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.
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
*laughs in Space Marine*
AdMech are a better combat army than Black Templar...
Yes but space marines have guilliman parking lot which is a lot better than cawl and admech AT.
Ahem... Ultramarines have guilliman. Not black Templar’s. My space wolves as well as other non codex compliant chapters don’t either. He’s just an overpriced wolf lord and battle leader to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/25 07:06:29
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
Actually I figured Necrons were probably the second worst. I don't know, as I don't play Necrons or AdMech. Marines are also pretty much cabbage currently.
My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/7/24, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~16000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Imperial Knights: ~2300 | Leagues of Votann: ~1300 | Tyranids: ~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000 | Kruleboyz: ~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: ~700
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2024: 40 | Total models painted in 2025: 23 | Current main painting project: Tomb Kings
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You need your bumps felt. With a patented, Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000.
The Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000. It only looks like several bricks crudely gaffer taped to a cricket bat.
Grotsnik Corp. Sorry, No Refunds.
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
*laughs in Space Marine*
AdMech are a better combat army than Black Templar...
Yes but space marines have guilliman parking lot which is a lot better than cawl and admech AT.
Ahem... Ultramarines have guilliman. Not black Templar’s. My space wolves as well as other non codex compliant chapters don’t either. He’s just an overpriced wolf lord and battle leader to me.
Yes but BT are in the SM codex and count so count as SM.
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
Actually I figured Necrons were probably the second worst. I don't know, as I don't play Necrons or AdMech. Marines are also pretty much cabbage currently.
Apart from GK admech are probably the worst imperial codex. Out of everyone probably around 3rd or 4th worst.
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
Ad mech aren't top flight, but second worst after grey knights seems a stretch. There isn't much data for them in the set I have but they have 45 appearances as the primary detachment and 5 top 3 placements, which puts them above necrons with 73 appearances and also 5 top placements. As bad as necrons and admech have it (and they have it pretty awful), space marines seem to be doing worse when selected as the primary detachment.
The good news is there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with space marines and admech that some points adjustments can't fix, they have all of the components needed to win, but they are inappropriately priced because of a model pricing formula that looks at units in isolation. It's like somebody at GW tried to implement a M:TG style jedi curve without understanding what made it work in that game, and missing that's it's supposed to be a curve instead of a linear relation. Math is famous for making models that are simple, elegant, but suck absolute horse gak when applied to reality. Like that poor guy that figured out the formula that GW used to point miniatures, and goes around here and reddit giving dire predictions about the balance scheme unraveling if guardsmen are even one more point expensive, ignoring the fact that game balance is in dire straight. A mathematical model is only worth the paper it's printed on if it works. Anyway, I'm getting slightly off topic, admech probably are in the bottom half of codexes but second from the worst is surely an exaggeration.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
I think we've got to expect everything to be a little imbalanced this edition. They ripped up the old rulebook and are redoing everything from scratch. I have been in this position and it meant constantly going back and forth matching old factions with the ideas I'd come up with working on the next faction. But I had the luxury of doing that without having to put out the rules for the factions as I was going.
I believe (am sincerely hoping) that 40K follows the AoS model. We had 8th Edition drop - it's fundamentally a marvellous system, but we've now had a couple of years of seeing how it plays out in the real world, as well as new developments and 'Oh, I wish we'd thought of that earlier!'s and it's got a little scruffy in places and a little wonky in others. Once the dust has settled, say a year and a half down the line, we'll hopefully see a '9th' Edition that's essentially entirely the same game, but that straightens out all the little issues that came up in this one.
In the meantime, it's a totally playable and very enjoyable game. There may be balance issues, but there's never been a complaint on the internet about an army being underpowered that I haven't seen followed up by someone demolishing their opponents with it. If you are concerned that your army is too weak, just imagine that you're playing the game on a harder difficulty setting, and rise to the challenge. Personally, it always amuses me when I see someone talking about shelving their units because they're too weak this edition - I only shelve my units when I find I'm winning too easily with them...
