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.

im just wondering what people think the worst army to play in WH40K is right now
i hear lots of people moaning about Tau's dex being and constant complaints about C: DE and the C:CSM being bad, i was just wondering what the general consensus is and why everyone dislikes them so much

Witch hunters seems almost as neglected as the de, not that i have ever played either as they are so rare, but i would imagine that they are overdue for a new codex too.

CODEX: CSM!

It suckz real bad.

codex: CSM is still competitive though. even if it's really boring and basically makes every chaos army the same.

Worst, as in straight up bad? Codex CSM.
Non-competitive? I'd say witch hunters.

I still weep for the CSM codex. I have my 2nd edition Chaos codex with me at all times to remind me of what Chaos actually is. Ahh those were the good days.

Though the CSM codex is bad, the DE codex is worse. I'd love to see that redone (still wouldnt play them, but it'd be nice to have something other than Marines...).

Necrons, both competitiveness and "neato" factor. I have a bunch of different units that all do the same thing? Cool, I think I'll take... a bunch of warriors, immortals, and destroyers. Oh boy is my army exciting. Insert sweeping advance complaints here.

ph34r wrote:

Non-competitive? I'd say witch hunters.

Witch hunters still have a useful purpose - a WH inquisitor is the best psychic defense in the game (unlimited ranged psychic hood + hammer of the witches, woo) and the celestians are one of the best all round sacrificial melta units available to imperial forces.

SoB mechanized lists are also still good. They're even better when you consider that you have, what, 7 other imperial books to borrow from if you need them?

i hear lots of people moaning about Tau's dex being

Yes, and those people are the ones who think FoF and mass fire warriors are the leetzorz!!11one, or the guys who insist on dumping ~300 points on a stealth marker team instead of some dirt cheap and disposable pathfinders, or put their whole army on the board with no kroot to screen against alpha strikes, etc.

A balanced tau army has the tools to be competitive against any 5th edition army. Just because they don't have the sweeping advance crutch to lean on doesn't make them bad.

Gorechild wrote:codex: CSM is still competitive though. even if it's really boring and basically makes every chaos army the same.

The point is, that it's being really boring and killing diversity/flavor put's codex:CSM in a top tier position as worst dex.
That it is "still competitive" is a side issue,sure it's competitive..and that's great..if that's all your looking for in a codex.

Chaos is now nothing why because the emperor wills it. God i just wanted to say that.

It among 4 races really

Daemon Hunters
Witch Hunters
Crons
Dark Eldar

Dark Eldar can own sometimes but once all there transport go poof well they are in trouble.
Crons Phase out just smashes them. Taking the Night Bringer or more than 1 Monolith just = easy phase out
Sisters unless you have 6 Rhino's and 5 immolaters on the field your not gonna win and against once those immo's go your the same as Dark Eldar in the open really.
Daemon Hunters if your not fielding more than 4 Land Raiders i think you may lose.

In end i say Witch Hunter because i like them and want them to get a new codex so i can start playing

Ok chaos topic again ok back to your codex read it through twice and maybe you'll find some kick ass combo's like i did chaos is hardly on the non-competitive list.

For being an epic fail army? CSM

In terms of non-competitiveness? Necrons.

Ripister wrote:
Sisters unless you have 6 Rhino's and 5 immolaters on the field your not gonna win and against once those immo's go your the same as Dark Eldar in the open really.

Hey, you can make any army look bad if you don't count their good builds. Sisters may have only one army that works, but good god does it work well. Nobody ever plays against it though because it's so expensive to assemble. 9 immolators are what, just over 300 bucks alone? and then you have to pay for all the crappy metal models.

Dark Eldar are still effective but uncommon for the same reasons (shooty transports that are cheap in points and hard on the wallet).

Compare that to Necrons' total effective list count of 0. Yeah.

Chaos players, at least you can steal the space wolves book for now. But seriously, I'll take boring background with a couple solid builds over boring and bad.

The Tau are despreatly in need for an Over Haul. They are niether Competative nor casual. I beat only two people out of my entire time ever playing with them..So my win Ratio is like 2/30

Yeah...they suck hard core. I read the entire book over and over and even With a good army and stratagy. They just suck really badly.

Here are the only good units in the entire Tau book

1.Hammer Head
2.Devil Fish
3.Broadside

Everything else needs either a boost in the weapons/ Range/ Attacks or is a few points too expensive.

Other then That

Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters, and Necrons are in bad need of a ravamp on their entire list and how the army works.

CSM might have been the worst of the major books recently in terms of capturing the diversity of builds previously allowed, it's actually not that bad in absolute terms.

In terms of power level, the DA might, ironically, be the worst off, simply because it's not nearly as outdated as things like DH or Necrons. Necrons are arguably the weakest codex, but that's the result of the edition changes, not a poor book to begin with.

