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.

Cerberus Heavy Tank Destroyer. If it has something big to shoot at, it does okay. If it doesn't? It's just an expensive cool looking brick.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Chaos Space Marines and Plague Marines. I know that there are better, cheaper options to fill my troops slots with, but I absolutely love the models and have no desire to run armies filled with grinning zombies and/or Mad Max rejects.

^^^This. I play Chaos Space Marines, not Cultists (and) Some Marines.

It's interesting reading a lot of these entries. I still play 6E, but never went past that. It's certainly a surprise seeing Eldar and especially Wraithknights make the list, considering the monsters I kept hearing about back in the Taudar days. Makes me wonder what in Terra's name happened to them.

I do remember at the time quite liking the Pyrovore model. The Biovore looked a bit too goofy, so the former was a good proxy for the latter. It did seem to have a surprisingly high point investment for a Flamer though, and the less-than-stellar statline (we're talking worse than a Space Marine) meant that it often got shot off the table before it could do anything.

The Bloodthirster for me. Easily the worst greater daemon at base and even when buffed with warlord traits, relics, and exalted traits falls short of putting that kind of effort into making one of the other ones good. Particularly the Keeper of Secrets which is better in almost every way.

For me it would be in no particular order,

Necron Tesseract Vault.
Absolutely beautiful model. Great aesthetics and really fits the theme of the "Power stolen from star gods" feeling.

Magnus the Red
Another beautiful model. Shame they never took the time to properly utilize him.

Necron Monolith
Yet another beautiful model. Especially the new sculpt. Titanic for no reason, Lord of War for no reason despite being basically a land raider (or other shooty troop transport). HUGE points cost.

Land Raiders for reasons others have stated.

If I had to pick some for each of my armies:
Dark Angels:
I'll jump on the Land Raider bandwagon too. I've got one, and it was the first model I ever magnetized (can swap between Crusader/Redeemer versions). It's been sitting around partially painted for like 6 years and I just haven't had any incentive to finish it up because they are so bad and have been for a long time.

Firestrike Servo Turret: It would be okay if it wasn't so overcosted, and I actually really like the model, but I would never take one in a list outside of a fun casual game.

Space Wolves:
Stormfang Gunship: I love this model because it's just so classically 40k. A chunky brick of a flying machine that should not be aerodynamic enough to ever move fast, let alone fly, and it has a gigantic gun built into the hull. Pity the rules are a total dumpster fire, because I love this thing!

Krom Dragongaze: I love the model for this guy, but his rules are just trash!

Sisters of Battle:
Paragon Warsuits: I have a set of these, but they are doing shelf duty until they get a points reduction or the meta shifts away from weapons that do d3+3 damage. I'd love to run them as they are probably my favorite Sisters models from the recent wave of releases.

Exorcist: An absolutely iconic Sisters vehicle, beautifully reimagined in plastic. And the rules for it in the current codex make it a turd sandwich. SMH GW, SMH.

Astra Militarum:
Baneblade and variants: I love giant tanks, and would love any excuse to pick up one of these, but right now they just wouldn't work well in any kind of competitive meta.

Deathstrike: I like the idea of shooting a GIANT MISSILE OF DEATH at the opposing army, but the rules for this thing are so bad it's a meme at this point.

Imperial Knights:
Knight Valiant: I love this model, but its rules are pretty lackluster, especially when the Forge World knights are so absurdly pushed right now (especially the Magaera).

>looks at sig...

Yeah erhm, about that.. whole army.

CSM. Because of reasons already stated.
but also cultists because nerfed to death really.

Transports. I love the idea of mechanised infantry but it's just so pointless at the moment.

Maugan Ra.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Transports. I love the idea of mechanised infantry but it's just so pointless at the moment.

"hey boss I got a question about transports does a transport supposed to make you slower?"

