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.

Thoughts?

This us how I would rank the releases so far from best to worst:

Daemons
Tau
Chaos space marines (ones that include the heldrakes)
Eldar
Dark angels

Tau and Eldar are the top two IMO. Daemons are hamstrung by their randomness a little, and I don't care if CSM have Heldrakes, Tau and Eldar work better as a whole.

Dark Angels with Deathwing work very well, being able to just drop all your terminators on whichever turn you want with twin liked shots, especially with scouting bike teleport homers, works *very* well.


Seeing as I haven't actually lost against a Daemon army yet since their release I want to say them, but I haven't faced a flying MC spam list yet.

Have to respectfully disagree with the title. I have found DA to be one of the better armies in terms of gameplay. Not necessarily overly powerful, but there is just so much of the "s" word in that codex and so many different tools and answers to different threats that I've really enjoyed playing with them!

Demons can be hamstrung by the randomness but can also be greatly rewarded by it. They have tabled me a few times (darn you Nurgle prince with Iron Arm!).

Worst gameplay wise for me (by a very very very wide margin) is CSM.. The book barely synergises with itself, creates odd lopsided lists that end up as one trick ponies, is generally (and surprisingly) points restrictive and actively penalizes you for using it.

I would also place Tau and Eldar in the top two slots. First and second place, but they would flip flop depending on the match-up. Demons? Tau are first imo. Marines? Eldar are first, etc etc.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Thoughts?

This us how I would rank the releases so far from best to worst:

Daemons
Tau
Chaos space marines (ones that include the heldrakes)
Eldar
Dark angels

CSM are by far the worst of the 6th edition codexes in terms of game play. The codex is choc full of terrible units that dont play well with each other. There are a few gems huddled in the fast attack section but that is it. All the viable CSM builds center around spamming the few units that arent terrible and then tactically try to mask or hide all the terribleness in the book.
It is a very unsatisfying army to play and to play against.

Tau I would rank as the best on the gameplay. Things work together, feel unique and allow you to really have fun. The codex has multiple viable builds.

DA have a bunch of possible builds that are all competitive and fun to play on the table top. There isnt much that is gamebreakingly powerful unless you really stretch the dakka banner but it's a complete codex.

Daemons are a bunch of craziness choc full together and from my exprience most daemon players havent yet figured out how to use their army, as it changed so much from 5th. I cant really comment on it being bad yet, but it is certainly looking that way.

Eldar are competitive again but I havent seen too many different types of armies. At least different parts of the army compliment each other.

With Dark Angels, I am frankly unsure why they deserved a codex over a supplement book. I can count all of their new squads on one hand, so really the only thing different between them and Space Marines is the unique characters, some special rules, and points reduction. It's cool enough (And it's nice having Devestators and Marines at lower points for exactly the same squad,) but I don't know if it merited a full new release.

IMO, if someone said a codex is bad, that because he didn't learn how to use it.

Waaaghpower wrote:
With Dark Angels, I am frankly unsure why they deserved a codex over a supplement book. I can count all of their new squads on one hand, so really the only thing different between them and Space Marines is the unique characters, some special rules, and points reduction. It's cool enough (And it's nice having Devestators and Marines at lower points for exactly the same squad,) but I don't know if it merited a full new release.

So in short you came onto this thread to rehash an argument that is already null and void (since DA are obviously out)? While they may have been a supplement I think that would've upset a good sized fanbase that the DA have.

To actually answer the OP.......no I don't think DA are the worst 6th codex gameplay wise. The units synergize nicely with one another and multiple builds are viable now (even Greenwing *gasp*). The Dark Angels dex just lacks those one or two power units or rules that really would've pushed them from being "average/competitive" to "tournament-winning". Although, if it wasn't for Heldrakes I bet Ravenwing would be all the hotness in tournies. (Nephilim is partially to blame here for us being so vulnerable to Heldrakes).

