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.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nids are just bland as hell, but with Flyrants Mawlocs Biovores Venomthropes Exocrine and both the flyers before 7th nerfed them, we were never a bottom tier codex even before our formations (only one of which is even still viable), and anyone claiming we were on the level of BA Orks DA or CSM was failing at playing their dex right, which is no fault of the codex itself. Just because it's a challenge to play does not make it less competitive

You are right...ish. Tyranids are not the least competitive army, that honor would probably fall on Blood Angels, but I would argue that Tyranids have the worst codex.

The five units you listed are pretty much the back bone of the Tyranid army, which when you consider the 32 units in the book is really sad. Any competitive Tyranid list is going to use the same eight units, leaving about 75% of the codex languishing in crapulance, on top of the HORRID warlord traits, generally meh psychic powers, and abysmal artifacts it leads to a fair conception that the Tyranid army is the worst off.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tyranids.

They're the most boring, but not the weakest on the table.

Blood Angels.

It's not even close.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tyranids.

They're the most boring, but not the weakest on the table.

My opinion is biased by army, I think. I play DE and have since 7th came out. Blood Angels occasionally give me trouble, but Tyranids are no problem anymore.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tyranids.

They're the most boring, but not the weakest on the table.

My opinion is biased by army, I think. I play DE and have since 7th came out. Blood Angels occasionally give me trouble, but Tyranids are no problem anymore.

DE are just a rough match-up for Nids, no two ways about it.(At least they were, I haven't had a matchup with the new DE with my Nids yet) Nids however can matchup well against most other armies, and really only seriously struggle against some of the more competitive Eldar and Tau lists (And of course DE)

BA have a rough matchup against everyone though. They are just not good right now.

Tyranids are definitely a whiner codex. Every tyranid batt rep starts with them moaning about how weak the army is then two flyrants destroy the other dudes entire list single handedly. Nid players are giving themselves a bad reputation.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

/Thread

Coke just came out my nose

Honestly CSM and Orks are the worst imo..

Unless you factor in FW, Orks and CSM have baaad internal balance and really bad rules imo.

And for the Bugs I just played in a tourney at my FLGS and they won 1st place out of all the Eldar players and the odd marine players..

Goes to show something about the bugs..

Least competitive army currently?
Whichever army I'm playing with. It's horribly underpowered; GW should buff it!
Most competitive army?
Whichever army I'm playing against. It's waaay overpowered and should be nerfed!



Yes, this also applies when we're both playing the same army.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Tyranids are definitely a whiner codex. Every tyranid batt rep starts with them moaning about how weak the army is then two flyrants destroy the other dudes entire list single handedly. Nid players are giving themselves a bad reputation.

Also +1.

Deathwing :/

 Silverthorne wrote:
Tyranids are definitely a whiner codex. Every tyranid batt rep starts with them moaning about how weak the army is then two flyrants destroy the other dudes entire list single handedly. Nid players are giving themselves a bad reputation.

So are CSM players in general as well, if not even whinier...

Sure, Chaos Marines are not as durpy as Eldar or have the near idiot-proof Deathstar that Codex Marines have, but there's still some solid builds to be had, especially with the Crimson Slaughter supplement. (hello ML3 Malefic caster & super Possessed)
Or else, slap Ahriman in a Rhino or give him Santic rolls to fish for Gate and then have fun casting 3x Psy Shriek and auto-deleting whatever non-AV target you want.

Tyranids are maybe slightly blander, but both them & CSM's are nothing on the levels of Blood Angels awful. And both player bases give themselves a bad rep with their continued cries for being somehow the most horribly treated books of all time. (especially CSM whinefests, which inevitably are just cries to return to the OP gakfest of the 3.5 book)

I think the complaints about CSM and nids are justified. The internal balance in both of these dexes are horrid.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think the complaints about CSM and nids are justified. The internal balance in both of these dexes are horrid.