"Yeah that seems right slower that's why people use transports."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Carnifexes. How the feth are Rhinos more durable than Carnifexes? .

needle scratch

I’m sorry whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I’m not doubting for clarity. Just…..whaaaaaaaaaa?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m sorry whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I’m not doubting for clarity. Just…..whaaaaaaaaaa?

Carnifex - T7 W8 Sv3+
Rhino - T7 W10 Sv3+

It's not funny.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m sorry whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I’m not doubting for clarity. Just…..whaaaaaaaaaa?

Carnifex - T7 W8 Sv3+
Rhino - T7 W10 Sv3+

It's not funny.

The big punchy bois of the Nids (and even the not so big ones anymore, like the Carnifex) have been left out in the cold for so long. I try to tell myself that Cruddace was just incompetent, there's no way he was vengeful... but I look at the results and it's just uncanny. I can't think of another faction where one of the hallmarks (big brawly monsters) has been so bad and so uninspired for so long. Seriously, just look at the stats for those things, it's appalling. I get angry thinking about Carnifex Crushing Claws hitting on 5s...

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m sorry whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I’m not doubting for clarity. Just…..whaaaaaaaaaa?

Carnifex - T7 W8 Sv3+
Rhino - T7 W10 Sv3+

It's not funny.

The big punchy bois of the Nids (and even the not so big ones anymore, like the Carnifex) have been left out in the cold for so long. I try to tell myself that Cruddace was just incompetent, there's no way he was vengeful... but I look at the results and it's just uncanny. I can't think of another faction where one of the hallmarks (big brawly monsters) has been so bad and so uninspired for so long. Seriously, just look at the stats for those things, it's appalling. I get angry thinking about Carnifex Crushing Claws hitting on 5s...

Yeah, sometimes it's important to realize that, multiple years on now there are still SEVERAL factions playing with the incredibly sloppy results of converting 7e's stats (where big, unreliable swings with lots of power behind them could regularly one-shot a vehicle target) to 8e/9e's paradigm, where big unreliable swings often result in a giant monster rolling a '1' for damage or missing with all *4* of the attacks it gets total, vs the 30-40 melee attacks a decent sized dedicated melee unit might throw out.

Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, GSC, CSM et al get so little attention from GW that most of them are still playing with relatively close to unaltered index 8e statlines.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m sorry whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I’m not doubting for clarity. Just…..whaaaaaaaaaa?

Carnifex - T7 W8 Sv3+
Rhino - T7 W10 Sv3+

It's not funny.

The big punchy bois of the Nids (and even the not so big ones anymore, like the Carnifex) have been left out in the cold for so long. I try to tell myself that Cruddace was just incompetent, there's no way he was vengeful... but I look at the results and it's just uncanny. I can't think of another faction where one of the hallmarks (big brawly monsters) has been so bad and so uninspired for so long. Seriously, just look at the stats for those things, it's appalling. I get angry thinking about Carnifex Crushing Claws hitting on 5s...

Yeah, sometimes it's important to realize that, multiple years on now there are still SEVERAL factions playing with the incredibly sloppy results of converting 7e's stats (where big, unreliable swings with lots of power behind them could regularly one-shot a vehicle target) to 8e/9e's paradigm, where big unreliable swings often result in a giant monster rolling a '1' for damage or missing with all *4* of the attacks it gets total, vs the 30-40 melee attacks a decent sized dedicated melee unit might throw out.

Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, GSC, CSM et al get so little attention from GW that most of them are still playing with relatively close to unaltered index 8e statlines.

Isn't this an issue with trying to keep an "Evolving ruleset" mentality? Things created to play well in 7th, will not translate into 9th, ala Tau. Hell, even knights of 8th are basically useless POS' now in 9th due to the evolution of scoring via objectives. Knights need a separate game entirely. I don't have a suggestion, but they no longer have a roll in 9th. They are essentially titans. All that power, and invalidated by squad of basic elite infantry these days.

Nothing created to 7th survived into 8th without being changed significantly.