Waaaghpower wrote:
With Dark Angels, I am frankly unsure why they deserved a codex over a supplement book. I can count all of their new squads on one hand, so really the only thing different between them and Space Marines is the unique characters, some special rules, and points reduction. It's cool enough (And it's nice having Devestators and Marines at lower points for exactly the same squad,) but I don't know if it merited a full new release.

They really didn't need one, but GW has been committed to keeping every faction that currently has its own book, as its own book, regardless.

Waaaghpower wrote:
With Dark Angels, I am frankly unsure why they deserved a codex over a supplement book. I can count all of their new squads on one hand, so really the only thing different between them and Space Marines is the unique characters, some special rules, and points reduction. It's cool enough (And it's nice having Devestators and Marines at lower points for exactly the same squad,) but I don't know if it merited a full new release.

Sounds to me like you are a mutant with too many fingers on your hand:
Land Speeder Vengence
Land Speeder Darkshroud
Deathwing Knights
Black Knights
Dark Talon Flyer
Nelaphin Flyer


Also Regular Deathwing and Ravenwing Bikers have different rules to regular SM terminators and bikes

Also the copious amounts of fluff that DA have makes them a remarkedly different chapter background-wise....

Sounds to me like you are a mutant with too many fingers on your hand:
Land Speeder Vengence
Land Speeder Darkshroud
Deathwing Knights
Black Knights
Dark Talon Flyer
Nelaphin Flyer


Also Regular Deathwing and Ravenwing Bikers have different rules to regular SM terminators and bikes

And that's not even getting into the copious amounts of unique wargear, USRs and SCs the DA have.

IMO, if someone said a codex is bad, that because he didn't learn how to use it.

Ah yes. I love this one. Way to add ... nothing to the thread. you could at least have backed that up with additional thoughts.

To the OP:

I'm curious why you rated Eldar so low. Can you elaborate?

How is a codex that [with some upgrades] can have marines that are toughness 5, who can move "12" and then fire 4 twin-linked blotgun strength shots, whilst also being troops and costing 80pts for 3 weak?

I think the Dark Angels list is fine. The main thing that keeps puzzling me about the DA book is how dry and bland the fluff reads. It's Dark Angels!!!! for christ's sake. "For the Lion!". Deathwing! Betrayal: Robed Warrior Monks!

How they actually managed to make their background sound boring is beyond me.

Game-play wise however, I'd agree that CSM is the ugly one out. That book is just .... bad!

Indeed, the CSM book really just feels...phoned in, like it was supposed to be a WD update for 5e from the 4E book. Heldrakes are largely what keep it in peoples minds, aside from that, it's been a massive whiff.

I don't see the problem with Chaos Space Marines. I think it's a solid codex that missed a step here and there, but not really any more than any other codex. Dark Angels are likely the weakest of the 6th ed books, but that doesn't mean it's a weak codex per se. There's just so many counters to everything special it does in all the other 6th ed codices, whether it's the Heldrake or the amount of cover-ignoring shots that Tau and Eldar can put down on Ravenwing units. I think the codices have generally been pretty balanced this edition.

Part of the issue with the CSM book is that it is in many ways multiple books that are only partially represented. A Thousand Sons player generally isn't going to include Plague Marines or Mark of Nurgle units out of theme, or really any other cult, cutting out a good chunk of the codex and/or options, while at the same time there may just not be thematically appropriate units in other slots so certain capabilities are overlooked. Now this doesn't apply to everything, but it does to certain fluff builds.

On the other hand, the army is still really built around 4E/5E mechanics. There's a lot of heavy CC stuff that still wants to act like a 4E consolidation machine, and a lot of reliance on mid-AV vehicles that were solid in 5E but not so much in 6E due to the introduction of HP's. Likewise, a lot of mechanics from the old book are no longer there, like the Deep Strike homer aspect of icons. Then we get some sillyness where stuff was changed just as an excuse to stuff in some 6E rules in order to claim its a 6E book, like Berzerkers going from A2 to A1 and instead gaining Rage and Counterattack.