Grimgold wrote: Ad mech aren't top flight, but second worst after grey knights seems a stretch. There isn't much data for them in the set I have but they have 45 appearances as the primary detachment and 5 top 3 placements, which puts them above necrons with 73 appearances and also 5 top placements. As bad as necrons and admech have it (and they have it pretty awful), space marines seem to be doing worse when selected as the primary detachment.
The good news is there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with space marines and admech that some points adjustments can't fix, they have all of the components needed to win, but they are inappropriately priced because of a model pricing formula that looks at units in isolation. It's like somebody at GW tried to implement a M:TG style jedi curve without understanding what made it work in that game, and missing that's it's supposed to be a curve instead of a linear relation. Math is famous for making models that are simple, elegant, but suck absolute horse gak when applied to reality. Like that poor guy that figured out the formula that GW used to point miniatures, and goes around here and reddit giving dire predictions about the balance scheme unraveling if guardsmen are even one more point expensive, ignoring the fact that game balance is in dire straight. A mathematical model is only worth the paper it's printed on if it works. Anyway, I'm getting slightly off topic, admech probably are in the bottom half of codexes but second from the worst is surely an exaggeration.
I've been playing AdMech since 7th, with an army I've slowly built (2150-ish pts) and I absolutely love my army, but it's been pretty tough to win games in my local meta because the power creep of new codices is real. AdMech aren't just a point cost problem, but fair points will definitely help between now and a potential future big update. I'll quote my post in the AdMech Tactica where I mention some of the core problems (lack of synergy intra-codex and rules that makes no sense mostly) and my suggestions for it to work:
Spoiler:
Aaranis wrote: I've never been to a tournament so honestly my knowledge of the meta comes from forums and discussion with fellow hobbyists at my LGS. Still, I think we need to think about balancing AdMech within its own codex first before thinking about synergies with other armies, and that we do no need to compare our roster to other armies. For example, and I don't mean to start a debate, I believe Rangers are fine at 7 pts, that's what they're worth. Vanguards should cost the same. But yeah, if you compare to a 4 pts Guardsman, it is his cost that is too low and not the Ranger's who is too high. Same for Kabalites, they should be 7 pts.
40 pts for a Breacher is not far from its real worth. Forget about his weapons for a second and just look at it for its statline. 3W, T5, S5, 3+/6+, WS4+/BS4+, 3 A, Ld7. It is a tough nut to crack, and morale will rarely be an issue given the small unit sizes. The problem is we have no reason to take them because they're not a threat. We could place them on an objective in cover and they'll be hard to remove but they'll just be annoying as their damage output is risible.
Hydraulic claws need to have a chainfist profile if we want to justify the cost. No reason to pay 4 pts more than an Arc claw just to hit at S10 if it's to keep AP-1 and minus 1 to Hit and the inconsistent D3 damage. Arc claws need to be reworked like all Arc weapons as I wrote in my earlier post. I wish they'd give the Torsion cannon a special rule like the Termite Drill, where you roll successive dice rolls to try to keep inflict additional MWs if you successfully wound, first on a 2+, then 3+ etc. Now we have a threatening weapon and Breachers are good at breaching. It wouldn't be busted given the cost and the 4+ to Hit with a single shot, at 24".
I liked the idea of the Mindlock rule coming back giving them BS3+/WS3+ when near a Tech-Priest. Could give them the Ld9 too while we're at it, I still don't understand how Servitors can freak out anyway. They'd need to be near an HQ so I think it would still be fair. About Destroyers they could hit on a 2+ if used with Elimination Volley so I wonder if that might not be a bit much.
Servitors could be fixed if they gave a +1W repaired by a friendly Tech-Priest when he fixes a Vehicle while within 3" of him. Wouldn't be busted neither as you can easily shoot them, and it gives us a better staying power. Maybe limit it someway as you could have a +4 from the 4 Servitors (56 pts), a +1 from Necromechanic and fix twice stratagem. Though I'd sure love the look on my opponent's face when I tell him I just healed 10 wounds on my Dunecrawler.
Arquebuses could easily be lowered to 15-18, Rangers ain't so hard to kill.
Ruststalkers should have AP-1 base on top of their transsonic rules.