But you're right, a lot of armies really got the shaft with the changing gameplay of 9th.
It shows how much of a gak GW gives that the majority of those factions seem to be the BOTTOM of the list to get an update, meanwhile some of the first factions to get 9th edition codexes were the last to get 8th edition codexes, making the reign of the old codex extremely short!

@Fezzik I don't think your thesis is true -- it's one thing when the game rules change how you win; like how 9e (at least at the start, maybe less so now) incentivizes midfield brawlers, and efficient, trade-up units. That paradigm shift will make some units and archetypes go from good to bad and vice versa. It's another thing when the rules updates for armies fail at enabling a unit to fulfill its role in the game, like Scotsman and I were talking about. Now, of course, some units get new roles when they get new rules, and that's okay; but the units I'm complaining about have no role. They are just fundamentally unenjoyable to play, regardless of the rules around scoring.

And not to keep harping on Tyranids, but take a look at the Haruspex and the Maleceptor and the Toxicrene (and the Carnifex even!) in 6/7e -- they were pretty pants then as well. It's been a decade of crap for those guys (a little less for the Maleceptor and Toxicrene since they didn't come out til ~2013.)

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
@Fezzik I don't think your thesis is true -- it's one thing when the game rules change how you win; like how 9e (at least at the start, maybe less so now) incentivizes midfield brawlers, and efficient, trade-up units. That paradigm shift will make some units and archetypes go from good to bad and vice versa. It's another thing when the rules updates for armies fail at enabling a unit to fulfill its role in the game, like Scotsman and I were talking about. Now, of course, some units get new roles when they get new rules, and that's okay; but the units I'm complaining about have no role. They are just fundamentally unenjoyable to play, regardless of the rules around scoring.

Explain to me where we differ on points. Because I think you mis-read my post. We essentially said the exact same thing.

Basically all of the lesser demons. I love the idea of just spamming a ton of little demons as a demonic incursion to a planet but none are really good.

I think a army of mostly bloodletters, plaugebearers/nurglings, Horrors, or demonettes should be really cool adn scray to any planet ebing invaded. fluff wise they would be terrifying but this is not currently how they seem to work on the tabletop.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
@Fezzik I don't think your thesis is true -- it's one thing when the game rules change how you win; like how 9e (at least at the start, maybe less so now) incentivizes midfield brawlers, and efficient, trade-up units. That paradigm shift will make some units and archetypes go from good to bad and vice versa. It's another thing when the rules updates for armies fail at enabling a unit to fulfill its role in the game, like Scotsman and I were talking about. Now, of course, some units get new roles when they get new rules, and that's okay; but the units I'm complaining about have no role. They are just fundamentally unenjoyable to play, regardless of the rules around scoring.

Explain to me where we differ on points. Because I think you mis-read my post. We essentially said the exact same thing.

Maybe I did misread your post/maybe we're talking past each other, but I'll try again. Something like a Knight Gallant (or IDK, pick one of the other ones) works almost exactly the same as it did in its heyday when the Knights Codex came out and it was stomping around and getting 1st turn charges and whomping things. Yeah, maybe its strats cost a CP more (not sure if this is true with the Gallant, I don't play Knights), and the Loyal 32 no longer works the same way due to detachment changes... but that Knight still has that capability of completely whomping units. It's just less useful right now given the way the game has changed. There *is no game state* where a Haruspex or a Forgefiend (non-TS... that's obviously another issue) or whatever becomes good; they are just hamstrung by the rules in their book. That's the difference I'm getting at.

I feel for the IK player, they're probably in as bad or worse a spot than Nids or many other armies. But that Gallant at least had its time to shine, and if the meta magically changed back where its role became desirable again, it could probably show up in winning lists.

There is a game state where IK armies become good, but it involves completely adding a new scoring objective to the Knight centric armies ALONE. Basically, if you are a knight army (More than 50% of your army cost is Knights) then you gain points through destruction of enemy forces, not through objectives or Psyker stuff.

That is the only state I can see IK winning a match in 9th, by giving them special rules.

