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.

1. My IG army struggles with templates and anything that is long range and ignores cover.
Reason: My army basically sits back in the Fortress of Redemption and tries forcing you to come into range. If you can out-range them, or ignore their cover, or have deep-striking templates or arty... it never ends well
2. My Necrons fear anything that rivals their mobility.
Reason: Force Concentration. My army teleports/ moves around to cut off parts of an opponent's force to destroy them. If the enemy has equal or even close to equal mobility, that becomes a serious issue.
3. I only have one weakness I know of with my Nurgle forces - the combination of templates and high strength AT. (Probably one of my strongest armies actually.)
Reason: I use Nurglings + GUO. The templates wreck the nurglings and high strength AT can whittle down the GUO.
4. My Harlequin KT seems to struggle against everything. I haven't had a win with them yet lol.
Reason: They're always outnumbered and never seem to be able to get into CC.

My daemons now fear Walkers, mainly because they will 1 shot most everything I would throw at them. All my greater daemons cant scratch them worth a damn anymore. Single smash, hit on 3, pen on 3 or 4, then I need a 5 or 6 to do something useful, just not really worth it.

My necrons fear high toughness and low save units. Riptides are a huge pain in the butt. Eldar can be annoying, because they are as fast as my vehicles, but have better range, and can ignore my cover. I run AV wall with necrons though, so most things are OK to deal with.

My blood angels really only struggle with high numbers of str8 ap3 or better large blasts, heavy mech lists, and transports. BA have a fairly limited selection in their codex, but there are a lot of gems as well that let us compete.

Army wise we struggle vs astra militarium and eldar. DE, wolves, orks, crons, daemons, etc, are all good matchups though, as well as all forms of marine armies

 vipoid wrote:

SaganGree wrote:
Not sure I agree with the MC issue for necrons... I have seen many a Necron player use a squad of snipers with a despair tec out of a Nightsythe to great success against WKs

How many snipers does he use?

If they're using a Death & Despair Squad, it's not the snipers you need to worry about, so much as the attached characters...

Silver_skates wrote:
I always have a big problem when people claim that Necrons suck in combat. I play Orks who should be good in combat.

Firstly, there's rapid fire rifles for overwatch.

True, but a few 6s are hardly something a Necron player can rely on to change the course of an assault.

... unless those few 6s happen to come from Tesla guns. Then you're in trouble.

Combat is a problem for Necrons because most of their defenses evaporate - their shiny guns are useless (barring overwatch), they have no Fearless, ATSKNF, stubborn or anysuch, and if they flee then RPs are worthless.

If you're playing against competitive Necrons, you will very rarely see them outside of their transports to assault... and those ones that don't take transport are not ones you want to tangle with (Wraiths).

Silver_skates wrote:
I wish I could play one of these armies where warscythes presumably accomplish something, rather than doing virtually nothing

Perhaps one day you will meet a Destroyer Lord and your wish will be granted.


Regardless, end of the day, 'Crons hate MCs, guys who are faster than they are, and to a lesser degree, choppy horde armies.

I feel as if the wolves struggle when they face a pure assault army or a pure shooting army. They can handle the in between to some extent

 skoffs wrote:
If they're using a Death & Despair Squad, it's not the snipers you need to worry about, so much as the attached characters...

Even for MCs?

It seems like they'd be more of a concern to elite units (Terminators, Nobz, Paladins etc.), since their templates can only ever inflict one wound. I do appreciate that, it is a near-guaranteed wound - but it still won't kill a MC by itself.

 skoffs wrote:
... unless those few 6s happen to come from Tesla guns. Then you're in trouble.

Thing is, the most devastating Tesla weapons are all on vehicles - which have no capacity for overwatch fire. Infantry units have far less impressive Tesla weapons, which will allow orks their saves (might not matter much for normal orks, but 'Ard Boyz would certainly come off better). Also, if you have tesla weapons, then you're getting half the shots compared to (rapid fire) gauss weapons.