DA might be the worst because it's criminally weak, it's all but killed support for one of the iconic chapters, it's bland and boring, and the whole thing seemed more like a beta test for the current SM book than a serious effort at Dark Angels.

Although CSM may be the regarded as the worst codex, the Tau book is pretty sloppy and poorly laid out.

Codex: Pan-Fo.

That is all.

Witchhunters are still very competitive - the sheer amount of melta is pretty overwhelming, and Acts of Faith can really catch you by surprise. I got tabled by them in 4 turns, and did next to nothing in return. Maybe that's just because I hadn't fought them before, but that's still pretty remarkable.

Dark Angels need their existence validated. Anything they can do, Wolfwing or vanilla Marines can do better. The book is blander than the Chaos codex and less competitive. A failure on all accounts.

Tau and Necrons are about in the same standing. They're both armies designed to not be as good in melee as say, Marines, but their shooting and survivability don't quite match up.

The Necron dex.
It's just needs alot more anti tank like ALOT.

Dark Eldar Just cause.

And Chaos for reasons everyone knows.

WH are competitive VIA Anti-Psycher death and Immolator Horde and allying with IG.

DH Are competitive in their massive LR assault and allying with IG.

DE are competitive for RAF.

Necrons just suck.

Necrons can be competetive, but it takes a lot of work.

Tau aren't really that bad, nor are chaos, the army list is fine, the codex itself might be horrible, but at least the army list is highly competitive.

The dark eldar CODEX is fine, I hate the models though.

And to quote someone from my FLGS

I have way more wins with my tau than with my deathwing

Dark-Angels is like the poor hybrid "Codex: Space Marines" between editions, it probably needs a revamp at some point.

No book that I know of is truly nonviable-- however, not all armies are easy to build or use. Necrons, in particular, are hurting in 5th edition, as their Troops choices are very bland, they have many unusual or poorly-adapted rules, and there are several deceptive options in the Codex that can easily trick a newcomer into making a bad list. Phase Out also really stings.

I'm sure we did this a month or two ago.

Chaos.

For all the reasons we've argued over a dozen times before...

Einherjar wrote:Witch hunters seems almost as neglected as the de, not that i have ever played either as they are so rare, but i would imagine that they are overdue for a new codex too.

Witch Hunters are a quite powerful army. Tau are also quite competitive with the correct build and good generalship (most noobs make stupid lists with Tau and then fail at running them).

Worst has to be Necrons.

Chaos Daemons are also fail. They are not competitive against any mech army.

I don't know about codex, since I've only read like 6 of them, but as far as unappealing army...

NECRONS

I mean, you got some ground skellies, then you got the big version that's half a skellie on a sled, then you got the little bugs, the also big version of that, and your pyramid that could be made out of a kleenex box and some bitz for like a 1/bajillionth of the price.

I think GW hates necron players or something. An entirely robot army has the potential to look WAY cooler than that.

CSM is the worst codex since all competitive armies look rather similar
and the former CSM codex was the best ever made.

I'm just going to say, as a guy that's gone to the mat for the anti-chaos book crowd more than once, that it's not even close to the worst book. It's strong, and it at least does a good job of representing one aspect of Chaos.

To claim it's worse than DA or Necrons in any seriousness is a little hard to swallow.

Just depends what you mean by 'worst' Polonius.

"Worst army to play" can mean many things.

If codex CSM was the first CSM codex I'd cut them a break. However it is one in a line of many, and is less good than the previous.

Codex Necrons isn't super-awesome but it is the first real Necron codex, and it was pretty good back in its home edition.

Codex Dark Angels isn't great but it's not a de-provement over the previous version of early 3rd edition-ness.

Necron Codex is really blah - background is poorly thought of, most of the units are very plain, fluff pieces are really sloppily written.

Depends how you define "worst". Power to point cost ratio? Number or dysfunctional/old rules? Background materiel? All the major candidates have been mentioned already. Some have issues with maybe one ( CSM ) and certain armies with all ( DE ).

My personal hit list would be something like this ( #1 being worst offender ).

1) Dark Eldar. We all know the deal here. Oldest current Codex now that SW got an update. 10+ years and still counting.
2) Necron. Copy/Paste lists and endless debates with rules ( WBB I am looking at you! ).
3) CSM. Can make powerful lists but at the cost of 10 000 years of history.
4) Tau Empire. 5th is mainly about close combat and that murders Tau.
5) DH & WH. Don`t rate a higher place simply because the rules for allying give some comfort. If playing a "pure" list, place would go up.
5) Dark Angels. A Beta- test, pure and simple. Your gear is weaker and your giving a 10% discount to your Codex brethren.

I loved the old CSM 'dex as this allowed you to create your own legion tuned to a specific Chaos God. The current 'dex has ruined it and now it just feels like the regular Marine 'dex with a few differences.