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.

New to the game, choosing an army to start,

Is there somewhere on the internets a brief rundown on the armies? I'm familiar with the fluff (background and flavor) but I get a little lost telling the differences between them. For instance, tactically how do Imperial Guard and Tau differ, and which is better in close combat, orks, tyranids or chaos daemons?

If anyone has a link, or would like to throw down their own tactical pros and cons list, I'd really appreciate that.

So, with a few exceptions, any army can be contorted to do anything in any way. The principles of long and short range killing power, mobility, and maneuver are present in all armies, it's just that they all bring a slightly different set of modus operandii that they have advantages in - different flavors of the main concepts, if you will. Of course, you don't have to conform to these "flavors", they're simply advantages, not iron-clad requirements as some will say.

In the end, an army is successful if its killing power is balanced, if its army makeup is redundant, and if its approach to things is relatively simple and straightforward. All armies have the ability to deliver on these things.

Perhaps if you give us more what you're looking for, we could match an army to you, rather than saying something about everything so as to match you to an army.

... because otherwise, all you're going to get is people pitching you dry, old, and largely irrelevant stereotypes, which probably won't actually help you build a good 5th edition list, much less play it competitively.

Okay, you make a very good point. Maybe it would be better if I told you what it was about each army I didn't like. I hope I wont come off as a bigot as a result.

Space Marines: I feel like they're overplayed. I don't want to be 'just another space marine player'.

Imperial Guard: I'd really like an army that can excel at close combat.

Chaos Space Marines: Just like Space Marines, from what I understand these guys are over-played.

Eldar: I used to play back in 3e, and I had an Eldar Army. I enjoyed it, but wouldn't want to revisit it, just because I've done it before.

Dark Eldar: while mobility is an admirable thing to look for in an army, is it actually rewarded in game? I have trouble believing maneuverability could help you against space marine power armor.

Witch Hunters: I don't like the gospel style of their vehicles.

Daemon Hunters: Aren't they just another kind of space marine army?

Orks: there's something about their style I don't like. I don't think I could paint an ork horde.

Tyranids: See above, but worse, because it seems like all hormagaunts look the same.

Chaos Daemons: Seriously considered them. But their points costs are through the roof, the models don't see to be very versatile, and in the battle reports I watched on youtube they never won.

Necrons: Phase out at 25%? that seems really rough. And also, I'm not noticing any real variation in Necron army compositions.

Tau: I'd really like an army that can excel at close combat.

So again, not trying to be a bigot, but those are the things keeping me from picking any of those armies. Could someone help me out, explain what I'm looking at wrong?

Okay, so what you WANT is old, largely irrelevant stereotypes?

Why?

Don't even bother with any of that ranking BS
pick the army you like the look of. that's all you need to do
if you're really hurting for "the best army" narrow it down to 5th edition dexes, as they all tend to be more powerful than outdated ones.
If painting hordes isn't your deal, play MEQ or DE
If you scrolled back a couple pages in this forum, you'd find X lists of racial pros and cons.. So why bother doing it all over again? Esp, since you've gone and done it for yourself?

CSM? Over played? I dunno about that. I'd say marines in general are overplayed. CSM are just a cooler, easier to convert branch of MEQs

Anyway, this thread is weird.

Ailaros wrote:Okay, so what you WANT is old, largely irrelevant stereotypes?

Why?

THAT, okay, THAT is what I want. What have I gotten wrong?

Space Marine Armies of all kind are generally All-comers, with decent ability in all phases and fields (mass gunline, transports, tanks, close combat specialist, mass close combat attacks, elite armies, semi-horde with scouts, etc). It's one of the reasons why they're appealing for new players, since it's forgiving and will show you what aspects of an army you like. The other armies are where you get into specializations.

Norma Space Marines have a little of everything. They really have no specialization if you choose no specialization.

Space Wolves, Black Templars, CHaos Space Marines, and Blood Angels are all more close-combat oriented than normal vanilla space marines. Their differences are largely minor, with only a few special rules and unit choices separating them from eachother. Black Templar stands out among them due to still being a 4th edition book and largely having different options and more quirky organisation.