And I'd love for Onagers to be able to shoot twice if they didn't move more than half their move characteristic but that's a far away dream I guess
Tech-Priests Dominus's aura should be "Reroll all 1s to Hit for <Forge-World> units within 6" "that way Ryza could start being relevant, and so buff the Omniscient Mask to give full rerolls to Hit for friendly Skitarii in CC.
And I'm not even talking about the relics or Warlord traits. When reading my Drukhari codex I'm drown in interesting options and here there's mostly one sure choice and a few specific ones for some builds. I'm honestly wondering if I shouldn't just make a big text and send it to GW but I fear it will never be read.
Back on topic, isn't there any more CA leaks ? When I saw that they said players had had their hands on CA at the Vigilus event I figured they could read it and so waited all day for more leaks but I'm pretty disappointed it wasn't the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/25 08:19:03
Grimgold wrote: Math is famous for making models that are simple, elegant, but suck absolute horse gak when applied to reality.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post, but would just like to come out in defence of maths and say that it's people using maths poorly that's the problem here, not the mathematics itself!
Suzuteo wrote: There are 91 possible pairings of 14 factions, so if you want to do 5 games of each, that's 455 games. Definitely enough time in a year for 50 players to write a comprehensive Chapter Approved. Hell, with 4 players per faction acting as advocates for the faction, combined with tourney data, there shouldn't be any excuse.
If anything, it's abundantly clear that some factions are just plain underpowered and incoherent. Grey Knights and AdMech need core rule changes, perhaps a new codex. Necrons and Space Marines need points adjustments.
I hope that once all of the codexes are out that they will do all of the balance changes in CA such that every player will only need a codex plus a copy of the most recent CA.
Your numbers are off. With 14 factions, there are 196 pairing, but there are more than 14 factions. Not counting Forge World or factions that can't flesh out a real army (like Inquisition or Assassins), I count 25 factions, which would mean 625 pairings. That's also ignoring soup, and with anywhere from 1 to 3 factions per list, the total comes to around 1,244, with 1,547,536 pairings. That's also ignoring individual Chapters/Septs/Craftworlds/etc, as well as the need to test various different units, wargear, and other options, and having to re-test after major changes that happen during Codex/CA/FAQ creation. Yes some things are significantly out of whack, and yes, some of those are pretty obvious after the meta has had a chance to develop, but comprehensively testing everything beforehand just isn't feasible.
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
*laughs in Space Marine*
AdMech are a better combat army than Black Templar...
Comparing an entire book against the absolute worst option in another book makes the first book look better, what a surprise...
A pretty valid comparison though, since it's pretty hard to just move from Black Templars to playing, say, Guilliman Parking Lot without essentially buying a new army. For someone playing Black Templars the fact that Guilliman exists doesn't matter except for the fact that he's driving up the cost of units that won't ever get his buffs.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
According to actual stats (from BCP) Codex Compliant marines have been performing better than Orks, Necrons, GSC, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Renegade Knights, GK (duh) and Deathwatch. Ad Mech have been performing better than those marines. Blood Angels are a step above Ad Mech.
Can we leave the "who is next worst to GK?" discussion there and focus on Chapter Approved rumours now? Do we have any more news?
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
*laughs in Space Marine*
AdMech are a better combat army than Black Templar...
Comparing an entire book against the absolute worst option in another book makes the first book look better, what a surprise...
A pretty valid comparison though, since it's pretty hard to just move from Black Templars to playing, say, Guilliman Parking Lot without essentially buying a new army. For someone playing Black Templars the fact that Guilliman exists doesn't matter except for the fact that he's driving up the cost of units that won't ever get his buffs.
It's not AdMech's fault that Space Marine players feel entitled to every possible paint combination being competitively viable.
Tzfyr wrote: I think we've got to expect everything to be a little imbalanced this edition. They ripped up the old rulebook and are redoing everything from scratch. I have been in this position and it meant constantly going back and forth matching old factions with the ideas I'd come up with working on the next faction. But I had the luxury of doing that without having to put out the rules for the factions as I was going.
