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.

...which army is going to be the one generally considered the "worst"? Current BT aren't terrible, but they're just overpriced in some areas and outdated and outclassed due to their age and can't really keep up with the other Codices and so they've been the go-to example of the weakest Codex in 40k. However, with the new Marines update you can be sure they'll be back to mid-to-upper tier. The question is, who is going to take up that position now? Orks, Blood Angels and Sisters of Battle are the 3 obvious choices. Orks struggle to get into assault in a shooting edition and have lost a lot of their options. Blood Angels have been nerfed into oblivion by 6th edition and are just overcosted in an edition where Marines die like flies. Sisters are pretty much perpetually overlooked and don't have a lot of options... not to mention that they don't really have a good answer to fliers outside of allies. Personally I'd have to go with Blood Angels, although I'm a bit biased there (I have way more experience with them than with Orks or Sisters).

Either SoB or BA

Orks aren't too bad with big gun/loota spam. BAs 1 good list left (from what I've heard) is tank spam and SoB only really have Celestine going for them

I was appalled that Orks would be listed as being the worst army. and it looks like most people also think so.
Orks are good.

Honestly nobody in my area plays SoB. So I've never even seen an SoB army before, so I voted BA.

I know one person who had a SoB army and he sold it. Now I only know that people online occasionally play them. Then again, the couple BA players in my area quit too, but prior to 6th.

BA in fifth still didnt work out to great for me. Its said that 6th killed them off as they where the first marine chapter i ever played. The still remain my fav chapter and if they where not so bad now. Id build a BA army now that my RW one is done.

 Icculus wrote:
I was appalled that Orks would be listed as being the worst army. and it looks like most people also think so.
Orks are good.

Honestly nobody in my area plays SoB. So I've never even seen an SoB army before, so I voted BA.

Ya like I said I don't have a lot of experience with Orks in 6th, so including them is mostly based on rumblings I've heard lately. It looks like most people agree that they're not bad yet anyway.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I was appalled that Orks would be listed as being the worst army. and it looks like most people also think so.
Orks are good.

Honestly nobody in my area plays SoB. So I've never even seen an SoB army before, so I voted BA.

Ya like I said I don't have a lot of experience with Orks in 6th, so including them is mostly based on rumblings I've heard lately. It looks like most people agree that they're not bad yet anyway.

Yeah Orks might have some hiccups here or there but they are far from bad this edition. Once some their codex gets updated they will be a force to be reckoned with.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
SoB only really have Celestine going for them

Nah. Exorcists, Seraphim and Retributors are all pretty solid units. It's not that bad.

 Troike wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
SoB only really have Celestine going for them

Nah. Exorcists, Seraphim and Retributors are all pretty solid units. It's not that bad.

Pretty much on target. A lot of people give sisters flak because they are not ever seen being played. Honestly the army holds up surprisingly well and has some tricks up it's sleeve to even the odds when it plays.

Flying Toaster wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
SoB only really have Celestine going for them

Nah. Exorcists, Seraphim and Retributors are all pretty solid units. It's not that bad.

Pretty much on target. A lot of people give sisters flak because they are not ever seen being played. Honestly the army holds up surprisingly well and has some tricks up it's sleeve to even the odds when it plays.

Don't forget Dominions. And in FW allowed areas, Repressors. SOB also have the best allies for certain Guard lists, imo.

Also, just won Best General at a 4 rd tournament last weekend with them, so there's that.

I wish more of the people going on against SoB lived near me. I'd love to give them a demo of what they can do.

 curran12 wrote:
I wish more of the people going on against SoB lived near me. I'd love to give them a demo of what they can do.

Sisters are a funny bunch the people that play them are crazed mad generals and the people that speak ill of them are either uninformed or just internet band wagon their beliefs. Honestly the White Dwarf update was a slap in the face it really was. But it did not in any way make the army broken to the point of unplayable as many like to think. If you ever get a chance to see them play you should, it is quite interesting to watch a person maneuver them on the table and see strategy and tactics unfold as the turns go by. To see such an army that has been left in the dark for so long by GW successfully used is quite the site.

Any of the older edition armies that rely heavily on assault only are going to be hurting until their new Codex comes out. I would not rate the BA's as worst but they are definitely hurting at the moment.

Flying Toaster wrote:

Sisters are a funny bunch the people that play them are crazed mad generals and the people that speak ill of them are either uninformed or just internet band wagon their beliefs. Honestly the White Dwarf update was a slap in the face it really was. But it did not in any way make the army broken to the point of unplayable as many like to think. If you ever get a chance to see them play you should, it is quite interesting to watch a person maneuver them on the table and see strategy and tactics unfold as the turns go by. To see such an army that has been left in the dark for so long by GW successfully used is quite the site.

Any of the older edition armies that rely heavily on assault only are going to be hurting until their new Codex comes out. I would not rate the BA's as worst but they are definitely hurting at the moment.

Pretty much. The thing with the SoB WD codex is that it is the least flashy codex out there. It does not have spectacular or glitzy units or characters. Sure, there is Celestine but apart from her persistence, she is nothing overly special. But what it lacks in sparkle, it makes up for in a pretty durable reliability. It's hard to keep them down and they are cheap enough points-wise that they can put out a pretty crippling amount of damage even as losses pile up.