Eldar Armies are for those who want a set purpose for each unit. They're also glass-cannon type army that relies on swift strikes and cover, as they possess low toughness and are easily dispatched by most weapons. They strike hard however, and few things can withstand their attacks. Those that can, however, usually can strike back with enough force to crush the Eldar, so plan your attacks carefully if you choose these guys. Not a good beginning point.

Dark Eldar similarly focuses are a bunch of swift attacks and special effects that cripple and destroy the enemy even better than their normal cousins. However, they are even more fragile, as on top of the low toughess, rarely does anything in the army have an armor save better than 5+ (so most of the time you wont even get your armor save).

Necrons are an old but still viable army. Their main perk is that their basic trooper can cause glancing hits on any tank via shooting (normally most rank and file troopers cant) and their army-wide Feel no Pain-like ability. They perform almost solely as a gunline army with Destroyers providing high speed harassment, with a few units filling out close combat roles. They're the more durable of the two Primarily ranged armies.

The Tau are the infamous rangers, having the worst close combat troops in the game, and using almost exclusively ranged weapons. They have the best basic gun in the game, as well as some of the most powerful tank poppers too. They are showing their age however, and most of their options are overpriced or otherwise not viable (Aun Va comes to mind). They're the more squishy of the two ranged armies, as they possess Eldar-like durablity on their rank and file troops, and their battlesutis are more susceptable to Instant Death Weapons, however they have some of the best ranged weapons in the game.

The Tyranids are one of the three "horde" based armies, and mostly close combat oriented. Their shooting weapons lack high AP, meaning you have to get in close and personal to deal with heavy armor. Tyranids, being bio-organic, have no tanks whatsoever. They compensate with an absurd amount of monstrous creatures (even a drop pod-like one), which has lead to the infamous "Nidzilla" army type. They possess unique rules and are quite powerful in close combat. However there is little room for customization as several units are just simply better than the other choices, and other ones (such as the Lictor) are just not viable for the points you pay. They're also extremely weak against Dark Eldar, due to the latter's abundance of Poisoned weapons, and to anything causing Instant Death (as none of them have eternal warrior and few have an invulnerable save).

The Imperial Guard are what I see as the foil for the Tyranids. Exponentially larger in numbers (legally can field the most models for how many Force Organisation slots you get) they can field an enormous amount of tanks and armored vehicles. Considered to be one of the best codexes, and currently the only non-marine codex to be considered overpowered. They also have the Order System, certain buffs you can grant a squad of infantry every turn for a special effect (the most notable in my mind is FRFSRF, which puts out an absurd amount of shots). They're really good at ranged combat of all forms, and perform decently in close combat thanks to Ministrum priests, a select few characters and sheer numbers.

Orks are the third "horde" army and currently one of the most fun codexes to play. They come in the starter box with a decently sized force, are easy to convert models for and do pretty strong in tournaments. There are also a wide variety of builds that work, from dakka (lots of shoota boyz supported by ranged weapons) to green tide (lots of Ork Choppa boyz) to kan Wall (nothing but walkers and 2 Big Meks) to Nob Bikerz (a special FoC organisation like the Kan Wall that uses Nobz on bikes with 2 Warbosses). Certainly one of the most fun armies to play, and I would consider them the "horde" counterpart to Space Marines (although they are nowhere near as tactically flexible, but just easily adaptable).

Chaos Daemons are largely a fluff-based army, since most of their stuff reflects how they react in-fluff. On the tabletop their performance is completely dependant on the dice roll. If you get a good roll, you can potentally curbstomp the enemy to death. Get a bad roll and your opponent will destroy your army piecemeal. The main hook of Daemons is their ability to deepstrike their entire army. They also have many unique troops, as well as army wide invulnerable saves and Eternal Warrior. Their main problem, however, is both the aforementioned randomness due to Deepstrike, and the fact that rarely does anything in the army have a save better than 4+, and a good number have a 5+ save and nothing else. They cost moderately high, so most of the time you wont have abalative wounds to ease the losses, hence why again it's largely dependant on whether or not fate likes you.