Yes they have bad codex's but they still have strong lists that are competitive.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think the complaints about CSM and nids are justified. The internal balance in both of these dexes are horrid.

Yes they have bad codex's but they still have strong lists that are competitive.

True that, I just wish they had a greater variety of competitive lists. As it is, they're both kinda 'mono-build-ish.'

Poly Ranger wrote:
Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

In the past 20 or so years, I have never seen squats win a game, and I've got a friend fielding Squats using the Space Marine codex and Mantic Forgefather miniatures in my gaming group.

CSM!

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nids are just bland as hell, but with Flyrants Mawlocs Biovores Venomthropes Exocrine and both the flyers before 7th nerfed them, we were never a bottom tier codex even before our formations (only one of which is even still viable), and anyone claiming we were on the level of BA Orks DA or CSM was failing at playing their dex right, which is no fault of the codex itself. Just because it's a challenge to play does not make it less competitive

You are right...ish. Tyranids are not the least competitive army, that honor would probably fall on Blood Angels, but I would argue that Tyranids have the worst codex.

Sure, and as someone who has extremely vocally expressed his disappointment in the laziness, blandness, wasted potential and general moneygrabish nature of the 6th ed Nid dex, this is a category I may be able to agree with you on. However, not what the thread title says. Worst written, certainly a contender, weakest dex however, not even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Tyranids are definitely a whiner codex. Every tyranid batt rep starts with them moaning about how weak the army is then two flyrants destroy the other dudes entire list single handedly. Nid players are giving themselves a bad reputation.

Lol. Even I have to agree with this and Nids are my main army. Too many people just whine about this army because they don't quite grasp the nature of the dex strategically. Just as bad as the new influx of 4 Flyrants being touted as the best way to play the dex when really it's just a subpar cheese build that will fold to any decent AA, and there is much better actually inside the dex if you build a proper list. Or the people who all started praising GW for saving their dex with Skyblight, one of the blandest formations to date that writes your entire list for you and is just a glorified way of spamming extra Flyers before dual CAD was allowed.



Dex has never been weak for a long time now, it's very middling in terms of power and actually sits at a good level and involves very decision-influenced gameplay and has strong core concepts and themes as an army, its just a massive shame that there is so few playable units in the dex.

Just to clarify, are people suggesting that Angels, 'Nids and the like are weaker than the Sisters of Battle? Because they have their 6th Edition Codex and nothing in the competition forbids them. In fact, so far they've barely even been recognised as a contender! Have they simply been forgotten (again) or are people genuinely going to argue that they are stronger than some of the competition here?
Bonus points- No allies means no Skyfire.

So process of Elimination

Adepta Sororitas
Astra Militarum
Blood Angels
Chaos Daemons
Chaos Space Marines
Dark Angels
Dark Eldar
Eldar
Grey Knights
Imperial Knights
Inquisition
Militarum Tempestus
Necrons
Officio Assassinorum
Orks
Space Marines
Space Wolves
Tau Empire
Tyranids

Mozzamanx wrote:
Just to clarify, are people suggesting that Angels, 'Nids and the like are weaker than the Sisters of Battle? Because they have their 6th Edition Codex and nothing in the competition forbids them. In fact, so far they've barely even been recognised as a contender! Have they simply been forgotten (again) or are people genuinely going to argue that they are stronger than some of the competition here?
Bonus points- No allies means no Skyfire.

BA definitely weaker than Sisters.

Nids definitely not.

Played as an army, I would say Officio Assassinorum are the weakest army. Too few bodies to stand up to an armies worth of return fire.

Tyranids are an extremely fun army - versatile, interesting, really neat to paint, enjoyably disposable in game, and have so many cool (if weak) special rules. We can run monsters, swarms, flyers, artillery and big guns, overwhelming short-range firepower, psychic choir, DS and fast units (or not)...

Just not all at the same time. and not necessarily for the best points costs. But I feel the Tyranid faction is the most 'fun' ...at least to me. It's certainly not competitive, but it's not the worst.