Tau will likely need a complete overhaul and re-balance, as BS4 units with zero melee capability and over reliance on an outmoded combat phase (overwatch) are basically dead on arrival now.

The Eldar Aspect Phoenix Lords. I have all of them (metal), and they are still neat-looking models. I especially like Baharroth and Asurmen. Too bad they are always way too expensive, points-wise, to consider using. I now just use them occasionally as aspect squad Exarchs (which they were actually originally sculpted to be according to the script on their slotta-base tabs).

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There is a game state where IK armies become good, but it involves completely adding a new scoring objective to the Knight centric armies ALONE. Basically, if you are a knight army (More than 50% of your army cost is Knights) then you gain points through destruction of enemy forces, not through objectives or Psyker stuff.

That is the only state I can see IK winning a match in 9th, by giving them special rules.

Tau will likely need a complete overhaul and re-balance, as BS4 units with zero melee capability and over reliance on an outmoded combat phase (overwatch) are basically dead on arrival now.

I certainly don't disagree WRT Tau. You're probably right with Knights, but again, I'm not really saying otherwise.

I've always had a soft spot for the Stompa. If I did get into Orks that'd be one of the first things on my list.

Same with the Valdor. I got one second-hand for a good deal and it's actually done pretty well in games, moreso when your opponent charges it, not realising it explodes on 2+.

Remora Drones as well. I have 2 and plan to get a couple more for a decent charge-blocking screen for my Coldstar and XV8s.

Monolith, Reivers, and Death Company Dreadnought are some of my favorite losers.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Maybe I did misread your post/maybe we're talking past each other, but I'll try again. Something like a Knight Gallant (or IDK, pick one of the other ones) works almost exactly the same as it did in its heyday when the Knights Codex came out and it was stomping around and getting 1st turn charges and whomping things. Yeah, maybe its strats cost a CP more (not sure if this is true with the Gallant, I don't play Knights), and the Loyal 32 no longer works the same way due to detachment changes... but that Knight still has that capability of completely whomping units. It's just less useful right now given the way the game has changed. There *is no game state* where a Haruspex or a Forgefiend (non-TS... that's obviously another issue) or whatever becomes good; they are just hamstrung by the rules in their book. That's the difference I'm getting at.

What's a TS Forgefiend supposed to do?
My last Crusade opponent (a TS player) fielded one. I mowed it down turn 1 so I didn't get to see it do anything but die*.

*I went 1st & the poor thing was in both LoS & range of all my AT. So, with nothing better to aim the big guns at.... "Boom".

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Maybe I did misread your post/maybe we're talking past each other, but I'll try again. Something like a Knight Gallant (or IDK, pick one of the other ones) works almost exactly the same as it did in its heyday when the Knights Codex came out and it was stomping around and getting 1st turn charges and whomping things. Yeah, maybe its strats cost a CP more (not sure if this is true with the Gallant, I don't play Knights), and the Loyal 32 no longer works the same way due to detachment changes... but that Knight still has that capability of completely whomping units. It's just less useful right now given the way the game has changed. There *is no game state* where a Haruspex or a Forgefiend (non-TS... that's obviously another issue) or whatever becomes good; they are just hamstrung by the rules in their book. That's the difference I'm getting at.

What's a TS Forgefiend supposed to do?
My last Crusade opponent (a TS player) fielded one. I mowed it down turn 1 so I didn't get to see it do anything but die*.

*I went 1st & the poor thing was in both LoS & range of all my AT. So, with nothing better to aim the big guns at.... "Boom".

Nothing.
TS lack all the daemonengine buffing (aka making something actually work like intended) buffbots.
Meaning that a TS forgefiend is in essence a forgefiend without support, which in turn means its absolutely worthless in its existence and might not exist at all more or less in the TS codex.

