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.

With news of 8th edition growing, what codices are you hoping will have a complete overhaul? Which armies, as it currently stands, are among the worst in the game? What codex have you found to be absolutely useless?

BA, CSM, IG, Nids are the weakest

For the books themselves, I think the Tyrannid one needs a good fix. Very overwhelming and confusing to jump into, needing a good 10 minutes to suss.
Ideally, I'd see all the codices written in the same format as the AdMech books.

You should really defiine Worst?

Rules wise - Orks ad Nids are pretty bad, Dark Eldar have some awful units.

Chaos as always languish behind the loyal versions

Sororitas have some good stuff but declining number of models, no formations of any kind and certainly no super cheese formation.

Well, Chaos Marines are still trying to the play the game like it's 3rd edition and assaulting out of onrushing Rhinos is the single most powerful ability ever conceived...

And the model line is so damn ancient that not only is it still full of holes when it comes to upgrades/wargear that don't exist, but we still have whole units (*cough*Chosen*cough*) who don't yet have an actual model kit, AND, we have a "current" kit that isn't from this freaking millenium!

So people have actually voted for Tau, Space Marines and Eldar here? Hmm, interesting...

Crispy78 wrote:
So people have actually voted for Tau, Space Marines and Eldar here? Hmm, interesting...

There's alot of variance in the judgement of "worst", I.e for game health, in terms of those 3.

'Weakest' is in the title, though.

Crispy78 wrote:
So people have actually voted for Tau, Space Marines and Eldar here? Hmm, interesting...

I did, but as a joke. Come on everyone knows it's Orks, I used to play Orks and ditched them for Khorne Daemons because I actually wanted to kill things rather than just die all the time. Orks would rival Space Marines in popularity if they were as Mary Sue as the SM.

Old mob rule was the best too, fearless by having 30 boyz. Also old looted vehicle rules, where you can loot anything but just replace the BS with 2.

I'd argue CSM are worse - I have actually seen Orks perform decently in tournaments.

It depends on if we talk the best lists of each army or the armies as a whole, however.

Dark Eldar followed by Chaos Space Marines.

Imperial Guard and Chaos. Having these two fight is like watching two cripples swinging at each other - slow and painful.

 Gamgee wrote:
Dark Eldar followed by Chaos Space Marines.

Nah. Covens gives them some decent formations. CSM don't have stuff that's as good as CTC or Dark Artisan, or even just plain old Venom/Reaver spam

Legion of the damned. They can't even win alone.
And Inquisition, because I think 1v1, in a standard game, Inquisition just don't have enough different units.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Imperial Guard and Chaos. Having these two fight is like watching two cripples swinging at each other - slow and painful.

IG slaughter chaos, just as they slaughter all have-not meqs.

As someone who plays both IG and CSM's, IG dont slaughter CSM's unless the CSM army is just footslogging infantry, in which case it doesnt matter if its IG or anyone else. I'd put them fairly equal in most cases.

Craftworlds 4% [ 6 ]

6 people think they are funny

DE, Orks, Tyranids, BA, IG all suck quite frankly CSM rank above them. They do however have their own issue's I'm not denying that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
As someone who plays both IG and CSM's, IG dont slaughter CSM's unless the CSM army is just footslogging infantry, in which case it doesnt matter if its IG or anyone else. I'd put them fairly equal in most cases.

IG have such a huge shooting advantage over them.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
As someone who plays both IG and CSM's, IG dont slaughter CSM's unless the CSM army is just footslogging infantry, in which case it doesnt matter if its IG or anyone else. I'd put them fairly equal in most cases.

IG have such a huge shooting advantage over them.

From playing both, I'd say that IG and CSM codexes can give eachother a hard time, but the IG don't needlessly nerf themselves every couple of turns. I'd give the edge to those plucky humans, simply due to reliability.

IG may have a shooting advantage, but they have no mobility. They can defend their deployment zone, but they can't take ground. In situations where they have objectives in their DZ, IG can do well.