SBG wrote:
Tyranids are an extremely fun army - versatile, interesting, really neat to paint, enjoyably disposable in game, and have so many cool (if weak) special rules. We can run monsters, swarms, flyers, artillery and big guns, overwhelming short-range firepower, psychic choir, DS and fast units (or not)...

Just not all at the same time. and not necessarily for the best points costs. But I feel the Tyranid faction is the most 'fun' ...at least to me. It's certainly not competitive, but it's not the worst.

The Tyranid book is hardly versatile, in fact I think its greatest failing is the fact that you pay for some extremely focused upgrades that can't do much except in very particular situations.The book would be just fine with some minor changes and some major overhauls to some of the units. I would kill for the ability to implant Pyrovroes into a group of Termagants. Would it be OP? No. Would it make a unit seen as one of the worse useable? Hell yeah. Just small things like that would go such a long way in making the army versatile, unique, and fun to play again.

For the people saying that Sisters are worse than Nids...no. Not by a LOOONG shot. I LOVE my Sisters, ever since their new codex has come out they have been one of my most played armies and I enjoy the hell out of them. I win often enough with them and consider them a decently competitive list with the amount of melta's and flamers I can throw around. A basic troop that can have 3 flamers, a heavy flamer, and 12 bolter shots coming out of a Rhino is not a bad troop choice. Or a scouting/outflanking multi-melta with 5 meltas that have a turn of twin linked? Or the Exorcist in general. Sisters are great, they are just under represented due to the MASSIVE investment needed to start the army.

I think that the topic would be better served if we discussed the three least competitive armies, to give a frame of reference. If I had to list the bottom three it would be Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Chaos.

I wouldn't call a book that allows for such a variety of playstyles 'hardly versatile'. It's just not powerful and versatile simultaneously.

I'd say the worst codex competetively is Inquisition. I have not even seen them in a tournament yet

Versatile in POSSIBLE options in the dex maybe, when it comes down to actual playable ones, extremely limited.

I can't bring myself to field Old One Eye, that's for sure. :(

Poly Ranger wrote:
Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

I play mine as Inquisitor squads.

In the current competitive scene probably Dark angels

Or pure Storm troopers

Or Pure Inquisition

Or pure Ass

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tyranids.

They're the most boring, but not the weakest on the table.

Thank god, someone thinks this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SBG wrote:
I can't bring myself to field Old One Eye, that's for sure. :(

I avidly defend Nids, but I agree. He's the only HQ choice I can't really say anything good about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SBG wrote:
Tyranids are an extremely fun army - versatile, interesting, really neat to paint, enjoyably disposable in game, and have so many cool (if weak) special rules. We can run monsters, swarms, flyers, artillery and big guns, overwhelming short-range firepower, psychic choir, DS and fast units (or not)...

Just not all at the same time. and not necessarily for the best points costs. But I feel the Tyranid faction is the most 'fun' ...at least to me. It's certainly not competitive, but it's not the worst.

Such truth. Very respect. Wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 happygolucky wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Squats. I've not seen squats win in over a decade!

/Thread

Coke just came out my nose

Honestly CSM and Orks are the worst imo..

Unless you factor in FW, Orks and CSM have baaad internal balance and really bad rules imo.

And for the Bugs I just played in a tourney at my FLGS and they won 1st place out of all the Eldar players and the odd marine players..

Goes to show something about the bugs..

Uhhhhh, no. Orks have a very balanced book, with a good amount of builds that can win. You just have to know how to play them. They're no "point-n-click" army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

The Tyranid book is hardly versatile, in fact I think its greatest failing is the fact that you pay for some extremely focused upgrades that can't do much except in very particular situations.The book would be just fine with some minor changes and some major overhauls to some of the units. I would kill for the ability to implant Pyrovroes into a group of Termagants. Would it be OP? No.

I just want Pyrovores to become Torrent. I'd use them then.