Not Online!!! wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Maybe I did misread your post/maybe we're talking past each other, but I'll try again. Something like a Knight Gallant (or IDK, pick one of the other ones) works almost exactly the same as it did in its heyday when the Knights Codex came out and it was stomping around and getting 1st turn charges and whomping things. Yeah, maybe its strats cost a CP more (not sure if this is true with the Gallant, I don't play Knights), and the Loyal 32 no longer works the same way due to detachment changes... but that Knight still has that capability of completely whomping units. It's just less useful right now given the way the game has changed. There *is no game state* where a Haruspex or a Forgefiend (non-TS... that's obviously another issue) or whatever becomes good; they are just hamstrung by the rules in their book. That's the difference I'm getting at.

What's a TS Forgefiend supposed to do?
My last Crusade opponent (a TS player) fielded one. I mowed it down turn 1 so I didn't get to see it do anything but die*.

*I went 1st & the poor thing was in both LoS & range of all my AT. So, with nothing better to aim the big guns at.... "Boom".

Nothing.
TS lack all the daemonengine buffing (aka making something actually work like intended) buffbots.
Meaning that a TS forgefiend is in essence a forgefiend without support, which in turn means its absolutely worthless in its existence and might not exist at all more or less in the TS codex.

Oh.
Well at least it looked cool & vaguely threatening for the few moments it was on the board. And I suppose it served to soak a round of fire that I could've otherwise used against other units.
And being a Crusade game it provided my one unit some XP.

Forgefiends in Thousand Sons actually have greatly improved stats, but increased cost.

The base cost went up 25pts (85 to 110) but they got

-base 3+ WS/BS
-always A5 (as opposed to A4/3/2)
-hades autocannon buffed to 48" range and AP-2
-ectoplasma buffed to 36" range and damage flat 3 from damage D3

given the increased cost and the loss of Daemonforge I dont know if its enough to cover the issues they had but its a better situation than they were in in early 8th. triple ectoplasma with flat 3 damage and blast d3 does seem like a fairly decent anti-meq profile - i've seen a lot of lists stack up 6+ TEQ profile models into kind of a deathstar and flat 3 damage could be quite nice for that at 155pts. 160pts for 8 bs3+ S8 AP-2 D2 attacks still seems pretty steep if you go for the autocannons.

IDK. I like it better than marine vehicles. it's got some kind of invuln, it's got some kind of melee capability to avoid getting totally tied up by cheapo gak troops, its got flat 3 or a decent flat 2 profile. I've seen worse.

Certainly doesnt hold a candle to the buffs that are in the tsons codex for heldrakes and maulerfiends.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m sorry whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I’m not doubting for clarity. Just…..whaaaaaaaaaa?

Carnifex - T7 W8 Sv3+
Rhino - T7 W10 Sv3+

It's not funny.

Yeah. . . it's not good. In fact there's a whole gammut here that's gotten weird. Dreadnoughts are less durable than a Rhino, only just now are they getting a -1 to damage to even that out. But now we also have SM Captains with 6 wounds running around, and for a lot of weapons wounding a T5 (Gravis) and a T7 Carnifex/Rhino are the same roll, either 3+ or 5+ with the modern wound chart.

Carnifexes need something. Personally I'd give them a 2+ save and a Regeneration rule where they ignore a point of Damage in the way that Dreads do. . . at least. Bump 'em to 9W while we're at it.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Triumph of St Katherine. A pinnacle of model making and just gorgeous but a total garbage model in terms of actual function. In the last book it was pretty solid but they nerfed it for no particular reason.

Oh yeah. And the rules are way too complex. Layer upon layer of rules, including one that says that "this model benefits from all 6 sacred rites".

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Transports. I love the idea of mechanised infantry but it's just so pointless at the moment.

Would be nice if they brought back fire points, so that you could at least shoot with a special weapon or two.


I love Sslyths (I kitbashed my own using Melusai and Kabalite warriors). Sadly, I have little use for them right now. They could use power swords, IMO.

Scourges need a points reduction. 12 pts for a naked Scourge is way too much.

The SoB Hospitaller is unlikely to make back her points. It's regrettable, because I have one that I spent a long time painting and consider the jewel of my SoB collection.

.