In situations where they have to leave their DZ, Guard do poorly. My experience is that Guards "playability" depends entirely on where they deploy. So it's a crap-shoot. They get annihilated in any Kill Point mission. They can't claim a Relic. They can sometimes win a 2-Objective mission if they bunker down, and play to secondaries with a side-bet on bombing objective campers off of their opponent's Objective.

In multi-objective missions, either of the d3+2 missions or the 6-objective mission, they only CAN win if they have at least a couple objectives in their DZ. So Chaos does have the ability to move forward to claim objectives, even if they aren't as good as most other armies, they're better at it then Guard.

Presuming a decent amount of LOS blocking / cover providing terrain, of course. Though that shouldn't need to be added.

 greatbigtree wrote:
IG may have a shooting advantage, but they have no mobility. They can defend their deployment zone, but they can't take ground. In situations where they have objectives in their DZ, IG can do well.

In situations where they have to leave their DZ, Guard do poorly. My experience is that Guards "playability" depends entirely on where they deploy. So it's a crap-shoot. They get annihilated in any Kill Point mission. They can't claim a Relic. They can sometimes win a 2-Objective mission if they bunker down, and play to secondaries with a side-bet on bombing objective campers off of their opponent's Objective.

In multi-objective missions, either of the d3+2 missions or the 6-objective mission, they only CAN win if they have at least a couple objectives in their DZ. So Chaos does have the ability to move forward to claim objectives, even if they aren't as good as most other armies, they're better at it then Guard.

Presuming a decent amount of LOS blocking / cover providing terrain, of course. Though that shouldn't need to be added.

I thought Sentinels were supposed to deal with this issue? A guy at my Local uses deep-striking Sentinels for this exact reason, and has great success with it.
Heck, pretty annoying to sort out when I'm using a close range list. I have to be prepared to turn on a dime.

And then there's Elysians, and Tempestus...
Heck, why not Ogryns and Bullgryns in Chimeras?

 Buddingsquaw wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
IG may have a shooting advantage, but they have no mobility. They can defend their deployment zone, but they can't take ground. In situations where they have objectives in their DZ, IG can do well.

In situations where they have to leave their DZ, Guard do poorly. My experience is that Guards "playability" depends entirely on where they deploy. So it's a crap-shoot. They get annihilated in any Kill Point mission. They can't claim a Relic. They can sometimes win a 2-Objective mission if they bunker down, and play to secondaries with a side-bet on bombing objective campers off of their opponent's Objective.

In multi-objective missions, either of the d3+2 missions or the 6-objective mission, they only CAN win if they have at least a couple objectives in their DZ. So Chaos does have the ability to move forward to claim objectives, even if they aren't as good as most other armies, they're better at it then Guard.

Presuming a decent amount of LOS blocking / cover providing terrain, of course. Though that shouldn't need to be added.

I thought Sentinels were supposed to deal with this issue? A guy at my Local uses deep-striking Sentinels for this exact reason, and has great success with it.
Heck, pretty annoying to sort out when I'm using a close range list. I have to be prepared to turn on a dime.

And then there's Elysians, and Tempestus...
Heck, why not Ogryns and Bullgryns in Chimeras?

Sentinels come in two forms:
-Outflanking but tin foil
-average armour but foot slogging

The scouts (outflankers) are open topped and lack firepower. Their "Manoeuvrability" comes from their ability to outflank, and this is good for one turn of mediocre at best shooting before they vanish, as AV 10/10/10 open topped with 2 HP really does not bare thinking about.
The foot sloggers are a bit better at surviving but cannot out flank and still have mediocre firepower.
In no case can Sentinels deep strike unless you are using the FW Elysian list.

