PDA

View Full Version : How do you rank each army, ease/difficulty of play-wise?



MysteryGilgamesh
22-12-2007, 02:58
I'm kind of curious as to how/why people consider X army easy/difficult to play.

I mean, people have long said Eldar take a good amount of skill to work (tri-Falcon/Harlequins being ignored here for a bit, along with similar "Chimps can win with it" lists), yet I've never had trouble using them...

Corax
22-12-2007, 09:21
Its a complex question because each faction can produce a number of different types of armies from its list.

A very rough assessment of the relative complexity levels of the armies in 40K (IMO) would be:

Easy: There are no 'easy' armies. 40k doesn't do easy.
Average: Chaos, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Space Marines.
Tricky: Eldar, Tau, Tyranids.
Hard: Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle.

My reasoning is as follows:

Average: These lists boast tough models (good T, Ld, Sv) (MEQ) or vast numbers (IG, Orks), meaning that they can absorb damage caused by tactical errors better than some of the other lists. These lists also tend to operate relatively straightforwardly, whether it be the traditional Ork charge, or the classic Guard gunline. Either way, these lists have standard strategies that are relatively simple to execute, and do not require the use of complex special rules or devious strategies.

Tricky: The lists in this category fall somewhere in between the other two in that they may have large numbers, or they may have tough models, or some combination of the two. However, what sets them apart from the average lists is that they require the use of certain special rules or unorthodox mechanics or strategies. An example of this would be the Tau battlesuit army, which relies on staying out of HtH and using the Move-Shoot-Move capability of the suits. Lists that focus on mobility (Tau, mech Eldar) or special mechanics such as Psychic powers (Eldar, 'nids) are the ones that fall into this category.

Hard: The armies that I have classed as hard are either very expensive (and consequently very few in number, even if they are tough)(GK), or are relatively weak (in terms of T, Ld, Sv) for their points cost (DE, Sisters). These are lists that are the least forgiving of mistakes, and require good judgment and tactical discipline. They are what I would call 'Mission' armies - this means that they must focus on completing the mission above all else and not get bogged down in a big fight. In a war of attrition, they lose.

PS: None of what I have said here is an absolute. These are simply some general thoughts about the relative complexity of armies, in my opinion.

Epicenter
22-12-2007, 09:23
I agree with you, MysteryGilgamesh. Eldar honestly aren't that hard to win with. I've found Eldar players to be the worst for self-congratulatory back-patting and mutual masturbating about how "difficult" it is to play their army (and therefore how superior they are to other players). The IQ of Eldar players isn't higher than everyone else, but it makes them feel superior to everyone else (the elf mentality is appealing to the players), so it goes on and on. They play differently from Space Marines, so if someone used to playing Space Marines and try to play Eldar the same way, you'll lose. I think that basically sums up the self-deception that Eldar players have that they're these Alexander the Great reborns.

As a rule in 40k, I find that fragile armies that depend on mobility are most difficult to play. I also tend to find that armies that are good in CC are easier to play than armies that aren't good in CC. However, an army that is fragile, mobile, has high firepower, and is poor in CC does not exist in 40k. So the armies that get closest to this ideal are the more difficult armies to play in 40k. For instance, Eldar would be pretty close to this ideal, except as you know, Eldar aren't as fragile as they seem. Dark Eldar similarly should be difficult to play, but they're good at CC, so mostly it's just following a few basic rules to get your troops close then just unloading with your CC specialists FTW. Tau similarly would be very close to the ideal, however their tanks are excellent, and battlesuits aren't really all that fragile. Perhaps Mechanized Infantry IG?

Please note, I equate army difficulty to how much reward there is for a good player. For instance, IG have never won a GT, so in theory they'd be the most difficult army to play in 40k. However, I personally think there isn't much reward in being a skilled commander with IG - you just set up your units, follow some very basic fireplans and tactics and otherwise it's all hoping your BS3 units hit and survive long enough to do enough damage.

The_Patriot
22-12-2007, 10:00
I'll rank them based upon tactical challenge and leave out the guessing regarding their performance on the battlefield since it depends upon the commander.

Tactics Lite: Tau, Eldar, Orks, Chaos, IG, Tyranids, and Space Marines

Because of how the armies are written they are very forgiving of a commander when they make a mistake. You have a good chance of recovering from a simple tactical mistake like leaving a unit in the open.

With Tau you have a good mechanized list that allows your standard foot sloggers a good chance to be delivered to their targets. Tau also have the most powerful ranged weapons in the game.

Eldar have a good mech list that you can easily recover from a mistake. If you use an all jetbike army then you're doing quite well since your basic troops have the bonuses of riding jet bikes.

Orks are a horde army that loves close combat. It doesn't matter how many troops you lose since their numbers can make up for a tactical blunder.

IG are also a horde army except they rule at ranged combat. Due to their numbers they can afford to lose quite a few troops while still allowing them to recover from tactical blunders. Add in the indirect fire and armor it's a pretty good list.

Tyranids are a combination of IG and Orks in how they play. Due to their numbers you can easily overcome the loss of a single squad.

Chaos and SM are very forgiving because they are more durable. Their armor saves, skills, and attributes means that you have a good chance of recovering from a mistake like leaving a unit out of cover. You can tailor them to either be close combat, ranged, or a combination and still make it work. With other lists that choice is made up for you.

