Which codexes are the "poop" codexes?

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.

**Blndmage**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Necrons are 85.
They have 5 man units of immortals.

A minimum size (10) Warrior squad is 120.

**meleti**

AdMech has a 189 point min troop choice (Kataphron Destroyers). This tells you precisely nothing about AdMech or their ability to run battalions.

I think what Bharring was getting at was how expensive it is for various factions to take troop choices for battalions using their min troops, not what the most expensive MSU troop in each codex was.

**Weidekuh**

Yeah but this list is still far from being relevant. Because 65 for Harlies? No one ever would do that. So it's basicly non existant. Same for Craftworlds. 3x naked Storm Guardians? Never.

Harlies realistic min. points troop unit is 95 (cheapest cc weapon) and 60 for Craftworlds (Rangers). The difference here is that Rangers are a very good troop unit. The 95 Harlies example is only ok with his specific loadout.
I assume it's similar for some other factions.

What really counts, if you want to make this comparison, is cheapest usable Battaillon, or troop choice, for a tournament.

**Quickjager**

meleti wrote:
AdMech has a 189 point min troop choice (Kataphron Destroyers). This tells you precisely nothing about AdMech or their ability to run battalions.

I think what Bharring was getting at was how expensive it is for various factions to take troop choices for battalions using their min troops, not what the most expensive MSU troop in each codex was.

But they also have access to cheaper troops 55 for a min. Squad. They are also good.

So no there is a good point here.

EDIT: That isn't even going into how it actually opens up some kind of option for Admech players.

**Trollbert**

Are QS that bad?

Running simulations on my PC I found out that the reduction of the
- average damage of a D D6 weapon: from 3.5 to 1.5 (-58%)
- average damage of a D D3 weapon: from 2 to 1.5 (-25%)
- average damage of a D 3 weapon: from 3 to 2 (-33%)
- average damage of a D 2 weapon: from 2 to 1.6 (-20%)

Are top tier armies spamming enough D2 oder DD3 weapons to kill those vehicles quickly or are the vehicles that overpriced, nobody takes more than 2 or 3?

**Arachnofiend**

A bit of column A, a bit of column B. Plasma isn't as meta-defining as it was earlier in 8th's lifespan but D2 is definitely still around; probably the bigger problem is that the only good QS model is the Doomsday Ark, which at 193 points is something you can only bring 2 or 3 of as you say.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Blndmage wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Necrons are 85.
They have 5 man units of immortals.

A minimum size (10) Warrior squad is 120.

Ah whoops, I misread it as least expensive.
Yes, least expensive minimum is 85 for 5 immortals, most expensive minimum is 120 for 10 warriors.

**Slayer-Fan123**

SHUPPET wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

Wrong. Point for point Aggressors get their value off regular shooting. Even without the double shooting they are one of the fiercest offensive units points wise, having 150% damage output of Devilgants for example, a unit considered a good anti-infantry glass cannon, or almost double the damage output of guard mortar teams. They then, without having had double shot, force your opponents hand in the threat they put down, as that once you get them to this range, they need to be dealt with in some manner immediately or they often outright win the game the next turn, with DOUBLE those numbers in shooting and a fierce melee follow up for the heavy stuff. And dealing with them can be a difficult prospect against BA who aren't going to let you do that for free at all. I think it's an excellent list and I'm entirely unsurprised to see it do well. Their offense is not primarily hinged off getting to double shoot at all, move-shooting is more than worth its points if you get it there and the threat of double shooting the turn before it is often where their strength lies as well even if you don't get to do it.

You DO realize how expensive they are right? They absolutely need their double shooting. Otherwise you're better off with Assault Centurions at that point.

**SHUPPET**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

Wrong. Point for point Aggressors get their value off regular shooting. Even without the double shooting they are one of the fiercest offensive units points wise, having 150% damage output of Devilgants for example, a unit considered a good anti-infantry glass cannon, or almost double the damage output of guard mortar teams. They then, without having had double shot, force your opponents hand in the threat they put down, as that once you get them to this range, they need to be dealt with in some manner immediately or they often outright win the game the next turn, with DOUBLE those numbers in shooting and a fierce melee follow up for the heavy stuff. And dealing with them can be a difficult prospect against BA who aren't going to let you do that for free at all. I think it's an excellent list and I'm entirely unsurprised to see it do well. Their offense is not primarily hinged off getting to double shoot at all, move-shooting is more than worth its points if you get it there and the threat of double shooting the turn before it is often where their strength lies as well even if you don't get to do it.