However, if the defending player is very lucky and rolls a ton of 6s for overwatch, then tesla gets real ugly (but then, rolling several 6s for a S5 AP4 gun isn't anything to sneeze at either).

 skoffs wrote:
If you're playing against competitive Necrons, you will very rarely see them outside of their transports to assault... and those ones that don't take transport are not ones you want to tangle with (Wraiths).

Perhaps that's it then, because my Necron army lacks any transports.

Stuff you GW - I bought a footslogging army and I'm damn well going to keep playing it as a footslogging army. No matter how OP you make our transports... and how useful and durable you make vehicles in the core rules... sigh.

 skoffs wrote:

Perhaps one day you will meet a Destroyer Lord and your wish will be granted.

I bought one, but oddly enough he failed to provide free clones of himself to join each of my squads. Is their an upgrade I missed?

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 Sillycybin wrote:
All armies should have had reliable anti-air implemented when they decided to upset the game with fliers.

Synapse should only be a buff and losing synapse shouldn't turn your units stupid. Just as most of the game does not reflect the fluff for the purpose of having a good game, this is one of those things. Especially while assault is on the down.

Or atleast restored EW to Synapse.

DKoK

Immobile as hell, easily gets stomped by armies than can get in its face very quickly.

Otherwise same weaknesses as the IG, save for morale.

dark angels weaknesses: we have no reliable air cover and a lot of new players think it would be sweet to make a terminator army, discover terminators are the hardest unit to effictively field in all SM books. get angry and throw their models on ebay for 30 bucks a squad and go play another army because they overzealously charged in without asking questions or looking into it.

DA's i argue have gotten a LOT better in 7th and can borderline on moderately powerful when paired with a decent ally like knights (imp or grey), iron hands, or AM in the correct fashion.

but blunt force deathwing armies are made of the suck and will continue to be masochistically hard to run.

so heres our biggest weakness in a nut shell: too many rookies picking up our book and having no idea how to use it properly

 ionusx wrote:
dark angels weaknesses: we have no reliable air cover and a lot of new players think it would be sweet to make a terminator army, discover terminators are the hardest unit to effictively field in all SM books. get angry and throw their models on ebay for 30 bucks a squad and go play another army because they overzealously charged in without asking questions or looking into it.

DA's i argue have gotten a LOT better in 7th and can borderline on moderately powerful when paired with a decent ally like knights (imp or grey), iron hands, or AM in the correct fashion.

but blunt force deathwing armies are made of the suck and will continue to be masochistically hard to run.

so heres our biggest weakness in a nut shell: too many rookies picking up our book and having no idea how to use it properly

I'm one of these one day I'll learn

My CSM, Daemons, and IG get worked by Tau alpha strike. If I'm vs Tau and don't go first, its pretty much guaranteed I'm losing.

My Space Marines dislike Eldar immensely, specifically wave serpents. They specialize in things better than I do.

Overall I don't think Space Marines have too many weaknesses model by model, rather the main weakness is cost and numbers. At low point values, imperial knights can be a real pain, too, if you don't have the proper kit (like TH/SS termies hitting them in the feet to death).

Well, my army is Blood Angels, so let's see

1: Anything that treats my almost 20-point basic troops like gretchin when rolling to wound. (Ie str 6+/ap3)

2: Assault based hordes that can't be swept. Given that I will almost certainly be outnumbered to a great degree in any given game, I count on sweeping advances to cause more damage than I could actually do with just attacks. Daemons can still be taken out this way thanks to instability. Tyranids can be planned for: never assault anything in synapse range unless you can kill it normally. The new ork mob rule, though... If I drop two ASM squads on a nob squad hoping that the furious charge and extra attacks let me sweep them, and then they just roll an auto pass on the mob rule, then I'm stuck in combat with some remaining power klaws without any charge bonus, and I'm probably about to get counter assaulted since I couldn't consolidate away.