I believe (am sincerely hoping) that 40K follows the AoS model. We had 8th Edition drop - it's fundamentally a marvellous system, but we've now had a couple of years of seeing how it plays out in the real world, as well as new developments and 'Oh, I wish we'd thought of that earlier!'s and it's got a little scruffy in places and a little wonky in others. Once the dust has settled, say a year and a half down the line, we'll hopefully see a '9th' Edition that's essentially entirely the same game, but that straightens out all the little issues that came up in this one.
In the meantime, it's a totally playable and very enjoyable game. There may be balance issues, but there's never been a complaint on the internet about an army being underpowered that I haven't seen followed up by someone demolishing their opponents with it. If you are concerned that your army is too weak, just imagine that you're playing the game on a harder difficulty setting, and rise to the challenge. Personally, it always amuses me when I see someone talking about shelving their units because they're too weak this edition - I only shelve my units when I find I'm winning too easily with them...
Just to throw it out there but AoS2's balance was actually worse when it came out. Like...obscenely worse. Like 'infinite range 100 mortal wound per turn Kroak' and '64 damage attacks from 5pt grots' worse. Even after a rather large number of hotfix turbo nerfs, it's still not any better than 40k's balance at the moment.
The rest of it is a nice thought, but ultimately mostly fluff. Bad armies aren't bad because people aren't being 'creative' enough and the people that manage to smash with them are likely playing opponents that aren't particularly good running armies that aren't particularly good. Sure, you get occasions where someone like Reece from FLG takes a very specifically tailored UM build and pulls top 16, but for every one of those you get 30 average players running the best list they can out of their codex and getting smashed into the bottom 25% of the field. 'Rising to the challenge' also only works if you do it and your opponent, someone running a superior army, DOESN'T. Even then only if YOUR army is above a certain power floor. Not a gamble I would take. If your goal is to place even in the top 32 at a large event like Adepticon, you WILL play opponents who are just as good as you are or even better, and at that point a lot of the game comes down to the strength of your army and RNG. If you think the 'Heart of the Cards' or w/e is going to do more for you than proper preparation and game knowledge then hey, more power to ya.
Suzuteo wrote: There are 91 possible pairings of 14 factions, so if you want to do 5 games of each, that's 455 games. Definitely enough time in a year for 50 players to write a comprehensive Chapter Approved. Hell, with 4 players per faction acting as advocates for the faction, combined with tourney data, there shouldn't be any excuse.
If anything, it's abundantly clear that some factions are just plain underpowered and incoherent. Grey Knights and AdMech need core rule changes, perhaps a new codex. Necrons and Space Marines need points adjustments.
I hope that once all of the codexes are out that they will do all of the balance changes in CA such that every player will only need a codex plus a copy of the most recent CA.
Your numbers are off. With 14 factions, there are 196 pairing, but there are more than 14 factions. Not counting Forge World or factions that can't flesh out a real army (like Inquisition or Assassins), I count 25 factions, which would mean 625 pairings. That's also ignoring soup, and with anywhere from 1 to 3 factions per list, the total comes to around 1,244, with 1,547,536 pairings. That's also ignoring individual Chapters/Septs/Craftworlds/etc, as well as the need to test various different units, wargear, and other options, and having to re-test after major changes that happen during Codex/CA/FAQ creation. Yes some things are significantly out of whack, and yes, some of those are pretty obvious after the meta has had a chance to develop, but comprehensively testing everything beforehand just isn't feasible.
Not to pile on to the op, but you'd also need dozens of games between the same two armies where you kept comprehensive data of damage dealt, damage taken, usefulness for scoring objectives, intangibles, etc before you could confidently say that an individual unit in an otherwise unchanging list setup, in an unchanging mission, is totally balanced. Hardcore tournament players playtest their lists dozens of times and constantly rethink their opinions on units. Then, every point change you make has a knock-on effect because it could be the strength of one specific army/unit keeping crowding out another specific army or unit.
This stuff is way more complicated than people give it credit for. Though GW do manage to make it LOOK more complicated than even that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/25 10:45:22
Just to throw it out there but AoS2's balance was actually worse when it came out. Like...obscenely worse. Like 'infinite range 100 mortal wound per turn Kroak' and '64 damage attacks from 5pt grots' worse. Even after a rather large number of hotfix turbo nerfs, it's still not any better than 40k's balance at the moment.