Daemonhunters and Witchhunters seems to be slated for release under new names, so their playstyles will likely change. Currently they are mostly "add on" armies for other Imperial books. Daemonhunters provide the Grey Knights, which are more expensive, but powerful versions of normal Space marines. Their ranged weapons tend to ignore invulnerable saves, so they're really good at killing Daemons (as their name suggests). Witchhunters are a cheaper version of Space Marines, with an appropriate stat decrease. They also focus more on flamer template weapons and around their unique "Acts of Faith" system, which is similar to the Psychic powers of other races, but cannot be conventionally dispelled as they are technically a completely different mechanic.

Thanks a bunch Mecha, that was excellent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going with Dark Eldar, thanks for the help.

Yeah Mecha, that's the best description I've seen, as someone new to 40k that's been looking around for these descriptions. Much better than GW does in the rulebook or on their website, IMO.

Thanks!

Mukkin'About wrote:Don't even bother with any of that ranking BS
pick the army you like the look of. that's all you need to do
if you're really hurting for "the best army" narrow it down to 5th edition dexes, as they all tend to be more powerful than outdated ones.
If painting hordes isn't your deal, play MEQ or DE
If you scrolled back a couple pages in this forum, you'd find X lists of racial pros and cons.. So why bother doing it all over again? Esp, since you've gone and done it for yourself?

Always this. Who cares if you find the greatest army ever if you hate the models. If you find one you like and play it you'll find ways to stand a chance even with the crappiest army ever.
But, it is always good to know what they are like and you should keep both in mind when selecting an army.

From a friend from another forum:

"I call bs on the idea of broken armies. Everyone cries about it, but for some reason the good players win no matter what. I played Blood Angels and IG mostly. When I played my Tank Company I usually beat my opponent pretty quick. When the crybaby bs started from them I traded armies with them and beat my Tank Company even faster. DE had one of the first Codexes... if not the first in 3rd, and our resident DE player was the guy no one wanted to run into at a tourney. Good players win, bad players bitch. I only payed for less than half of the thousands of dollars of GW stuff I own, the rest I won. As for the dice deciding... well, I guess if you suck. Any time you base your plans on a die roll, you already lost. The thing with GW is that they really do have good rules. They playtest and get it right more times than not. The guys who play these games often times know their gak and when a pewter pusher comes in and isn't exactly in the right mind set, they get destroyed. Then of course the bitching starts about the army because heaven forfend we blame the joker telling the little plastic men what to do. I didn't win because I ran Blood Angels. I won because when my Death Company jumped out of their Rhino, I knew where each marine was going to be. I knew how to deploy and I knew where things would get messy.

GW rules to winning:

Play the mission. Don't worry about anything except the victory conditions.

Know your army. Know their army.

Know the rules.

That's it. Shockingly simple."

I like that. It keeps me from succumbing to the "this new codex is borken" mentality.

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:From a friend from another forum:

"I call bs on the idea of broken armies. Everyone cries about it, but for some reason the good players win no matter what. I played Blood Angels and IG mostly. When I played my Tank Company I usually beat my opponent pretty quick. When the crybaby bs started from them I traded armies with them and beat my Tank Company even faster. DE had one of the first Codexes... if not the first in 3rd, and our resident DE player was the guy no one wanted to run into at a tourney. Good players win, bad players bitch. I only payed for less than half of the thousands of dollars of GW stuff I own, the rest I won. As for the dice deciding... well, I guess if you suck. Any time you base your plans on a die roll, you already lost. The thing with GW is that they really do have good rules. They playtest and get it right more times than not. The guys who play these games often times know their gak and when a pewter pusher comes in and isn't exactly in the right mind set, they get destroyed. Then of course the bitching starts about the army because heaven forfend we blame the joker telling the little plastic men what to do. I didn't win because I ran Blood Angels. I won because when my Death Company jumped out of their Rhino, I knew where each marine was going to be. I knew how to deploy and I knew where things would get messy.