The current CSM book would have been king of 4th edition, but just can't shake that paradigm.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Part of the issue with the CSM book is that it is in many ways multiple books that are only partially represented. A Thousand Sons player generally isn't going to include Plague Marines or Mark of Nurgle units out of theme, or really any other cult, cutting out a good chunk of the codex and/or options, while at the same time there may just not be thematically appropriate units in other slots so certain capabilities are overlooked. Now this doesn't apply to everything, but it does to certain fluff builds.

On the other hand, the army is still really built around 4E/5E mechanics. There's a lot of heavy CC stuff that still wants to act like a 4E consolidation machine, and a lot of reliance on mid-AV vehicles that were solid in 5E but not so much in 6E due to the introduction of HP's. Likewise, a lot of mechanics from the old book are no longer there, like the Deep Strike homer aspect of icons. Then we get some sillyness where stuff was changed just as an excuse to stuff in some 6E rules in order to claim its a 6E book, like Berzerkers going from A2 to A1 and instead gaining Rage and Counterattack.

The current CSM book would have been king of 4th edition, but just can't shake that paradigm.

Agree with this, so much.

Best to worst: Tau, Eldar, Daemon, Dark Angel, Chaos Marine

DA is the best book for gameplay I find.

It allows a lot of builds which are compettitive, if not amazing, and does so without introducing anything people call cheese on.

Find me another book that's in that same sweet spot.

It'll never be outstanding, but its very hard to obsolete, its a good book to carry a SM chapter through to 8th ed, leaving more time for GW to focus on other things, and I hope BT and BA get similar books, which would leave time for a much better chaos dex next edition as a headliner.

A lot of the people here need to take a peak at the majortourneys / gt results. Csm and daemons have been at the top of the list. I play both csm and daemons. I very rarely liar. Often times I ally them together in 1750 points I can bring 4 fmc with biomancy and two drakes. That craps on people. It's too overwhelming. I've yet to lose to DA... Both Raven wing and death wing. From my experience they're just not strong.

Have to disagree. I have always found DA to be a very competitive army in 6th that can work well with multiple play styles.
I play CSM and I think they have an atrocious codex. There is no semblance of internal balance whatsoever. Chaos players are pigeon holed into taking the same army lists and avoiding all others like the plague.

Even if they take the same competitive list i.e drakes plague marines obliterators, it's more competitive than any dark angel variant. Throw in daemon ally and go to town

From the Batreps and handful of games that I've watched them in I would have to agree that DA are the worst of Gameplay wise.

CSM are the most dissapointing codex because of the depth that could have been added but was simply just thrown together quickly by the look of it. It should have been one of the most exciting and colourful codex released but it just isn't. I don't think they are bad gameplay wise, just bland and boring for the most part.

My hopes for more flavour are back up since the supplement news, the dull book could have been a basis for these supplement works.

still not sure if OP is serious or trolling... does he have any actual reasons for his rankings?

Absolutely.

Tau and eldar have yet to post top results at big events. Wargamescon that just happened saw daemon,csm, and crons at the top.

I think tau is still a good book and we'll see with eldar. But daemons and csm have proven themselves.

My list stands:
1.) Daemons
2.) Tau
3.)csm
4.) Eldar
5.) Da

Eldar have barely been out long enough to make a dent in tournament standings, Tau aren't far off.

If that is your sample, there is no discussion to be had.

I know tau aren't off and that's why they're behind daemons. The only sample to be had when talking "competitive" are major tourney results. Just because you don't like the data doesn't make the data erroneous... If you can'thandle that then maybe we shouldn't talk. Enjoy your evening sir.

I'm starting to think the OP is just a troll.

It doesn't matter to me what army tops in tournaments, I just enjoy playing my Dark Angels more then I like playing my Tau.

The only reason CSM keeps topping is because the Helldrake is overpowered, and many armies still have issues dealing with flyers.

If you're going to make a claim without any real evidence and no explanation, there is no reason to even discuss it. I just played my nids against orks tonight and won, therefore orks will never work against nids, right?