If you ignore that first two weeks, I'd strongly disagree. If you look at the AOS stats, daughters of khaine aside, the balance is much much better. Plus the nature of the game means that even tough matchups can be engaging and rewarding. Getting blown off the table in 40k does not have that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/25 11:04:43
To be clear, I was talking about the codex, not the model set or their showing at tourneys. AdMech was actually pretty good in the index days, and when you alloy their artillery with Guard, Knights, or BA, you can make a competitive army.
Anyhow, back to my primary point: the AdMech codex is extremely poorly designed and a points change alone cannot fix it. Virtually all of the relics and WLTs are useless. There is only one HQ option; it just comes in three sizes; none of it synergizes with anything but vehicles. Most of the Forge Worlds are internally inconsistent and their strategies are immediately crippled by the aforementioned problems.
Ryza is the poster boy for this problem. The dogma is RR1 to wound in fighting. The stratagem is +1 to wound and +1D for shooting plasma. The WLT lets you buff a non-relic weapon by 1. But none of the CC units have plasma weapons and none of the warlords are particularly good at CC, nor can they take a plasma weapon. And the relic? Not that you can even use the WLT on it, but it's a volkite gun, one that you will never take because literally only one of our stratagems works on warlord shooting anyway (and it's an interceptor-style shooting attack).
So yeah, definitely worse than the Necron and Space Marine codexes; they can probably be fixed with point changes.
Medicinal Carrots wrote: Your numbers are off. With 14 factions, there are 196 pairing, but there are more than 14 factions. Not counting Forge World or factions that can't flesh out a real army (like Inquisition or Assassins), I count 25 factions, which would mean 625 pairings. That's also ignoring soup, and with anywhere from 1 to 3 factions per list, the total comes to around 1,244, with 1,547,536 pairings. That's also ignoring individual Chapters/Septs/Craftworlds/etc, as well as the need to test various different units, wargear, and other options, and having to re-test after major changes that happen during Codex/CA/FAQ creation. Yes some things are significantly out of whack, and yes, some of those are pretty obvious after the meta has had a chance to develop, but comprehensively testing everything beforehand just isn't feasible.
Er... I think you are trying to say that there are 196 permutations with mirror matchups, but that would be counting duplicates; AdMech vs. Necrons is the same thing as Necrons vs. AdMech. There are 91 combinations; 105 with mirror matchups, which don't matter because the goal is cross-codex balance. Even with 25 factions, it's reasonable to get this done, since there are only 300 combinations. If you really want to include chapters, there are 2775 combinations. This gets a bit dicey. I think you would need a larger pool of testers then.
In any case, in game design, balance always begins with a baseline formula. You actually don't need to exhaustively test everything. You simply need to test to fine tune the formula and subjective values of certain stats. Indeed, the goal of testing is rarely to simulate an authentic game. For example, you can create a heuristic game in which you play without dice rolls. All D3's become 2, all D6's become 4. You can assume a certain number of hits rounded up always hit, always wound, etc. Lots of shortcuts you can make to speed the process along.
As for Soup, if the codex balance were better, you could slap on some carrots and sticks to make Soup a lot less popular. Right now, Soup is a crutch for a lot of the weaker armies, like AdMech.
ERJAK wrote: Not to pile on to the op, but you'd also need dozens of games between the same two armies where you kept comprehensive data of damage dealt, damage taken, usefulness for scoring objectives, intangibles, etc before you could confidently say that an individual unit in an otherwise unchanging list setup, in an unchanging mission, is totally balanced. Hardcore tournament players playtest their lists dozens of times and constantly rethink their opinions on units. Then, every point change you make has a knock-on effect because it could be the strength of one specific army/unit keeping crowding out another specific army or unit.
This stuff is way more complicated than people give it credit for. Though GW do manage to make it LOOK more complicated than even that.
