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.

All armies have strong, and weak points. Tau have good ranged, but bad assault. Tyranid are an army for swarming people with their blade arms, but few, common, ranged units. In opinion, which army is the hardest to play as, and win?. You can also take that question as, which army has the hardest tactic to execute, and the smallest window to execute the tactic in. Orks you just run across the board, Tau you set up in cover and blast away.

Id say daemons or dark eldar, both are incredibly unforgiving if you make mistakes

As an Ork player, my perception is somewhat rather biased - I'd say Tyranids. Of all the armies I've faced, they've rarely provided much of a challenge.

I've yet to win against Daemons, since they remove my ability to build up momentum. Tau can also kick my arse.

Tyranids? Just use anti-infantry, focus fire str8 wepaons on the big 'uns, and you should manage well.

I read this as "most complex", ie, hardest to get "right", and voted Necrons. I goofed, they're not the hardest to win with. They have (I think) the hardest tactics to execute, but not the smallest window to do it in. (?) Tyrannid tactics are pretty simple - but they're very difficult to win with, b/c GW keeps nerfing their dudes. not sure...

Zid wrote:Id say daemons or dark eldar, both are incredibly unforgiving if you make mistakes

So the most clear cut evil armies. I have yet to beat both those armies though, probably my lack of choice in models and experience. Dark eldar seem fun to play with pain tokens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:But not the smallest window to do it in. (?)

Like a sweet spot do make a move, like for orks, they have about a 2 turn window to WAAGH!

DE are very fun to play, but fragile as hell, even with FNP from the tokens (T 3 as a whole ) .

You can't just slam them across a board and expect them to survive, like you can with a MEQ army. You really have to think about what can get line to your units to shoot them, and whether it'd be a good idea to assault X unit or not. Not saying that MEQ don't benefit from some thought, but they are a hell of a lot more forgiving.

Ascalam wrote:DE are very fun to play, but fragile as hell, even with FNP from the tokens (T 3 as a whole ) .You can't just slam them across a board and expect them to survive, like you can with a MEQ army. You really have to think about what can get line to your units to shoot them, and whether it'd be a good idea to assault X unit or not.

That does sound like they need more tactics to win. But when I lost to them I felt they just swarmed me. I play SM and when I start a 2nd army I want one that you don't "slam across a board and expect them to survive" which it feels like I'm doing w/ my rhino and land raiders.

DE are fast, and rely on hitting you first, hard enough to stop you hitting back..

They WILL swarm you, because gods help them if you get to hit back :(

They hit hard, and generally hit first, but the return fire/retaliation is usually crippling.

DE are made of paper. The edges will leave nasty cuts, and are soaked in poison, but they still crumple all to easily.

I love how BT and SOB, the two weakest armies, are not on here.

Of the ones on the list? Probably tau. One miscalculation, or lucky run roll for the opponent, and you will end up in CC, and lose the entire game.

I voted Grey Knights, because why the hell would you put that on the list, and not BT, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Space Marines (you put it in the question by accident), Chaos Space Marines, or Sisters of Battle?

DE are not the hardest army to play.

They take finesse, you can't storm across the board like most MEQ armies. However, they're still an incredibly potent army with lots of tools and lots of built-in redundancy. They're paper fragile, no doubt, but they present so many threats that the enemy just doesn't have enough guns to eliminate them all.

Tyranids are suffering from a lack of redundant ranged anti-tank, and an abundance of means to deal with MCs.

Tau, Eldar, Daemons and CSM are feeling the codex creep pretty hard. They're older, they can't field as many models as newer armies and they tend to have less tools to deal with the wide range of threats presented in today's games.

I've heard bad things about Sisters, but I'm just not seeing it. Maybe the three sisters player at my local store are savants, but they are all very challenging to play against. I do hope they get a proper codex release soon though.

I'm sorry for the not listing of armies on the list, I do not have all the armies memorized.

I'm not so sure on DE either - and I play my DE regularly. I think they are on the higher side of this question especially if you take consistency of winning into account. DE can win some games very early on, or at least gain such an advantage that its hard to not win. However, as others have noted often a single mistake can mean you lose a game. So winning game after game can become challenging as a single mistake in any game could easily cost you the game.

I think I'm going to vote Tyranids. A combination of their lack-luster codex and their complex unit interactions make them difficult to win with, and the number of bad matchups they have make winning game after game nearly impossible.

You left out Sisters. BNo real hth units other than Celestine, No real long rage shooting. They do well at short range, but if they fail to stop your assault unit, they're screwed.

