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.

The forums are full of players complaining that such and such is over powered and "I'm just not going to play that army anymore". However, there are equally as many saying "My army hyas been nerfed so much that I've put them into storage".

I'm not an experienced 40k player. I've gleaned most of my knowledge from these forums and in truth there's so much contradiction that I'm very confused.

So, if you fancy it, why don't you list the weakness (as you see them) with your army of choice. What do you struggle to deal with? What don't you have an answer for.

Well what these players are referring to is all a matter of perspective, some people try to play similar to how an army is portrayed in the books, and are thus annoyed when these lists don't work, and others that stick to the meta dislike when they are forced to run spam lists or when their spam list of choice becomes obsolete or of course you could be referring to the units that some armies have that just have no use on the table whatsoever, in that case two that spring to mind are Necron flayed ones, and Blood angel captains.

My Codex Space Marines can handle anything, but they're expensive, so its hard to build an army that can deal with everything within the points limit.


My Orks struggle with vehicles... Imperial Guard armoured columns for example.

 MagicMan wrote:
My Orks struggle with vehicles... Imperial Guard armoured columns for example.

I have to disagree, all you need is to kit out the boyz with rokkits, put the meganobz in trukks, let the bikes of the chains and see which power klaw spills the most motor oil.

I roll a full infantry army for AM/IG and struggle with tanks or fast moving armies that have high powered mass slaughter weapons such as DE, Orks or SM.

 blood guard26 wrote:

 MagicMan wrote:
My Orks struggle with vehicles... Imperial Guard armoured columns for example.

I have to disagree, all you need is to kit out the boyz with rokkits, put the meganobz in trukks, let the bikes of the chains and see which power klaw spills the most motor oil.

Its not impossible to destroy a load of tanks as Orks, but it is difficult, because you need to run up to the tanks and punch them.

This means you get shot to **** on the way in.

A Leman Russ is cheaper than a MANZ missile, and starts pounding the MANZ from turn one. The MANZ have to reach the LR to do anything.

I'm playing Ork, and what I find difficult is to find new skullz to crack open!
For real, I think Ork weakness is that you require a lot of though in your army list. You can't do a "good agaisnt all' type of list so you gotta dictate the way the game unfold. You need to have the list that people has to be good agaisnt instead of you preparing to counter something.
Best tip I have learn on Dakka to play Ork is: Pick a unit that you see yourself using (liking) and build around it either by spam or just a lot of supporting to that unit.
NEVER try to go everywhere when list building Ork.

People will prolly respond that you have to do the same with all faction, but from my experience, not doing it is way less forgiving for Ork than, let's say, Space Marine.

edit: add emote and fix some typo

Any army with lots of ignore cover hoses my dark eldar.
Likewise, I struggle with armies with really good cover, as I lack any type of ignore cover ranged shots.

I play Crimson Fist pods, so my weakness is if my sterns dont take care of buesiness right away, their liking to get their asses handed to them.

GK weakness (no henchmen) is lack of bodies and expensive models.

GK weakness (with henchmen) is cheap, but die very easily.

And they both lack ranged units.

Tyranids: Intelligent players wipe synapse and the army falls apart. Struggle to even reach melee vs a lot of armies. MCs are way too expensive for the stats they bring and are inferior to almost every single other codex's MCs for the points. Units have been getting nerfed, not buffed, with newer editions (genestealers from 5th, warriors from 4th, carnifexes from 4th ect). Lack of new useful units (seriously, all the new units are mediocre-bad in the 6th book).

I play eldar, im scared of high armour vehicles and ignores cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zephoid wrote:
Tyranids: Intelligent players wipe synapse and the army falls apart. Struggle to even reach melee vs a lot of armies. MCs are way too expensive for the stats they bring and are inferior to almost every single other codex's MCs for the points. Units have been getting nerfed, not buffed, with newer editions (genestealers from 5th, warriors from 4th, carnifexes from 4th ect). Lack of new useful units (seriously, all the new units are mediocre-bad in the 6th book).

Learn to play tyranids better. If they kill your synapse get more of it or hide it better..

I meant to post this with my previous post.. but a lot of the problems people have is that they themselves are bad at the game. Not everybody is a master tactician, or capable of assessing threats on the table in a timely manner. Just because one person loses every game with tyranids does not make tyranids a bad army. Also, it depends on lists, opponents, hard counters, etc. Warhammer is so random, outside of the top 3-4 armies it is basically anyones game. And those 3-4 armies can easily be beaten by the ones under if they have a good general and a favorable list.

