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.

Dark Eldar, due to the clear age of the models (they all look really terrible) and the difficulty in actually getting them (most places dont stock them anymore.)

Davicus wrote:

Dedrith wrote:
I'm surprised nobody but ZacktheChaosChild have brought up Tau yet; they have hardly any tactical flexibility, not to mention it's very hard to even give your opponent a challenge unless you know exactly how to play Tau. Though I suppose the same could be said with DE.

Hardly any tactical flexibility?
Maybe you don't really play Tau or havent met anyone who knows how to play Tau yet :-).
Or maybe you mean "hardly any tactical flexibility in the hands of a newbie/noob" ? That sounds more correct.

Well this thread IS about beginners after all. However i started with Tau and won on my 3rd game so i dont see whats so hard about them

dark eldar are not bad for beginners? they were in the 3rd edition starter set after all, but general inquisition would be very hard for a starter

I would say witch hunters, since cost is going to be a huge thing to consider for new players.

I voted SM but then, that is what I know.

For a beginner:
Too many options in your basic troop and support troops.

The SM codex is like brining out baking powder, flour, butter, sugar, eggs, and water. You can make bread, you can make tortillas, you can make muffins, you can make cookies, you can make pies, you can make scrambled eggs and toast.

You can also make a bunch of stuff that tastes like Bleh.

A beginner needs to learn how to play and learn tactics. They need a recipe book which the SM codex certainly is not.

They may be losing games b/c they have issues constructing an army that is cohesive and plays well together.

Sure, the SM are forgiving but that doesn't make for a good for a beginner learning the game, just lets them survive a bit longer.

Give me some Necrons to learn on any day. Limited choices, Upgrades only on the Lord. Not horrible to play and rules are not overly complicated.

I can make cookies everyday with Necrons. Sure my cookies aren't Chocolate chip, Oatmeal Raisin, or Snickerdoodles but with the Crons, Shortbread is no problem.

I honestly would pick any one of the armies as the worst one. I remember when I started how foreign this all looked to me. Having someone there who could have helped me more then the person I had would've helped. When I tried playing before I bought it my friend assembled the army for me. I wish he had walked me through it and explained some of that part to me before I bought it and tried to figure it out on my own.

@jgemrich: I started with a SM army and found the amount of options to be too many as you stated.

Whilst Space Marines have a bewildering array of options almost anything you pick will work to some degree as everything does nearly everything quite well.

SM are by far the best choice for a beginner IMO.

I was struck between Dark Eldar as they're so tough and unforgiving and Witchhunters as they have such a bewildering array of complex special rules expensive models and likewise are fairly unforgiving. I was edging toward DE because the basic trooper for the witch hunters is so good.

However in the end I plumbed for Tau as they are just the worst army. So there is no real learning curve even as you start to learn and improve your list it will still suck as they are the worst army which can be demoralising and well as reducing your learning as you rarely see the benefits of the correct decisions you make as the army is so weak.

SM for me are excellent for beginers, poor for moderate players and excellent again for experts which represents a nice learning curve. DE are tough on the beginner but start rewarding relatively quickly and a bit of DL spam can give even moderate players good results. I'd say similar with Eldar who are also tough for beginners and even moderate players and only when you get really competant do you start to reap rewards.

I voted Daemonhunters. Building an effective army from the Codex itself is very difficult. If you are using Allies that makes it a bit easier, but if we are talking about one Codex then what kind of build can you have? Pure Grey Knight, Radical Inquisitor with Storm Troopers?

Almost every new player I have seen who takes up the forces of either Necrons or daemonhunters gives up on the game after about a year. You can only go so far into the hobby based on a cool concept. When you have a firm grasp of an armies tactics and still lose 80% of your matches you start to hate the game.

I'm surprised to see dark eldar topping this list.
Even though they are the most difficult army to play you can still develop strategies that will win you the majority of your games, unlike daemonhunters and necrons.

Dark Eldar. Easily, because they are such a complex army.

I don't know why everyone is saying Tau. They have a suprisisngly simple tactic: shoot and keep out of combat. Of course as you get better you learn which units to target, but once you learn target priority it really isnt that hard. Also they do have a lot of flexibility, it's just aimed at weapon types, which for tau is still a lot of options.

Everyone saying how bad Tau are really over reacting, DH, WH, DE and crons are much harder.

InventionThirteen wrote:I still think Dark Eldar are awesome, even if you don't win. The game's not solely about winning?

Hmm gonna have to disagree here. The game is solely about winning. Can you point to somewhere in the BRB that states the object is to try and lose? The object of the game is to win the game, simple and straightforward its called a goal state. However you could also have fun building, painting, chatting, etc. while playing the game, but this is not the objective of the game as set in the rules.

I would side with most of the people here on the DE arguments.

My vote is for deamons. As all the rest of the armies follow similar principals, Armor, movement, deployment. Deamons throw all that into disarray. I think they are a great army, and a starter could play them, but you'd have trouble figuring out how they play. Just my thoughts though.


And FYI you play the game to have fun, you can actually DO that every time, where as you probably won't win every time. And if you're the type of person who ONLY has fun when they win, you might have some issues.

I said WH cos they have the most metal models, and as a beginner plastic is much better to work with! Then they are pretty boring to play also IMO

Strimen wrote:

InventionThirteen wrote:I still think Dark Eldar are awesome, even if you don't win. The game's not solely about winning?

Hmm gonna have to disagree here. The game is solely about winning. Can you point to somewhere in the BRB that states the object is to try and lose?

I take it you're not an Ork player... the game can totally be about having fun. I don't believe there's anywhere in the BRB that states you have to win either. Acting out a battle with a mate is great fun, win or lose. Winning is for tournaments

Anyway, back on topic. I plumped for DE too. They are very fragile and their basic weapon (Splinter Rifle) is very weak compared to those of other races. However, if you're good at unit positioning and combining attacks, they can very effective. Kitting out a Warrior unit with a load of Dark Lances can be pretty useful against Mech armies too.

Daemons - because someone starting with daemons would never learn the intricacies of sound deployment or the application of long range firepower.

They would become expert deepstrikers however.

An idea beginner army should be balanced and have a little bit of everything for the novice to try out. All-rounders like SM, CSM and Eldar therefore come to the top of the list and "specialty armies" like Daemons, Tau fall to the bottom. Actual "army power" is less important than giving the beginner the complete suite of troop types to play with. Ideally they will find their specialty and go for it in their second army.

I was thinking monetary wise, so i picked imperial guard.

I don't know why everyone is saying Tau. They have a suprisisngly simple tactic: shoot and keep out of combat. Of course as you get better you learn which units to target, but once you learn target priority it really isnt that hard. Also they do have a lot of flexibility, it's just aimed at weapon types, which for tau is still a lot of options.

Given that loads of armies can assault you in turn 1 staying out of combat is simply not possible. Or are you suggesting beginners try going Ninja or set their armies lists and deployment up to effectively castle (which still isn't effective against a decent assault list).

Tau suck hard I'm a Tau player (a long with other armies). They suck hard compare them with IG. IG will beat Tau in CC a guardsmen will beat a FW in CC (by the maths striking first and hiting on 3s is more important than the improved saved) yet is half the cost so point for point will nail Tau in CC. Guard armies are now as mobile if not more so than Tau armies and have more access to heavier fire power and cruicially loads of fire power that ignore the cover pervailent in 5th Ed. Something Tau are totally lacking.

The game is totally set up to favour assault armies. Tau can only shoot and aren't even the best at that anymore. Whilst IG can out shoot the Tau they can also tarpit enemy assaulters again something Tau have no access to.

That is the porblem with Tau if you are just learning against other beginners sure at first you'll do alright (I admittedly still win 6 out of 10 games with my Tau). But once they get clued up on assault and getting to you quickly game over. When you start to learn with your Tau your results will actually get worse as by then your opponents will have figured out how to get into CC without you having a single chance to shoot at them (turn 1 assaults and fast out flankers or massed out flankers). Then as you try to improve you army you'll never really learn anything as your army won't ever be competitive.

Tau are based largely on luck of that crucial tuirn of shooting they will get at some point. That maybe turn 1 after you've alphastruck them with what's left of their army it might be later. If that turn doesn't go well (I'm sure we've all had our pathfinders miss every ML on that criucial turn before) that is it game over. If it does go well, you'll probably still stuggle to stop your opponent.

Nothing dies like Tau in CC and many other armies can match them in a shooting battle (IG, Puppies, Vulkan, DE DL spam etc). It is just a lose lose for Tau as they can't out do other armies at anything.

I say Eldar.

I said WH because it was really hard to figure out the short distance shooting thing. I can say that for a beginner trying to learn the basic rules, too, this was really challenging. At least it was for me. I still mix up when I should use what AoF and with which unit...

What? Kroot didn't make the list?

I think that Dark Eldar are hard to play.

odinsgrandson wrote:What? Kroot didn't make the list?

You have to exist to make the list. Otherwise the Lost and the Damned would probably be up here too

Along with the Armored Company (or does the list still exist?).

I voted for Crons because, as my brother found, they can become really boring. Only having one plastic set makies it hard for begginers as it makes the army even more expensive that normal.

Yeah I'm going with Tau for all the reasons flingitnow listed, and the fact that even assault aside you need to have perfect target priority, deployment, and all the special tau specifics tricks down perfect in order to make the army work. All that being something I new player simply will not have.

deamons because they all deepstrike and are often hard to play because there very hit and miss

Davicus wrote:

Dedrith wrote:
I'm surprised nobody but ZacktheChaosChild have brought up Tau yet; they have hardly any tactical flexibility, not to mention it's very hard to even give your opponent a challenge unless you know exactly how to play Tau. Though I suppose the same could be said with DE.

Hardly any tactical flexibility?
Maybe you don't really play Tau or havent met anyone who knows how to play Tau yet :-).
Or maybe you mean "hardly any tactical flexibility in the hands of a newbie/noob" ? That sounds more correct.

I think he meant the last one, since Tau aren't for the newbies.

Overall, i'd have to say DH

i have to give it to deamonhunters becouse they dtuff is so expenisve znd you need them to do alot of stuff

Dark Eldar by far. Due to price of range for a good list and age of codex.