I have to say Nids. They just dont have what it takes in most metas right now. They just get wiped off the table too quckly. Flame templates are too abundant imo, and Nids fear them.

Tau, who d rank 2nd hardest to play, at least have viable options that can be taken advantage of.

I think it's Nids. Out of the very few games I saw with Tyranids, they've always gotten wiped out too easily

I said Grey Knights. I mean it is soooo hard to play as them....

I vote chaos demons as a skillful counter deployment can really play havoc against any plans they have.

As far as the hardest to play as, I'd say Daemons. They play entirely different from any other codex in the game. They basically have no long range shooting, barely any short range, and a bunch of interesting options and whatnot in CC and deployment. They require creativity, and there isn't as much help out there regarding theirt use as other armies.

However, I haven't seen them play enough to know wether they're better than nids or not.

Wood Elves.

Failing that, I'd say Chaos Demons or Tau.

I'd have to say Tau or 'nids.
Tau due to being outdated + run now being for everyone means it's an uphill struggle.
Tyranids because, well, GW seem to have something against them and keep nerfing the hell out of them.

Also, I'd like to point out as a veteran Dark Eldar player that we don't have to be a Glass Cannon, and actually have some hard as nails units quite capable of taking a hit then playing a game of rapeface.
Coven units, while slower are certainly resilient as hell.

I'd think Tau are the toughest. Everything beats you in assault so you really have to layer your forces and utilize JSJ to stay out of combat. Takes some fancy maneuvering and deploying.

Demons or 'nids may be tough to win with, but the armies themselves are pretty much point and shoot. You are either going to make it to assault, or not.

I want to say demons, but I'll have to go with tau simply due to the speed of all the armies and the fact if you get touched in melee you die.

juraigamer wrote:I want to say demons, but I'll have to go with tau simply due to the speed of all the armies and the fact if you get touched in melee you die.

This.

Today I had two suits charged by 4 guardsmen and they all died, no power weapons.

So it looks like 'nids and Tau, 'nids do get wiped fast but I've seen people play with guants in front and genestealers in the back and be quite successful. I've never played against Tau thought.

Tough one. I can't brag about having played all the armies. But of all the tactica's and BR's I've whitnessed, besides the games I've played, I believe Tau are the hardest to master. But I am really not sure.

eldar tau and demons. I think demons and tau have weaker codexes overall but I think eldar are the hardest to play, it is why i picked them up in the first place as a secondary army your units are good at oen thign and usually terrible at everything else to tactically they are just difficult, to me tau is scattered gunline, demons are like my orks charge forward and hope to get to the enemy while you are still alive then crash in assaults

Tau.

You screw up, misjudge shooting or assault range, and it's game.

I think there are several factors that make an army hard to play.

One is lack of good spam potential. Lists that can spam good AT units and good anti-infantry units (eg DE venom, blaster, ravager spam) with similar weapons (all that DE fire is poison 4+ or S8 AP2) mean decision making is very much easier than lists that have a variety of units and weapons in each role (or that fulfill both roles, where you have to choose). Equally units that have one AT weapon plus lots of weaker anti-infantry weapons make decision making harder than, say, 4 trueborn with blasters will require because of the high number of potential wasted shots in the former case if it chooses to engage a vehicle.

One is lack of mobility, especially for an assault-oriented army. But even a shooting army with limited mobility can struggle because they will likely be close to their board edge (morale checks...) and will find it hard to get up the board for distant objectives. Deep Strike can mitigate this but it's fairly random and often quite risky.

The third is units with low durability. This is the DE's sole real weakness.

the fourth is really linked to the first, but if your codex lacks a lot of decent AT fire you will struggle massively against a lot of currently fancied armies.

For those reasons I think Daemons are probably the hardest list to do well with. Tau, Eldar and Tyranids do have more problems than a lot of other codices against some army builds

Hardest to play is such a broad question. It really depends on how you approach armies and how you percieve their strengths and weaknesses:

The current Meta: Two armies pop into mind; Orks and Tyranids, both of which lack effective (though armory or biomorphs) ranged anti-tank to deal with the swell of transport armies that sprang up this edition.

Tactics: Dark Eldar and Necrons. It takes finesse to wield the Glass Cannons of the Dark Eldar well; paper vehicles and elfs don't mix. Necrons are a rather unique army, in that they have alot of different odds and ends (like Shards, Crypteks, and Quantum Shielding) that require some thinking to circumvent their glaring weakness in assaults.

Outdated: Chaos Marines and Tau. Chaos have expenses going against them in a majority of catagories and the Tau suffer from the change from 4th to 5th; +4 Universal Cover can be a real challenge for them.