As a BA player I am hoping to make something work by doing a SM/BA ally combo.

Curious to see if the rumored Raven Guard tactics can be abused with BA (shrike with a scoring unit of BA assault marines conferring them his +1 cover etc etc)

I voted SoB, I think mainly due to the fact that the SoB armies I have played never fared too well. (maybe in part due to lackluster generals)

Whats wrong with Blood angels?

 sing your life wrote:
Whats wrong with Blood angels?

They fell behind. They've been steadily falling behind since their codex came out and have finally reached bottom. :(

 pretre wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Whats wrong with Blood angels?

They fell behind. They've been steadily falling behind since their codex came out and have finally reached bottom. :(

Wow, that was really informative [not].

Blood Angels aren't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. Sisters of Battle are okay, they're just bland. Orks are having a lot of trouble, but I've seen people still do well with them.

What blows my mind, is that in less than a year I'll have to listen to SW players whine about needing an update... after the broken fandex they had all 5th edition.

now you can ally with Tau!

 sing your life wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Whats wrong with Blood angels?

They fell behind. They've been steadily falling behind since their codex came out and have finally reached bottom. :(

Wow, that was really informative [not].

It's been covered quite extensively in the tactics forum, Blood Angels are expensive but don't have the power to make up for it. They're an expensive but, mediocre assault army that can't keep up with other armies in terms of shooting, and are killed just as easily. Lots of their tricks got nerfed into oblivion by 6th edition. They can do well if you know your opponent's army, but in a TAC situation they're screwed.

 Lobukia wrote:
What blows my mind, is that in less than a year I'll have to listen to SW players whine about needing an update... after the broken fandex they had all 5th edition.

Hey, I'm just looking forward to a Codex without auto-take units...

I would have to say Sisters of Battle even though they can still dish it out when used properly. I just haven't seen them perform as well as the other 2.

I always see so much hate on BA, I think their still a really solid book with numerous ways to generate fnp and fearless for the whole army, very efficient mechanized lists, hell I saw a BA player clean up house at the last tourney I played in..

I think all of the three armies you've listed are good when used by a player skilled in their application.

For a player who is new or unused to them, Sisters are probably the least forgiving and hardest to learn of the three, which isn't a good enough definition of "worst" that I felt comfortable placing a vote.

Barring extreme codex creep, I think that 40k is a hobby which has done a very good job of keeping their armies balanced, and that with rare exceptions, the phenomenon of one army being "better" than another is just an issue of the player not being familiar or skilled enough with the "bad" army. The problem is that as the other armies, and even the overall edition rules, change, you have to adapt your play style and tactics. Many people continue to play their army the way they always have, and when the game shifts and they are no longer winning, they come to the conclusion that there army is 'bad' or 'outdated,' which isn't the case.

If BT are folded in with Space Marines, doesn't that make Orks the oldest? If that's the case, then all the current armies are perfectly viable, in my opinion.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Barring extreme codex creep, I think that 40k is a hobby which has done a very good job of keeping their armies balanced, and that with rare exceptions, the phenomenon of one army being "better" than another is just an issue of the player not being familiar or skilled enough with the "bad" army. The problem is that as the other armies, and even the overall edition rules, change, you have to adapt your play style and tactics. Many people continue to play their army the way they always have, and when the game shifts and they are no longer winning, they come to the conclusion that there army is 'bad' or 'outdated,' which isn't the case.

If BT are folded in with Space Marines, doesn't that make Orks the oldest? If that's the case, then all the current armies are perfectly viable, in my opinion.

This is true to an extent, but older Codices often tend to get shoehorned into using specific units and lists if they want to do well. Older Codices also generally have less options available to them which make them far less flavorful (eg, think of the old Necrons Codex, that had something like 1 Troop choice and 2 units in each FOC slot.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Whats wrong with Blood angels?

They fell behind. They've been steadily falling behind since their codex came out and have finally reached bottom. :(

Wow, that was really informative [not].

It's been covered quite extensively in the tactics forum, Blood Angels are expensive but don't have the power to make up for it. They're an expensive but, mediocre assault army that can't keep up with other armies in terms of shooting, and are killed just as easily. Lots of their tricks got nerfed into oblivion by 6th edition. They can do well if you know your opponent's army, but in a TAC situation they're screwed.

Wow that was even more informative! [not]

 sing your life wrote:
Wow that was even more informative! [not]

What're you looking for? A doctoral thesis on the state of Blood Angels in todays metagame?

 pretre wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Wow that was even more informative! [not]

What're you looking for? A doctoral thesis on the state of Blood Angels in todays metagame?

I agree, there was nothing in that post that required the sarcasm.

 pretre wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Wow that was even more informative! [not]

What're you looking for? A doctoral thesis on the state of Blood Angels in todays metagame?

Actually I'm looking for some better reasons for blood angels lack of competiveness than "blood angels are rubbish, they focus on Close combat, Close combat got horribly nerfed now that a unit being charged can make this weak-ass shooting attack" [which is the only reason I've seen so far ].

You could do a bit of research...

- Assault changes in 6th
- Vehicle changes in 6th
- Power weapon changes in 6th
- FNP changes in 6th
- Lower costs for subsequent PA codexes
- Lack of Skyfire/etc beyond the Stormraven

etc, so on.