GW rules to winning:

Play the mission. Don't worry about anything except the victory conditions.

Know your army. Know their army.

Know the rules.

That's it. Shockingly simple."

I like that. It keeps me from succumbing to the "this new codex is borken" mentality.

I agree for the most part, but for instance if you are playing Daemons and you roll on your reserve rolls that means for possibly 5 rounds you are taking a force of half the size of what it should be. Something else to keep in mind is that some armies are more forgiving for instance you screw up with IG infantry army its probably game over, you screw up with necrons you can probably recoup and win.(for the rules to winning I completely agree)

Squash wrote:
Tau: I'd really like an army that can excel at close combat.

when i played tau in 4th ed. (may have changed) CC is the last thing you want.

tau are mostly get them in range and RF into them as fast as you can.

I believe I can help you here

Necrons

Pros:

Codex based around a 90's song

Cons:

Codex based around a 90's song, and if your army falls to 25% its original size the rest of the guys teleport of the board.

Chaos Daemons are largely a fluff-based army, since most of their stuff reflects how they react in-fluff. On the tabletop their performance is completely dependant on the dice roll. If you get a good roll, you can potentally curbstomp the enemy to death. Get a bad roll and your opponent will destroy your army piecemeal. The main hook of Daemons is their ability to deepstrike their entire army. They also have many unique troops, as well as army wide invulnerable saves and Eternal Warrior. Their main problem, however, is both the aforementioned randomness due to Deepstrike, and the fact that rarely does anything in the army have a save better than 4+, and a good number have a 5+ save and nothing else. They cost moderately high, so most of the time you wont have abalative wounds to ease the losses, hence why again it's largely dependant on whether or not fate likes you.

I'd disagree with the overly random baloney that players seem to lock onto Daemons with. Daemons are not an easy army to play, but a good player can mitigate the randomness. You just have to be able to roll with the punches and adapt.

When I enter a battle with my CSM army I know what I play to do (move forward, hit the enemy transports/scary targets with shooting, then CC). I feel like most armies operate this way. With Daemons you must be able to figure out ways to adapt to the situation. You control the flow of the battle with deepstriking. Also, to the OP I play Daemons and win all the time. They aren't an insta win but they are very, very good.

OP...I play daemons also. You have to get used to them, but they are great once you learn how to use them. Saying your success is based on dice rolls is true for every army...sure if I don't roll a 4+ my reserves won't come in...but if I roll a couple sixes your tanks are toast. If you roll a couple sixes your psyker is dead or your unit is running.

I love my daemons because of how they look...and I'm an in your face player. If you prefer to hide and shoot from cover, take IG or Tau or Necrons. Necrons and Tau are not overly powerful...but both are due for a codex update soon, and if they follow the route of DE then they will be significantly better.

I tend to choose my words very carefully, Daemons are very much dependant on the Dice Rolls, and in the opening phases there's very little you can do to midigate that fact. While you can midigate which half of the army you have coming in by making a symmetrical list, it will be tactically restrictive (either you'd be choosing everything in duplicate, OR you have to make a choice about what you want to come in). Daemons lack Mishap negation in the first round, unlike other Deepstrike-based armies (SMs in Drop pods or Descent of Angels mainly, or Nids using Trygons to tunnel in and Mycetic Drop Spores. Hell even CSM have some form of Mishap negation in the form of Icons that can appear on the first turn). Normally that's not a bad thing, but when your whole army depends on it, you kinda want the deepstrike to be accurate. They're also the only army where your opponent is pretty much guarenteed a free shot at you (unless you used Tzeentch units and/or the heavy support choices with ranged loadouts). That is much more randomness than any other army in the game, and one or two bad rolls could potentially spell doom for your entire army. Bouncing back from all of that is hard enough for a good player, and hellish for newcomers.

Of course the decision is still his, but if he wants an introduction to Daemons, Drop Pod Marines might be a better stepping stone, or Chaos Marines (so he can start collecting some Daemons), who have a better delivery system than Daemonic Assault.