You DO realize how expensive they are right? They absolutely need their double shooting. Otherwise you're better off with Assault Centurions at that point.

.
You DO realize I said points wise, right? That means those calculations factor in how many shots they get for the same amount of points, so you are absolutely wrong.

**Martel732**

Aggressors die like little bitches. Gravis armor is a failure. They are only viable in deathwatch, and even then, the tax to take them is high. Inceptors, hellblasters, and aggressors are basically IG heavy weapon teams and have all the same problems. They are all failures.

**meleti**

Aggressors are legit. And surprisingly cheap. 18 of them is only 666 points and has some serious firepower with a Chapter Master providing re-rolls.

**Martel732**

That's not cheap at all.

**meleti**

Martel732 wrote:
That's not cheap at all.

For 18 T5 bodies with tons of dakka, 36 wounds and good saves? That’s a great value.

**Martel732**

You and I have very different ideas of value.

**SHUPPET**

Martel732 wrote:
You and I have very different ideas of value.

Yeah well The rest of the competitive community has a different idea of value to you. I’m going I agree with the people who actually understand the game are getting those W’s

**A.T.**

Martel732 wrote:
Inceptors, hellblasters, and aggressors are basically IG heavy weapon teams and have all the same problems. They are all failures.

Mortar heavy weapon teams are bad now?
Primaris were showing up in the top tournament lists even before deathwatch. Aside from the BA lists I posted earlier a bunch of better performing DA lists at adepticon featured primaris - Josh Kinder, Dominique Carette, and Ricky Addington if you wanted to google examples of lists that went 3 of 4 for the first set of games.

**Martel732**

Indirect fire is amazing. The actual heavy weapon teams aren't. Marines are fresh out of indirect weapons, i think.

I think those players would have done better not using trash models. And primaris are trash, make no mistake.

**the_scotsman**

Martel732 wrote:
Indirect fire is amazing. The actual heavy weapon teams aren't. Marines are fresh out of indirect weapons, i think.

They aren't, their options just suck. Because it turns out indirect fire is actually only as good as the model shooting.

**Martel732**

I don't know of any primaris indirect fire.

**the_scotsman**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know of any primaris indirect fire.

Oh, sorry, I failed to take into account the Dakka Alternate Universe canon where Games Workshop in your universe filled the skies with black helicopters in their quest to kick down every marine player's door and steal their non-primaris marine models.

**Martel732**

I was comparing primaris shooters to ig heavy weapon teams. Why would i include regular marine units in that discussion?

**A.T.**

Martel732 wrote:
I think those players would have done better not using trash models. And primaris are trash, make no mistake.

Offer some support for your position beyond "it's trash" - or alternatively some explanation of your grading system. When someone says trash I think Jacobus or the malcador, your standards clearly differ.

**Martel732**

Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport.

**A.T.**

Martel732 wrote:
Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport.

At yet seemingly quite successful on the tabletop.

**Bharring**

"Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport."

Is that why Shining Spears are so bad?

**Martel732**

I would disagree with that. I can't comprehend the few successes they do have, as i have curbstomped these losers every match against them. They rarely appear in the touney standings from the lists i have seen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport."

Is that why Shining Spears are so bad?

Prinaris are a lot slower and have poor damage output in general.

**Slayer-Fan123**

A.T. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport.
At yet seemingly quite successful on the tabletop.

Saying Primaris are successful is stretching it quite a bit.

**ClockworkZion**

Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

**Marmatag**

SHUPPET wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
You and I have very different ideas of value.

Yeah well The rest of the competitive community has a different idea of value to you. I’m going I agree with the people who actually understand the game are getting those W’s

Aggressors are solid but you won't do well against Eldar Soup, Knights, or Custodes Soup. That's kind of what it takes y'know?

**Martel732**

I'm sure the entire competitive community thinks aggressors are baller.