Switch Theme:

What is the most difficult 40k Army to play?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Hiding from Florida-Man.

It can be difficult to win with a lot of armies, but some armies appear to be very difficult to play, let alone master.

What do you think are the most difficult armies to play in Warhammer?

 BorderCountess wrote:
Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
CLICK HERE --> Mechanicus Knight House: Mine!
 Ahtman wrote:
Lathe Biosas is Dakka's Armond White.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Whatever army you play is the hardest, and whatever army your opponent plays is the easiest.

Seriously, though, I'd say Orks. I have not played them, but from what I know of tournaments, you've got people who can rock tournaments with Eldar and Marines and such, but can't do well with Orks even when they've got great builds.
Alternatively, maybe GSC. They're a very finesse army.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Personally? (40k or otherwise) One I don't like.

I've always found that if I LIKE the army I do much better with it no matter what it's specific rules.

If I were judging things based solely upon RULES?
Then I'd probably vote AdMech.
They just don't have stable rules.
Once you get the hang of them GW tends to radically change them.....
GSC also suffers from this.

   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

Drukhari are probably up there. They're a glass hammer and used to have many tricks up their sleeves to help out, but this seems greatly reduced in the 10th edition index at least. Fingers crossed for a massive improvement in the codex.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Crispy78 wrote:
Drukhari are probably up there. They're a glass hammer and used to have many tricks up their sleeves to help out, but this seems greatly reduced in the 10th edition index at least. Fingers crossed for a massive improvement in the codex.

Idk. Drukhari can be easy to lose with, but the actual piloting isn't that complicated. It's more that you just don't have a lot of options, so you kind of win/lose on whether your opponent knows how to counter you and whether or not you flub important rolls.

I feel like GSC are at least as unforgiving as drukhari while also having a bigger learning curve to begin with. Speaking as someone who plays drukhari fairly frequently but hasn't worked up the courage to field my GSC this edition.

Side note: man my marines always end up feeling like easy mode compared to my space elves. Even if I don't win with them, they're just way less of a mental load than trying to plan out agile maneuvers or thinking about whether or not I'll have the CP to juke likely charges in the next turn... Like, suddenly being able to just... move a squad onto an objective? And *NOT* have them automatically evaporate to the first thing that shoots at them? It's an entirely different game from the one my squishy elves are playing.

Like my drukhari have to be like, "Okay, we're going to gamble by putting the smallest possible investment of warriors onto this objective. Now in order to score points on it, I need to send this transport to tie up enemy A while the two squads inside go for enemies B and C. Then I'll have the reavers dive in to help hold enemy C because they'll kill my first unit when they fight back. If I spend pain tokens to empower these two units in the fight phase, I should do just enough damage to keep them from killing me off and removing the warriors in a single turn."

Meanwhile marines are like, "Hey, this objective is kind of dangerous. Maybe I should move a second squad onto it."

Edit: And my thousand sons are like, "Wouldn't it be hillarious if my opponent tried moving something within overwatch range of all these flamers? Haha. Can you even imagine."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/04/14 03:13:41



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Depends what one means by hard. Any way playing the game the way it is not pre build by GW is hard. SM for example are writen, FAQed, nerfed etc as if 100% of people played ultramarines.

But if we consider stuff like working army, cost, transport ease etc It would be Ad Mecha. There are armies that fall apart, if not played correctly or which are very intensive on checking and rechecking ranges like GK. There are also tedious to play armies, ones that require a good faction pilot to play, ones that only work in teams. Ad Mecha are all of those things.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think "mental load" is a good objective measure of difficulty. It doesn't necessarily effect win rates - but yeah, the game is fundamentally different.

I guess there are other definitions.

1. How "swingy" is your army? I think the point above about Orks falls under this. I'm not sure Orks are "difficult" exactly - its just that they've often been swingy as opposed to reliable. The pros tend to like armies with high stats+rerolls so there's a very high chance they'll do what they are told. You can therefore map out the objective game a few turns ahead. With swingy armies however the dice can leave you hanging in the wind. You want to reduce those odds if winning a tournament means winning 5-6 games in a row.

2. Does your faction need to focus on the objective game - or can it focus more on ripping apart the opponent, and picking up objectives almost as a side-quest? At some level this depends on whether you currently are in the power pecking order - but its hard to imagine say GSC becoming an "attack-move=win because the opponent's been wiped" army. If you send everything forward its more likely you'll be the one getting wiped. Whereas say Eldar at numerous points of time have been just mathematically better than other factions. Marines often bounce up and down.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Hiding from Florida-Man.

I agree with the mental load equation.

Some armies (like my beloved Imperial Knights) are easier to play with. I measure to see if my enemy is within range. If so, I will attempt to blast them away. If not, I will move closer and attempt to blast them away.

Some forces have auras, and attacks that must be done in a particular order to work... and of your forget to fire the Immolator before your Sisters... your plans can fail.


 BorderCountess wrote:
Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
CLICK HERE --> Mechanicus Knight House: Mine!
 Ahtman wrote:
Lathe Biosas is Dakka's Armond White.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: