Codex nerf, edition change, or just poor planning on your part, you have the same odds of winning a fight as Thug #8 does of beating Jason Statham in one of his movies.

So what do you do?

I built another army. And another one after that...

Sounds like my 40k career.

Usual( and to be honest often) i try to adapt my strategy to dread reality. Then try do add units that can change something in this situation. I aways play IG in past and not like i even try any other. it's only way for me to adjust what i have

But my case can be irrelevant cause i'm not a competitive player. and even win/loose unnecesary for me. Just love to move lil' IG soldiers around.

I.... don't know.
I've never been in that situation (any game).
And I am one of the strongest proponents of play what you like regardless of meta/etc.

But I suppose after a few losses I'd re-evaluate the force/my goals for it/& even my understanding of the games rules.
I imagine new/additional units would be considered.

That said?
I've intentionally made - and played - a few BAD armies/lists. Even one that for any practical means was incapable of winning (the foe would intentionally have to try to lose).
But these are thematic. They are meant to be bad & to represent specific battles/moments/situations.
The FUN in these comes from the challenge of seeing how well you can do DESPITE thier drawbacks.
I have fun doing this type of stuff - so the goal was accomplished.

I like to use my weaker armies to teach newer players the game.

For example, I have a full 2k Agents army (because apparently I'm a masochist XD) and while I'd get slaughtered in any competitive event, I brake them out all the time for matches against people at my FLGS that are just getting into the hobby. This lets me still play my hardest without stomping new players into the ground with my stronger lists.

In my experience as a Tyranid player, I stopped playing during 5th. I came back in 8th that finally made Tyranids playable and since then I have been able to adapt to edition and balance changes by buying more models. Nowadays I have enough models to easily adapt as long as there is at least one viable build.

But if I ever go back to a 5th-to-7th situation in which it was simply not possible to build a good Tyranid army, I just stop playing.

Get good?

For most of 40k’s history, my army was mid teir at best. I needed to focus on victory conditions and getting the most out of my units. That helped.

But will only take it so far. It helps that I’ve got a pretty broad collection, so could swap out units that worked better under the current rules/codex. At least at the FLGS that was often enough. There are always bad matchups.

Worst case, wait for the next edition and see what it looks like.

I look for Crusade Agendas and long-term faction goals that I can achieve without winning games and lean into those as much as possible.

"I've lost the last ten games in a row... But this BSS squad swore a Penitent vow, and have since redeemed themselves to become Seraphim, and this Saint Potentia has completed two of her trials of sainthood, and my Dialogus is now a master orator."

Quite frankly, achieving those three things would have been more fun, meaningful and engaging than merely winning the ten games.

The caveat is, of course, that sometimes Agendas and faction goals are connected to winning games, but it isn't universal, and when your army is behind the eightball, finding these other achievements can provide the satisfaction that you aren't getting from winning.

I started 40K in 5th with Chaos and it took until the last dieing months of 7th that they actually had a chance against Tau, Necrons or the Space Wolves my opponents usually played. Games were still fun though, because that's not really dependend on strong armies but the opponents and the scenarios being played. Coming from lotr writing our own scenarios and playing thematic and narrative lists was something we were used to do anyway and allowed for my CSM to win occasionally. Or Maelstrom of War missions in 7th, that made winning/losing pretty much a random affair, but at least it gave the factions that couldn't really kill much some objectives to go for.

As others have said, "how bad is bad?"

In 7th the gap between the haves and have nots was extreme. I think your only option with the low tier armies was find other players with those armies to play.

So DE were very bad. But you could have fun games against Tyranids, Orks, Imperial Guard, CSM etc. Even say Eldar if the opponent was running a sort of.. "3rd edition footdar list" rather than abusing the pushed stuff. Equally if a Space Marine player could bring 6-8 free Razorbacks that was kind of stupid, but a lot of players just didn't have those models. Although I guess some would just proxy a Rhino, which they probably did have a few of.

In 10th there are armies that are going to struggle to score, so probably do badly if you go to a tournament against people playing to win. But that's different from "Lazy Sunday 40k" with some friends?

And equally those armies could probably be improved by just buying some scoring units.

I used to collect a bunch of different armies for games, but more and more I've tried to pair back and focus on playing my favorites. That said, for any game I want to play regularly I still want a couple armies just so I have something to swap to if I'm not feeling my go to favorite whether that's a matter of power, playstyle or just feeling like there's nothing new to explore.

The only constant is change, particularly in the digital age and increasingly GW has been good about making sure nothing languishes for TOO long (except Agents). Honestly, if a game can't be bothered to make an effort to make my army playable, I'm going to play a better game.

That said, I've also come to appreciate that a lot of balance concerns don't necessarily apply to me and even with they do.... *shrug*. Death Guard are the boogieman right now along with Knights and while I play them and lose, that's only some of my games and honestly those losses make me a better player than the games I win anyway. As long as I'm happy with my own performance, I'm going to play the stuff I have fun playing.

As a career-long vanilla-Marine player I've never experienced a time when my codex didn't have some solution, and most of the time the main changes I had to make was swapping Heavy and Dpecial weapons around a bit. The one adjustment I made that was more severe was the inclusion of Sternguard and Drop Pods starting in 5th ed, but those carried me all the way into 9th when my playing slowed diwn.

This is pre-Primaris. Primaris marines seem designed to make those adjustments harder.

Playing Crons (old), Chaos and Nids also always seemed to have adequate solutions, but I need to caveat that I did not personally play them in every edition.

 Tyran wrote:
In my experience as a Tyranid player, I stopped playing during 5th. I came back in 8th that finally made Tyranids playable and since then I have been able to adapt to edition and balance changes by buying more models. Nowadays I have enough models to easily adapt as long as there is at least one viable build.

But if I ever go back to a 5th-to-7th situation in which it was simply not possible to build a good Tyranid army, I just stop playing.

4th ed codex for tyranids is my go to codex when your 5th ed group plays 40k. it even existed as the standard codex half way through 5th.

I have had nothing but good results with that codex, i don't care for anything past that, but i have some friends that do. and they have no problem building 5th or 7th ed codex lists that work well.

There is a question what is a bad army? Now we can not be killy but can score and win a game and have fun. What army should I build that can't kill and score at all?

kabaakaba wrote:
There is a question what is a bad army? Now we can not be killy but can score and win a game and have fun. What army should I build that can't kill and score at all?

Let's say you were entranced by the Grotmas Detachment for Imperial Agents:

Veiled Blade Elimination Force. You bought all the Assassins, which total about 585 points by themselves (because you have to take mandatory upgrades).

kabaakaba wrote:
There is a question what is a bad army? Now we can not be killy but can score and win a game and have fun. What army should I build that can't kill and score at all?

These days? Not really any. Ages past? Hoo boy...

 JNAProductions wrote:

kabaakaba wrote:
There is a question what is a bad army? Now we can not be killy but can score and win a game and have fun. What army should I build that can't kill and score at all?

These days? Not really any. Ages past? Hoo boy...

That's true more than ever now that GW has made plug and play armies. in our 5th ed games using the standard FOC i can pretty much take any models i want in a force and still have a chance to win, especially with objectives that are scored at the end of the game (no progressive scoring) and the random 5-7 turn limit. I used to play with one guy who even ran an all kroot themed list ( i think it was out of the FW taros campaign book IIRC) that was surprisingly tough to beat.

 aphyon wrote:

4th ed codex for tyranids is my go to codex when your 5th ed group plays 40k. it even existed as the standard codex half way through 5th.

How do you deal with 5th edition tanks? IMHO the changes to rending and the damage table kinda neutered the tools Tyranids relied on in 4th.

I have had nothing but good results with that codex, i don't care for anything past that, but i have some friends that do. and they have no problem building 5th or 7th ed codex lists that work well.

Maybe in a heavily house ruled version of 5th, but those codexes had little answer to stuff like 5th edition Grey Knights, or Taudar or Necron Decurion (and late 7th was even more insane than the Necron Decurion).

EDIT: also there was no 7th ed Tyranid codex.

Hmm i was pretty sure there was a 7th ed codex i might be thinking of 6th, but then again the only 7th ed codexes i use are knights, custodes, deathwatch and mechanicus/skitarii


real simple my list from 4th has a bit of everything-

i run a couple carnifexes that are good at both shooting and assault, a squad of zoanathropes. and a bunch of leaping/rending warriors as well as upgraded flanking genesteeler broods led by a brood lord. It was my assault centric mostly melee army list.

All the synaps guys are eternal warriors so that helps a bit. heavy flamers are still an issue since i cant have any better than a 4+ armor save on the warriors/steeler. but that's a whole lot of rending at no lower than S5 (enough to glance AV 14) all up in the enemies face real quick. totally wrecked a 3.5 khorne berserker list with it as well as black templar (4th) and imperial fists.

It also helps the instinctive behavior rules are a nicer for the big bugs in that dex.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Here's a hypothetical situation for you:


You have spent a lot of time, money, and passion planning, buying, building and painting your army. But there is a problem.

It's not that you can't win, you can't even enjoy the game. Face it, you've built a bad army.

Whether it was a Codex nerf, edition change, or just poor planning on your part, you have the same odds of winning a fight as Thug #8 does of beating Jason Statham in one of his movies.

So what do you do?

Step 1: Is it my Army or my Tactics?: Really evaluate, with the assistance of your opponent if possible, how your games are going and if the problem is the army or how you are playing it. I consistently beat on my opponent's Eldar with Sisters of Battle in the dark ages of the WD Codex because he never screened his critical units. Eldar can be hard to kill, but not if they let you put the exact right unit at the exact right point because he put his 5 Rangers in a safe position rather than screening the important stuff.

Step 2: Evolve Your Army: Once you are sure you are playing your army well, replace units to cover the gaps you determine need fixing to allow you to win. Play with it and go back to Step 1.

Repeats the cycle until you get at least to the point of enjoying the game if not winning.

 alextroy wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Here's a hypothetical situation for you:


You have spent a lot of time, money, and passion planning, buying, building and painting your army. But there is a problem.

It's not that you can't win, you can't even enjoy the game. Face it, you've built a bad army.

Whether it was a Codex nerf, edition change, or just poor planning on your part, you have the same odds of winning a fight as Thug #8 does of beating Jason Statham in one of his movies.

So what do you do?

Step 1: Is it my Army or my Tactics?: Really evaluate, with the assistance of your opponent if possible, how your games are going and if the problem is the army or how you are playing it. I consistently beat on my opponent's Eldar with Sisters of Battle in the dark ages of the WD Codex because he never screened his critical units. Eldar can be hard to kill, but not if they let you put the exact right unit at the exact right point because he put his 5 Rangers in a safe position rather than screening the important stuff.

Step 2: Evolve Your Army: Once you are sure you are playing your army well, replace units to cover the gaps you determine need fixing to allow you to win. Play with it and go back to Step 1.

Repeats the cycle until you get at least to the point of enjoying the game if not winning.

What I see in a lot of new players is that they buy models that look cool, but don't work together, or like the Assassin based Veiled Blade Elimination Force just don't work.

And then the frustration sets in as they have dumped a bunch of money and time into a "bad army" or more specifically a "bad collection of models."

1) Play badly, but enjoy it anyway (I'll lose, but I'm going to kill x before I go down....)

2) Switch my army list around and try a different combination

3) Smile sweetly

Something to consider is level of play and competitiveness. You might just need to find your tribe. 40k is fun at a lot of levels. Casual play and competitive play both. But they don’t mix well. Not to say that casual players are not out to win; many are. But when you are pushing minis around at the FLGS you don’t need to have a tight list squeezing every drop of power out of the codex.

On the more casual level there is space for including the minis you like, instead of the ones that are the most efficient.

One of the stock answers I have for new players asking for advice is “what drew you to the army? What are your 3 favorite units?” Rules and points are in flux, but models endure. And this hobby is too expensive to invest in things you don’t like. But the followup question is "What roles do they fill, and do they need support?” And finally “What other roles need to be filled to have a balanced army capable of winning the game?”

At the casual level there is room for fluffy “bad” units. We don’t need our lists to be tournament tuned. But that does not mean you can just slap units together. And while army balance tends to calcify into hard tiers at the tournament level, it’s a lot more fluid at the friendly one. Someone who’s playing a “bad” army might have to tighten it up a little more then someone playing the broken army of the day. And they will have to play smarter.

You play a different game!

Well, not quite, but it might as well be for many GW players.

Armies are hard to balance for tourney points and scenarios when you have limited testing and development and a sales model around new stuff.

But most wargaming had very loose army lists.

You and your opponent sit down, talk about the scenario you want to play and do a rough balancing of forces between you. Or have an unbalanced scenario giving the weaker player/army more of a chance.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

What I see in a lot of new players is that they buy models that look cool, but don't work together, or like the Assassin based Veiled Blade Elimination Force just don't work.

And then the frustration sets in as they have dumped a bunch of money and time into a "bad army" or more specifically a "bad collection of models."

While Veiled Blade is a bizarre outlier that I have no clue why is allowed to exist as the complete failure it is, it's also a good example of how to solve the problem. Say someone has this army. It's terrible, but not irredeemable.

First things first; the assassins are good in Agents and no matter what, are a part of every list as long as you take one so really aren't ever a waste. It's very hard to make a Veiled Blade that can't be reworked into Imperialis Fleet without really changing much in the way of models. I'm sure its not top tier, but people win even with Agents somehow, so it can definitely work.

This is also why you play games and grow your army over time instead of buying straight into 2000 points. Find out if you like something before you invest heavily.

Stop playing the same-same missions that get pretty old really quickly.
Play Crusade, do some narrative missions, etc.
This game is so much better if you can get away from the stale mission decks with ridiculous terrain placement.

 bullyboy wrote:
Stop playing the same-same missions that get pretty old really quickly.
Play Crusade, do some narrative missions, etc.
This game is so much better if you can get away from the stale mission decks with ridiculous terrain placement.

I like the mission decks.
Terrain I do differently, though.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

What I see in a lot of new players is that they buy models that look cool, but don't work together, or like the Assassin based Veiled Blade Elimination Force just don't work.

And then the frustration sets in as they have dumped a bunch of money and time into a "bad army" or more specifically a "bad collection of models."

While Veiled Blade is a bizarre outlier that I have no clue why is allowed to exist as the complete failure it is, it's also a good example of how to solve the problem. Say someone has this army. It's terrible, but not irredeemable.

Any "Complete Failure" here has to be more on the player not choosing the right supporting units, not just the detachment.
All four assassins + their required upgrades tally to 565 pts. For a standard size game that leaves me 1,435 to work with. I KNOW I can make a functional force with that #. Even using Imperial agents options.

Honesty, 40k is not a good competitive game to begin with so don't be so hard on yourself. I've always seen 40k better leaning towards RPG and I think game modes like Crusade are the ideal way to play 40k on a higher level.

One advice I have tho its more practical and not feel good is to not put so effort on painting the minis and try to reduce costs, only doing the bare minimal. Looking at the organization paper, it says with all areas painted with a basic finish. I don't remember were I heard but having a model based and with three colors was a standard minimal and I think that's a good minimal point.

Your army may not look good, but at least you haven't sink so much for a list.

 NivNeos wrote:
Honesty, 40k is not a good competitive game to begin with so don't be so hard on yourself. I've always seen 40k better leaning towards RPG and I think game modes like Crusade are the ideal way to play 40k on a higher level.

One advice I have tho its more practical and not feel good is to not put so effort on painting the minis and try to reduce costs, only doing the bare minimal. Looking at the organization paper, it says with all areas painted with a basic finish. I don't remember were I heard but having a model based and with three colors was a standard minimal and I think that's a good minimal point.

Your army may not look good, but at least you haven't sink so much for a list.

I'd turn that around: Paint your miniatures nicely, because no matter how the rules und dice gods treat you, at least you look great while going down .
The visual spectacle is one of the big selling points of the hobby, otherwize we'd just print out cardboard tokens for minis.