3: high tier armies. As is well known, our stuff is over costed, and when playing against models that are competitively priced, this is even more pronounced.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Well, my army is Blood Angels, so let's see

1: Anything that treats my almost 20-point basic troops like gretchin when rolling to wound. (Ie str 6+/ap3)

2: Assault based hordes that can't be swept. Given that I will almost certainly be outnumbered to a great degree in any given game, I count on sweeping advances to cause more damage than I could actually do with just attacks. Daemons can still be taken out this way thanks to instability. Tyranids can be planned for: never assault anything in synapse range unless you can kill it normally. The new ork mob rule, though... If I drop two ASM squads on a nob squad hoping that the furious charge and extra attacks let me sweep them, and then they just roll an auto pass on the mob rule, then I'm stuck in combat with some remaining power klaws without any charge bonus, and I'm probably about to get counter assaulted since I couldn't consolidate away.

3: high tier armies. As is well known, our stuff is over costed, and when playing against models that are competitively priced, this is even more pronounced.

:exalted: sums up the very reason i haven't touched my angels in months

'My army is bad because I refuse to use the good options in the codex'

@ The guy who runs footcrons.

ionusx wrote:... get angry and throw their models on ebay for 30 bucks a squad and go play another army

And hence one of the strengths of DA: really cheap models.

Anyways, for guard I'd say the biggest problem is high volumes of mid-strength firepower. Nearly everything in the entire army is T3 Sv5+ or AV12. Armies that can spam the hell out of S6/7 naturally rip my guard army apart.

The biggest problems I've found consistently are eldar and dark eldar, as both of them easily have enough firepower to blow away a couple of infantry platoons every turn, and when you're forced to choose between shooting the haywire wyches, blasterborne or dark lance ravager, all those vehicles you brought suddenly seem really vulnerable. Of course, add this same principle to mass ignores cover, and tau can be more than a challenge.

On the flip side, though, guard tend to do well against people with more specialized firepower, as it's easier to overwhelm a person with a big pile of tanks or dudes and leave whole classes of weapons without good targets.

Space Marines.

Negligible, terrible firepower, where's it decent you have to go to absurdly risky or inconvenient lengths to leverage it, it crumbles like wet tissue paper against competitive armies with shooting power, struggles to deal with MC's, and I have to field Tactical Marines. Tacticals are garbage, Terminators are garbage, Assault Squads are garbage, Rhinos are garbage, Predators are garbage, I mean really, its absurd.

So I don't play them anymore. Haven't for a year. Waste of time.

Imperial Guard.

None of the above. If I want something dead, I can kill it, and I can do it in 1-2 turns without complex, risky manoeuvres. I have plenty of heavy weaponry that can wipe anything I encounter off the board reliably.

Get in the short range and I can actually rely on my Platoons and Vets to rip you to ribbons. My Scions actually have a role. My Rough Riders aren't great but at least they can do meltas. Chimeras beat the snot out of Rhinos. Predators aren't battle tanks, and if you say they are I will laugh at you until I run out of water and oxygen with which to laugh.

That said, the weaknesses of my Guard generally begin with losing the heavy hitters. Once the tanks and the heavy fire support die the rest of the army struggles, and I 'm forced to play a game for draw or denial.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
'My army is bad because I refuse to use the good options in the codex'

@ The guy who runs footcrons.

Indeed, what a horrible person I am for not playing my army the "right way".

Truly people like me are the real Nazis of the gaming world.

I cannot understand how you took that purely as a personal attack at all. And there is no "right way" its just not using the good units should not go hand in hand with Codex effectiveness evaluation

My marines, yes powerful but not cheap on points so any loss,s are magnified several fol vs other armies.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
I cannot understand how you took that purely as a personal attack at all.

Because it was a personal attack, directed specifically at me.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
And there is no "right way" its just not using the good units should not go hand in hand with Codex effectiveness evaluation

Except that that's not what was said in the aforementioned post:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
'My army is bad because I refuse to use the good options in the codex'

Obviously I can't be using necrons the right way, or I wouldn't have a "bad" army, would I? QED

Regardless, let me put this another way, what makes my footcrons bad as an army?