CSM, they lack the supporting units that other codexs have and require more strategy than I would like to play at the same level as other codexs

 zephoid wrote:
Tyranids: Intelligent players wipe synapse and the army falls apart. Struggle to even reach melee vs a lot of armies. MCs are way too expensive for the stats they bring and are inferior to almost every single other codex's MCs for the points. Units have been getting nerfed, not buffed, with newer editions (genestealers from 5th, warriors from 4th, carnifexes from 4th ect). Lack of new useful units (seriously, all the new units are mediocre-bad in the 6th book).

Well in the new book Crones are useful and Exocrines are very good. That's 2 out of the 3 new units that are very popular. As to the rest, I wouldn't say that's Tyranids weakness honestly. A good Nid player will minimize the effect of Instinctive Behavior, and it's usually pretty difficult to take out all of a Tyranid players synapse.

As an army, I have found that Tyranids struggle against other Monstrous creatures (they are almost always better than ours, if less numerous) and armies with high amounts of cover or ignores cover. Wave Serpents are the epitomy of this thanks to their good cover saves and ignoring cover. Wraithknights and Daemon Princes (with Iron Arm, or FNP, or Shrouding) also are hard to deal with.

Of course if you build a land-based TMC list than the above applies, but that style is a bit outdated, and most of the best current Nid lists can avoid those problems.

My Tau have real problems with the elite assault armies (Screamerstar, invis'd beaststars, spawnstars, khornedog spam, Imp. knights etc)

I'm speaking of the truly elite tournament versions of the above. I think to deal with these items, you need to bring allies. So, for example, tau with an imperial knight themselves or a Wraithknight etc.

My tau have issues with scouting armies primarily, or just Eldar in general (not talking about both at once here).

DA friend plays a biker list and the entire army scouts or outflanks me. It literally depends on how well my dice are that first turn because turn 2 im getting assaulted and hammered with grenade launchers to get pasted by plasmas on my suits.

Necrons....hardly any long range fire, and pitiful Initiative codex-wide.

Tyranids: To biggest weakness are lack of grenadesque equipment on most assault units, and lack of EW and invulns. Seriously if GW gave nids away to slap either EW or an invul. on Warriors they would become a go to unit.

 changerofways wrote:
CSM, they lack the supporting units that other codexs have and require more strategy than I would like to play at the same level as other codexs

Csm is lacking period
Anti air, anti what ever, crappy cultist which are guardsmen -1,

That is why you must ally in daemons, crons, as/imp, etc...
I think it hilarious to ally csm with black legion or crimson slaughter.

Astra Militarum: Our elites section is pretty abysmal, save Scions. HQ choices are pretty meh as well. Makes for competing with psyker heavy armies nearly impossible and you're never going to have a deathstar that runs around beating other deathstars.

Blood Angels: Pricing mostly. Outdated codex (even with the FAQ) makes for very limited lists if you're looking to even remotely compete. Characters suck, mainly due to rules changes and again, pricing.

Space Marines: Eh, no real weaknesses save the lack of psyker competition.

chadbrochill17 wrote:
I play eldar, im scared of high armour vehicles and ignores cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zephoid wrote:
Tyranids: Intelligent players wipe synapse and the army falls apart. Struggle to even reach melee vs a lot of armies. MCs are way too expensive for the stats they bring and are inferior to almost every single other codex's MCs for the points. Units have been getting nerfed, not buffed, with newer editions (genestealers from 5th, warriors from 4th, carnifexes from 4th ect). Lack of new useful units (seriously, all the new units are mediocre-bad in the 6th book).

Learn to play tyranids better. If they kill your synapse get more of it or hide it better..

I meant to post this with my previous post.. but a lot of the problems people have is that they themselves are bad at the game. Not everybody is a master tactician, or capable of assessing threats on the table in a timely manner. Just because one person loses every game with tyranids does not make tyranids a bad army. Also, it depends on lists, opponents, hard counters, etc. Warhammer is so random, outside of the top 3-4 armies it is basically anyones game. And those 3-4 armies can easily be beaten by the ones under if they have a good general and a favorable list.

No, he is right on about Tyranids. There is no amount of being a "good player," which I assure you there are many of us Tyranid players who are, that can fix what is wrong with this army. Synapse is based on a few extremely expensive units that are fragile. The best way to mitigate this is to take units that mostly ignore IB, which means taking a lot of solo MCs...which is a bad because you then have a nidzilla list that, due to the nature of TMCs, is extremely fragile.