It's really not and does not need to be. The key is to produce strong and robust processes. Really, in my professional experience, I have found the most difficult problems to navigate involve the product strategy. For example, in many games that I have worked on, designers are not allowed to nerf things once they are released. For GW, the biggest issue is timing and format. They need to build their process around these CA books.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/25 11:35:16
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
*laughs in Space Marine*
AdMech are a better combat army than Black Templar...
Comparing an entire book against the absolute worst option in another book makes the first book look better, what a surprise...
A pretty valid comparison though, since it's pretty hard to just move from Black Templars to playing, say, Guilliman Parking Lot without essentially buying a new army. For someone playing Black Templars the fact that Guilliman exists doesn't matter except for the fact that he's driving up the cost of units that won't ever get his buffs.
It's not AdMech's fault that Space Marine players feel entitled to every possible paint combination being competitively viable.
I know, right? I'm such an awful person for wanting my army to be viable as opposed to having to buy an entirely new army. I should go hang my head in shame in a corner. Such entitlement!
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Suzuteo wrote: What about AdMech? They probably have the second worst codex after Grey Knights.
*laughs in Space Marine*
AdMech are a better combat army than Black Templar...
Comparing an entire book against the absolute worst option in another book makes the first book look better, what a surprise...
A pretty valid comparison though, since it's pretty hard to just move from Black Templars to playing, say, Guilliman Parking Lot without essentially buying a new army. For someone playing Black Templars the fact that Guilliman exists doesn't matter except for the fact that he's driving up the cost of units that won't ever get his buffs.
It's not AdMech's fault that Space Marine players feel entitled to every possible paint combination being competitively viable.
Probably not, but it doesn't mean that its not a problem.
Every option should be viable in a codex, especially if its an entire chapter / dynasty / whatever.
If it isn't, then that's a failure of design.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
deotrims 16th wrote: just read the latest virgilus post we are getting a sob codex
Beta codex in chapter approved, actual codex late 2019
So far they've released two stratagems and one <order> ability:
Burning Descent - 1CP - Deepstriking seraphim may shoot twice. Handflamer range is extended to 12" for one of the two shots.
Holy Trinity - 1CP - Shooting attack gains +1 to wound, provided the squad is in range with and firing at least one bolter, flamer, and melta weapon at the same target.
Bloody Rose <ORDER> - Sisters gain +1 S and +1 A when they charge or heroic intervention.
Tiberius501 wrote: Do we know what sort of date Chapter Approved is dropping? And, I can't remember, does it cost money?
I think its december and its not a huge cost - 2017 was £20 so assume the same.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
In terms of the actual crap armies played in their absolute mono highest form.
I'd rank them something like this.
Ad mech
Necrons
Custodes
Space Marines
Greyknights
These are the 5 worst armies that have a codex. They are all bad in their own way. All these armies need help in their own way.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I especially hope of Internal Balancing as well as external Balancing.
I think for Example Tau are at the moment boring to play with very little but extreme efective options and also it is frustrating for enemies to get behind those shield drones before finaly doing something.
I also dislike how tau have become a pure stand and shoot armie because every unit with a descent movement and poor range is worse than the options that do it from behind.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of the actual crap armies played in their absolute mono highest form.
I'd rank them something like this.
Ad mech
Necrons
Custodes
Space Marines
Greyknights
These are the 5 worst armies that have a codex. They are all bad in their own way. All these armies need help in their own way.
I'm not sure Custodes belong on the bottom 5, they have had a lot more success as a primary detachment than the other 4 you mentioned. Also unlike the other 4 they are a pretty common soup ingredient, if only for bike captains.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Yeah Custodes perform a lot better than any of the other factions in there. Could make an Argument for Space Wolves though, but haven't seen enough of them to really judge them yet.
I am actually excited for this for the first time ever. Looks like the character creation tools and looted wagon building stuff is exactly what I’m after. Don’t use points so couldn’t care less about those but the other stuff in it looks great so far.
~16000 Astra Militarum: 
~1200 | Imperial Knights: 
~2300 | Leagues of Votann: 
~1300 | Tyranids: 
~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: 
~5000 | Kruleboyz: 
~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: 
~700
~4100
~1660