- They meet all FoC requirements (not that they are requirement anymore, but I digress)
- They meet the points requirements (usually 1500pts for our games)
- I don't overspend on shiny upgrades
- They have a reasonable mix of weapons to take out different targets

Are they bad because Necron transports are overpowered/underpriced? If so, then does that mean that you consider everything else in the codex to be overpriced/underpowered? As in, every Necron list needs to include transports to make up for everything else being terrible? If not, then what makes any army without transports bad by default?

Furthermore, this isn't a thread about evaluating "codex effectiveness", it's about evaluating "army weaknesses". *My* army does have the weaknesses I stated. I do not expect other, different Necron lists to share those weaknesses - in the same way I'd expect an infantry-based IG army to have different weaknesses to a mechanized one. But, *my* army does have those weaknesses, and it is in no way invalid of me to post them in this thread.

Finally, even if this thread was (as you mistakenly claim) about "codex effectiveness" armies without "good" units would have an extremely important place in such threads. After all, you can choose to measure the very best armies of every codex against one another, but that's hardly a measure of the entire codex. You also have to consider how many units are considered good (possibly to the point where they're auto-includes), how many are bad (possibly to the point where taking them is detrimental to your list) etc. If a codex can make a good army, but only by ignoring 90% of the contents, then that's not a good codex. Likewise, if you're saying (and you are) that every Necron army that doesn't include one or both transports is automatically a bad army, then that codex has serious problems in effectiveness - because it's apparently being held together just by those 2 vehicles.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Space Marines.

Negligible, terrible firepower, where's it decent you have to go to absurdly risky or inconvenient lengths to leverage it, it crumbles like wet tissue paper against competitive armies with shooting power, struggles to deal with MC's, and I have to field Tactical Marines. Tacticals are garbage, Terminators are garbage, Assault Squads are garbage, Rhinos are garbage, Predators are garbage, I mean really, its absurd.

So I don't play them anymore. Haven't for a year. Waste of time.

Imperial Guard.

None of the above. If I want something dead, I can kill it, and I can do it in 1-2 turns without complex, risky manoeuvres. I have plenty of heavy weaponry that can wipe anything I encounter off the board reliably.

Get in the short range and I can actually rely on my Platoons and Vets to rip you to ribbons. My Scions actually have a role. My Rough Riders aren't great but at least they can do meltas. Chimeras beat the snot out of Rhinos. Predators aren't battle tanks, and if you say they are I will laugh at you until I run out of water and oxygen with which to laugh.

That said, the weaknesses of my Guard generally begin with losing the heavy hitters. Once the tanks and the heavy fire support die the rest of the army struggles, and I 'm forced to play a game for draw or denial.

Sounds like someone didnt know how to play Marines

Still waiting for that poor squats player
Bet you can't fix his army

I play Ork and my friend play Space Wolf. We did some games this weekend and I tried different list (So did he).

At the end of the day, I would say that Ork can do well this edition, but I've come to realise that army with Counter-Attack will be something that I have to be aware of. Since all the Space Wolf use their counter-attack on the turn I charge, and obviously have better Init than my Init2, they can make enough damage to deny my charge.

Same goes for Khorne Berzerker (you don't see them as much in competitive scene, but a friend of mine still love to run them because it's is favorite unit).

So like I post earlier in this thread: Ork cannot play as the lore dictate it. You CAN'T just run forward and hope for the best. Ork player have to start hiting the pen and paper and prepare well-though list where every points count, and do a bit more decision making on the battlefield.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
I cannot understand how you took that purely as a personal attack at all.

Because it was a personal attack, directed specifically at me.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
And there is no "right way" its just not using the good units should not go hand in hand with Codex effectiveness evaluation

Except that that's not what was said in the aforementioned post:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
'My army is bad because I refuse to use the good options in the codex'

Obviously I can't be using necrons the right way, or I wouldn't have a "bad" army, would I? QED

Regardless, let me put this another way, what makes my footcrons bad as an army?



Furthermore, this isn't a thread about evaluating "codex effectiveness", it's about evaluating "army weaknesses". *My* army does have the weaknesses I stated. I do not expect other, different Necron lists to share those weaknesses - in the same way I'd expect an infantry-based IG army to have different weaknesses to a mechanized one. But, *my* army does have those weaknesses, and it is in no way invalid of me to post them in this thread.