The best way to run Tyranids is with Skyblight and spamming FMCs which is great and all buuut...I am not about to spend that much money on that many Hive Crones and Harpies when they themselves are rather subpar units. I don't want to run the same list all the time that is in no way related to why I bought my Tyranids back in the first place in 3rd.

I play drop pod marines. EWO Riptides with IA's are the bane of my existence.

I play Eldar.

Typically a deathstar or Serpent spam.

Players with good target priorities I struggle against. Stop shooting my jetbikes!

I play space wolves. I struggle because many of my units are over costed and it's a really old codex. My biggest issues are tau and eldar. Tau shoot me up before I can get into CC, eldar make me spread my fire around trying to keep them off objectives. Invisibility and jinks are a pain to deal with and if I focus my fire on 1 or 2 units, they will own 4/6 objectives for that turn.

Dark Eldar:

- Vehicles. With the massive nerf to dark lances, destroying vehicles at range is now a real problem. And, it's not like I have any high-rate of fire weapons to strip hull points instead. If the enemy is using 1-2 vehicles I can probably cope (just), but any sort of transport spam and I might as well be putting on a light show.

- T3 spam - most notably Tau Firewarriors and IG. Seems an odd weakness, but there it is. Poison is terrible at taking down T3 guys. Although, the problem is more that both of these can kill my vehicles far faster than I can kill them.

- MCs. Not all MCs, but a lot of the current ones. Poison really isn't useful against MCs with 5-6 wounds and 2+ saves. And, even against 3+ saves, you're using a hell of a lot of firepower against something that continues to operate at full capacity until you take its very last wound. Now, against some MCs that's not so bad, but against something like a Riptide...

- Fliers. Remember those decent-strength, high-rate-of-fire weapons that don't exist? Yeah, I'm glad I don't have them or else I might actually have a chance against fliers.

- Tau. Tau have far superior firepower, at better range - and pretty good maneuverability too. Although, it's hard to outmaneuver them anyway - when they have so many weapons that ignore cover or fire without LoS. I don't mind being a glass cannon race, but at the moment I feel more like a glass water pistol.


Necrons:

- CC units - especially fast ones, Combat really isn't a good place for Necrons, so we really need to shoot enemy CC units to death. If we can't (e.g. because they're fast and can jump between cover), then things tend to go badly.

- MCs - wraithknights or 2+ save ones in particular. We really don't have many tools to deal with MCs - especially T8 ones or ones with 2+ saves.

 vipoid wrote:
Necrons:

- MCs - wraithknights or 2+ save ones in particular. We really don't have many tools to deal with MCs - especially T8 ones or ones with 2+ saves.

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

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.
Sure, you're initiative 2 but so are my Orks
T4 means that my STR 3 Orks need 5+ to wound
MSS tend to ruin my Nobz fun and there's always a war scythe hanging around.

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?

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.

Silver_skates wrote:

Sure, you're initiative 2 but so are my Orks

I2 isn't the problem.

Silver_skates wrote:

T4 means that my STR 3 Orks need 5+ to wound

That one is pushing it.

If you're charging (and, if you're taking overwatch fire, you must be charging), then your orks have S4. Not to mention about 4 attacks each.

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.

Silver_skates wrote:

MSS tend to ruin my Nobz fun and there's always a war scythe hanging around.

I wish I could play these Necron armies which can afford to just have Lords with MSS and Warscythe hanging around in every single squad. In fact, I wish I could play one of these armies where warscythes presumably accomplish something, rather than doing virtually nothing - because their owner has WS4 and 2 attacks.

Silver_skates wrote:
The forums are full of players complaining that such and such is over powered and "I'm just not going to play that army anymore". However, there are equally as many saying "My army hyas been nerfed so much that I've put them into storage".

I'm not an experienced 40k player. I've gleaned most of my knowledge from these forums and in truth there's so much contradiction that I'm very confused.

So, if you fancy it, why don't you list the weakness (as you see them) with your army of choice. What do you struggle to deal with? What don't you have an answer for.

Well, I play Nids...our "issues"? Range, and AV13+. Our answers? Having an even temper. (The answers are few, Smash used to be an answer, and that got Nerfed, Vector Strike, also Nerfed...count to 10... )

pinecone77 wrote:
Well, I play Nids...our "issues"? Range, and AV13+. Our answers? Having an even temper.

I wish this was less true...