What is the worst 40k Army?

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.

**jifel**

Vineheart01 wrote:

i dont even think i heard this much "the army as a whole sucks" about Tyranids in the slightest, and they are by far worse off than orks. Least orks still function, i win a majority of my games with them with almost none of them being total stomps, so they were fun and challenging.

To the tyranids 20% of the codex comment. That makes the codex bad in my opinion. Theres literally ONE list for tyranids that actually works and has a chance if your opponent isnt a deadbeat moron, and i dont know about you but i for one hate mono-list races. This is why old-dex orks pissed me off, it was field Nob Bikers and crush my opponent or dont use them and lose by turn3. I got bored of using the same damn thing every time.

There are quite a few lists for Tyranids that do well. Most of the people that say Tyranids suck haven't played an experienced Tyranid player, they just look at individual units. That's just not how Tyranids work, it's all about the support and the army as a whole. Also, I have to disagree with the "dead beat moron" comment, there are plenty of instances of Tyranids doing pretty well in top GTs. Have they won them? No. But so far that's pretty much been space marines winning, so plenty of armies are left out.

The Tyranid codex is as because many of it's units and features don't work at all how they should, but that doesn't make the army bad. It's a huge distinction, because a properly built Tyranid army is scary as heck.

Back to the OP, Orks are not even close to the worst army. That has to be Blood Angels because of how much better SM are. Orks are mid tier at least, maybe higher.

**jifel**

Carnage43 wrote:
techsoldaten wrote:
To all the people quoting BAO results: these are poor indicators of success. Look at the following and sort by Strength of Schedule.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Bay-Area-Open-Championships/4/leaderboard

You will notice the top 10 players had the weakest strength of schedule. Appears there is some kind of correlation between winning and playing a weak army.

Can't tell if you are joking, or you don't know how strength of schedule is calculated....

He's not joking.

Strength of schedule in the BAO is, to my knowledge, the total number of points given up to your opponents. So the winner of the event just happened to allow the least amount of points to his opponents... I bet that's how he won six games!

The name "strength of schedule" logically sounds like it should be how tough your opponents were, I'll give you that one. But, that's not what the actual statistic is. It's just how many total point you gave up. Each win awards 1000 points, each draw 500, so the player with wins and one draw only gave up 500 and something points.

**jifel**

RancidHate wrote:
To Asmodas; a very reasonable interpretation. However, I been playin Eldar since '06 and DE since '11. Yes Big Nids are weak against DE poison, Little Nids might swarm OK. Just the same, those other 5 years, I had dozens of matches against Nids, never lost! Now they're even worse...

I wouldn't put too much faith in DEldar vs Nids these days... 7th edition flipped that matchup completely. Tyranid FMCs are complete death to all DEldar units, and DEldar have no anti Nid FMC. Sure thy can kill the stuff on the ground, but few good Nid lists have a lot of land MCs. True in 5th and 6th it sucked, but try playing Tyranids in 7th. I've played two DEldar lists in 7th, after 5 turns in each one player had 3 warriors left, the other was tabled. DEldar simply can't handle FMCs now.

I genuinely don't understand the continued Tyranid hate. The book is bland, sure, but the army is consistently placing around or above the middle of the pack on ToF and the two big GTs we've had so far.

**jifel**

kungfujew wrote:
I know this is supposed to be focused on Orks, but I have to chime in about the Tyranid comments I keep reading. Since the Tyranid codex came out, my nids are 7 and 0 and I play nothing that looks anything like the net lists I see, or even the same list twice in a row. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I lost with my Tyranids. That's not just me bragging, I can't remember the last time I beat Rythem's Nids either and I also don't think he uses net lists.

So I have to echo Bludbaff's above statement. I was on a terrible losing streak with my chaos marines until I started thinking outside the box of my usual lists and I've had some very positive results since.

There's no "worst army" in 40k. There are "worst armies for you". I don't think I'd do well as Tau, no matter if I used nothing but the most "competative" list I could find, but my Tyranids and I have a very hard time losing because regardless of the units I take the army as a whole suits my favourite playstyle.

As a Nid player, what kind of lists do you run? I like hearing about uncommon lists doing well!