Finally, even if this thread was (as you mistakenly claim) about "codex effectiveness" armies without "good" units would have an extremely important place in such threads. After all, you can choose to measure the very best armies of every codex against one another, but that's hardly a measure of the entire codex. You also have to consider how many units are considered good (possibly to the point where they're auto-includes), how many are bad (possibly to the point where taking them is detrimental to your list) etc. If a codex can make a good army, but only by ignoring 90% of the contents, then that's not a good codex. Likewise, if you're saying (and you are) that every Necron army that doesn't include one or both transports is automatically a bad army, then that codex has serious problems in effectiveness - because it's apparently being held together just by those 2 vehicles.

Oh boy.

He's plainly stating as though there's a massive flaw in your logic, not questioning the morals of your mother.

Obviously I can't be using necrons the right way, or I wouldn't have a "bad" army, would I? + etc etc bla bla bla my footcrons aren't bad

The validity of him implying you think your footcrons are bad may be questionable, but the sillyness of your reply to him made me raise my eyebrow.

Admittedly I didn't read the post that triggered BrotherOfBone's response because nature of the one I spoke in reply to did not work as encouragement to that prospect. You got really fired up over one sentence, again.

Finally, even if this thread was (as you mistakenly claim) about "codex effectiveness"

Its still easily potentially relevant if your Codex is a steaming pile of gak and riddled with weaknesses, or if you Codex is so good there's hardly any of them. So no, you're wrong here.

armies without "good" units would have an extremely important place in such threads. After all, you can choose to measure the very best armies of every codex against one another, but that's hardly a measure of the entire codex. You also have to consider how many units are considered good (possibly to the point where they're auto-includes), how many are bad (possibly to the point where taking them is detrimental to your list) etc. If a codex can make a good army, but only by ignoring 90% of the contents, then that's not a good codex. Likewise, if you're saying (and you are) that every Necron army that doesn't include one or both transports is automatically a bad army, then that codex has serious problems in effectiveness - because it's apparently being held together just by those 2 vehicles.

The implication of my statement should clearly point to the idea that I was talking about the maximum effectiveness (tournament/competitive line of thought) rather than the spread distribution, (friendly gamer line of thought)

Lshowell wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Space Marines.

Negligible, terrible firepower, where's it decent you have to go to absurdly risky or inconvenient lengths to leverage it, it crumbles like wet tissue paper against competitive armies with shooting power, struggles to deal with MC's, and I have to field Tactical Marines. Tacticals are garbage, Terminators are garbage, Assault Squads are garbage, Rhinos are garbage, Predators are garbage, I mean really, its absurd.

So I don't play them anymore. Haven't for a year. Waste of time.

Imperial Guard.

None of the above. If I want something dead, I can kill it, and I can do it in 1-2 turns without complex, risky manoeuvres. I have plenty of heavy weaponry that can wipe anything I encounter off the board reliably.

Get in the short range and I can actually rely on my Platoons and Vets to rip you to ribbons. My Scions actually have a role. My Rough Riders aren't great but at least they can do meltas. Chimeras beat the snot out of Rhinos. Predators aren't battle tanks, and if you say they are I will laugh at you until I run out of water and oxygen with which to laugh.

That said, the weaknesses of my Guard generally begin with losing the heavy hitters. Once the tanks and the heavy fire support die the rest of the army struggles, and I 'm forced to play a game for draw or denial.

Sounds like someone didnt know how to play Marines

And then suddenly the points made in this thread about L2P comments being rude and weak substitute arguments seemed all the more valid to me

I had two play styles, mechanised and terminators. Both of which are just plain mediocre, and massively pale in comparison to my AM. Just look at all the direct unit to unit comparisons I made. I'd take my Guard tanks and my Guard infantry over my Marine equipment any day of the week. My Guard mechanised get triple the number of specials, get transport tanks that don't suck, and fire support that can actually reliably pull its weight.