Ogryns and Bullgryns both suffer the same issue of being far too expensive for what they do with Bullgryns costing as much as TW cavalry without any of the survivability, manoeuvrability or hitting power and Ogryns are only slightly cheaper but lack even more. Chimeras are also heavily over priced in this edition, especially as the HP rules mean that they can be glanced to death by Bolters.
Storm Troopers (Miliwhat now?) are once more an overpriced unit, costing more than a Space Marine per man whilst lacking any of the staying power or utility that a Tactical unit provides. And none of that "Oh they can DS with AP3" gak Martel, I have run triple Stormy armies before and even with double Volleygun they still suck terribly. I dropped in a unit right next to an isolated Tac unit and inflicted a grand total of two dead Marines. All any of them ever did was to capture an objective on the turn they arrived and then die horribly the next turn, rarely inflicting more than one or two casualties on their targets.
Elysians are an outdated (IIRC) guard army from Forgeworld and require you to purchase another rip-off supplement to play whilst still suffering from the same issues as the regular Guard (IE, gak armour, lacklustre firepower, overpriced units and pathetic mobility[although that last one is kind of negated by the DS ability).

Have I ever said one word about stormtroopers?

kryczek wrote:
DE, Orks, Tyranids, BA, IG all suck quite frankly CSM rank above them. They do however have their own issue's I'm not denying that.

I would further dial this down to BA, Orks and DE. I've crushed some pretty good players with my bugs, some pretty stinky cheese too. Not a both at the same time yet though. In army swap with my IG buddies, I've mulched vanilla SM twice, necrons, CSM, Bugs and Skitarii as well.

DE I've had only 2 wins (a bunch of losses) both were close. I dont know if i just cant get a finesse for them, but given that the DE player himself does rather poorly almost all the time (and will do quite well behind most other armies) leads me to believes its because the book is gak. Not the players.

When i hear someone is starting up Orks or BA I just shake my head. I hate to see other people fall for the same trap that my buddy and i did . Theuy are so far behind the others they should be limited to starter sets. If that.

I'm not saying the others don't need help, but they are 100 percent playable if you know what you're doing. The book may be old and it may feel like smashing your head on a wall playing Tau, vanilla SMS or Crons, but in a noncompetitive meta I can run em all day long.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
As someone who plays both IG and CSM's, IG dont slaughter CSM's unless the CSM army is just footslogging infantry, in which case it doesnt matter if its IG or anyone else. I'd put them fairly equal in most cases.

IG have such a huge shooting advantage over them.

Sure, but thats also their defining schtick. However, as bad as CSM's are, they do have dramatically superior functional mobility, and CC isnt as dead as people think (particularly with regards to tanks and weeny infantry squads where just a couple CSM's can still wipe a 10man IG unit), and they do arent devoid of firepower themselves. CSM's arent going to win a pitched firefight to the last man, and they shouldnt. Within the context of the 40k missions however, their greater mobility and aggression can enable them to win vs IG gunlines with solid frequency when it comes to nabbing mission objectives.

BA, Orks, Nids and CSM should win this pretty easily. Sadly it's about the only thing they will win.

As for DE, I'm actually doing better with them than I am with my non scatbike Craftworld list.

Coin flip between CSM/IG/Orks/DE with BA and 'Nids a close second (BA have grav and bikes as troops, 'Nids have Flyrants and Mawlocks).

None of the above can really compete with anything outside of their own little kiddy splashpool where they'll reliably get stomped by the mid-tier dexes.

CSM, Orks, Tyranids, DE, MT, and Sororitas are what I voted for. Those 'dexes all need some work. MT less than the others because, like Harlequins, I don't think they are meant to be run by themselves. CSM are probably the worst, as they literally have to ally in better stuff to have any chance of winning. Main use these days of CSM is to ally in the few good things (like Heldrakes, Be'lakor, Cyclopian Cabal, etc.) to a Daemons, R&H, or Daemonkin list.

I voted Orks. As bad as it is for CSM and Nids, at least we have /some/ powerful units we can use (and CSM at least has FW to back it up with heresy stuff).

Orks are the only ones where their faction rule actually hurts them rather than help them. When your own rule is actively out to get you, there's something wrong.