I played Marines for years in mechanised and I picked up tons of last-ditch tricks and tactics that tried to save a terrible army. When the new DA book (and yes, I have played the new Marine book too) in 6th had just come out I went to a tourney and lost 4/5 games, but in 3 of the losses I came extremely close to a good result just because the one strength Marines have is scraping the bottom of the barrel for results. With my Guard its actually quite rare I get into such a position, because usually there's enough convenient firepower to apply and severely damage my opponent with.

Its Codex: Go Bikers or Grav Centurions or go home. They're the only builds that put out a level of firepower and strength I would find respectable.

In a Marine army you lack models, you lack convenient/easy-to-apply hard strengths, you lack any particularly remarkable fire support save for extreme circumstances with things like Thunderfire Cannons against GEQ. Either that, or they're a one trick pony in the case of Sternguard, and cost points through the roof. My Pask Executioner squadron does what a 1-turn-life-expectancy Sternguard squad do, but every turn and from the other side of the board.

You're correct that there are only specific strong builds within codex space marines, i wont deny that. You did forget to mention Drop Pod armies, which IMO if built correctly can be just as devistating as the two you already mentioned. I apologise if I insulted you, but your previous comment made it seem as though the entire codex space marines was rebush and completely beat out by astra militarium. I simply dont find this to be the case, however I did not know you were speaking of a specific gamestyle with specific units that you liked so took, and as you stated, those units just dont cut it. Again, I apologize if any offense was given.

With your edit, I'd like to add that one of the build I play is a heavy sternguard drop pod Crimson Fist army, and I find that I agree with the heavy points cost, but my Sternguard rarely dissappoint. If I take care of the problem like the unit is meant too, very few will die next turn.

Common Necron lists-

AV13 Wall
Weakness: melta spam, grav spam, AP2/1 spam(?).

Cron Air
Weakness: alpha strikes completely wiping out the few units on field, tabling you while the rest of your army is still in reserves.

Silver Tide
Weakness: getting swept in combat.

Wraith Wing
Weakness: hordes and better scoring MSU armies.

Scarab Farm
Weakness: template weapons of all variety and S6 spam.

Maximum Threat Overload
Weakness: long distance shooting and superior Tau overwatch.

Sentry Star
Weakness: armies that reserve all their good stuff on turn one.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Obviously I can't be using necrons the right way, or I wouldn't have a "bad" army, would I? + etc etc bla bla bla my footcrons aren't bad

The validity of him implying you think your footcrons are bad may be questionable, but the sillyness of your reply to him made me raise my eyebrow.

What made me raise my eyebrow was you acting perplexed as to why I was annoyed earlier, in the same post as you dismiss my response as "bla bla bla". This may come as a massive shock to you, but such responses rarely act to diffuse an argument.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Admittedly I didn't read the post that triggered BrotherOfBone's response because nature of the one I spoke in reply to did not work as encouragement to that prospect. You got really fired up over one sentence, again.

What do you mean "again"? I'd hardly call my initial reply "fired up". It was certainly well-stocked on the sarcasm front, but hardly laced with anger.

Also, could you please inform me of the minimum sentence requirement before I'm 'allowed' to get fired up? I mean, I wasn't aware that it required multiple sentences to be smug, dismissive, insulting, patronizing, condescending etc.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

And then suddenly the points made in this thread about L2P comments being rude and weak substitute arguments seemed all the more valid to me

Come, now - there's no need to get all fired up over one sentence, is there?. It was hardly a personal attack, and he wasn't making fat jokes about your mother, was he?

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

And then suddenly the points made in this thread about L2P comments being rude and weak substitute arguments seemed all the more valid to me

Come, now - there's no need to get all fired up over one sentence, is there?. It was hardly a personal attack, and he wasn't making fat jokes about your mother, was he?

Rude- inappropriate. It wasn't a personal attack, but it wasn't a great approach to the post either. BringOnBones was using mockery related to a sound logical point.

I can't be asked to reply to the trivial sewer water that forms the rest of your response, and despite the implication you feel obliged to continue and let this burn in your first part on "diffusing arguments" I have no wish to continue this pointless offtopic exchange. Welcome to my ignore list.