Tactics Heavy: Necrons, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, and Witch Hunters

Necrons are a real challenge in getting their troops across the table. They lack vehicles and if a squad takes heavy fire that eliminates them you can force them to phase out. Cover is their best friend but it's also a double edged sword since cover means fire lanes. Fire lanes are the bane of the Necrons since superior firepower will annihilate them.

Dark Eldar are tactics heavy because they're a fast attack close combat army. They lack the saves and attributes to survive determined long range shooting. If the Dark Eldar do not get first turn they can be shot to pieces especially against longer ranged armies. Cover is also their best friend, but due to their vehicles all being skimmers they cannot benefit from a mechanized list.

Grey Knights are very expensive points wise and to field an entire army means that your opponent has very few squads to fire at. Against determined long ranged shooters the dice are weighted against you due to the sheer number of saves you have to make. Due to the points cost it's often unwise to field assassins to make up for some of their shortcomings. There are less Grey Knights on the table compared to a normal Space Marine chapter.

Witch Hunters are pretty cheap points wise and their stats reflect this. What hurts them is their stats and the fact they lack both close combat and long range capability. Their points also means that they're not cheap enough to field in large numbers, but larger then the comparable Space Marines. Cover is their best friend, so mech lists do rather well as their transports provide mobile cover. Acts of Faith and Faith Points are unreliable for any unit outside of a Canoness or Seraphim since you need to roll equal to or under squad size or equal to and over squad size to get them off. This means 20 Sister squads will rarely get off the Acts of Faith that require to roll over their squad size and cuts their effectiveness in half. Losing a squad is devastating since you don't have that many models. If using Inquisitor Lord with Assassins it effectively halves the amount of faith you have available compared to an all Sisters army.

wickedvoodoo
22-12-2007, 11:54
Eldar honestly aren't that hard to win with. I've found Eldar players to be the worst for self-congratulatory back-patting and mutual masturbating about how "difficult" it is to play their army (and therefore how superior they are to other players). The IQ of Eldar players isn't higher than everyone else, but it makes them feel superior to everyone else (the elf mentality is appealing to the players), so it goes on and on.

I play the elves but i dont think this describes me. At least i hope not. Then again i have a pretty poor record with my eldar so i havent had much chance for back patting. I do think they are harder to play than my nids though. Probably just because i am not used to them yet.

SharpSilver
22-12-2007, 11:58
The Space Marines are probably the easiest Army to play with.
Followed by Chaos.

I'll think of the rest.

Grazzy
22-12-2007, 13:26
Little tactics needed - marines, chaos, some nids, some necrons, orks

These armies either have simple tactics (ie orks - ''Get em lads!) or are quite durable and can take mistakes on the chin (ie marines of both types and necrons).

Some tactics needed - eldar, tau

These armies are more difficult because of the lower survivability and the fact that top lists often have few troops (ie mech forces)

Very tactical - Dark eldar, inquisition

These armies are normally very fragile. Dark eldar are incredibly lightly armoured, DH (Grey Knights) and WH are expensive but no more survivable than normal marines. These armies have to use every unit to maximum effectiveness to win.

Grand Master Raziel
22-12-2007, 14:54
There's a few points I disagree with that I want to address here.

1: Space Marines don't require tactical thinking.
Okay, conditionally, I'm inclined to agree with this. Gunline SM armies aren't that difficult to figure out what to do with. Assault-oriented SM armies might be a little more tricky than that, but not too much. On the other hand, Codex: Dark Angels is previewing a whole new day for SM armies. When you have an army built out of 10-man squads with a heavy weapon, special weapon, and veteran sergeant in each, all of a sudden tactics become very important.

2: Eldar are fragile.
That's the perception, but it's occurred to me that it really isn't so anymore. Take a real careful look at Codex: Eldar. First thing I suggest you look for is units with 3+ saves. Codex: Eldar has them in all segments of the FOC now: Striking Scorpions (Elites),Wraithguard (Elites or Troops, conditionally), Jetbikes (Troops), Warp Spiders (Fast Attack), and Dark Reapers (Heavy Support). There are also any number of units that have other methods of protection that ramp up their durability beyond what a 3+ armor save can provide. There's the Farseer+Warlock unit, with its 4+ invulnerable save that they'll normally get to reroll thanks to the Farseer casting Fortune on the unit, for instance. Wraithguard, in addition to having 3+ saves, are T6. Harlequins have the Veil of Tears upgrade, which makes them pretty much immune to incoming fire until they're at point-blank range. Eldar Rangers get +1 to their cover saves, potentially +2 if upgraded to Pathfinders. The Wraithlord is one of the toughest Monstrous Creatures in the game (the only one which might be tougher being the Nightbringer). The Wave Serpent is the best-armored transport in the game, gets the benefit of the SMF rule, and has the energy field that reduces the strength of incoming attacks to 8. Then, of course, there's the well-documented synergy between SMF+Holofields+Spirit Stones in Falcons and Fire Prisms. Do the Eldar have some fragile units? Sure. Are the Eldar a fragile army? Lately, I've been thinking not so much.

3: Sisters of Battle Acts of Faith
I actually just want to offer a correction: some Acts of Faith require rolling equal to or over the unit size, but there's also about an equal amount that requires rolling equal to or under the unit size.

4: DE require high tactical acumen.
This may be the case if you try and play a "balanced" DE army, but the army's rules lend themselves towards two or three rather specific builds that are practically auto-wins if the DE player gets to go first. Part of this is because most players see DE so infrequently that they don't know what to expect when they do encounter this, but the larger part is because of severe balance issues with the builds in question. If GW ever gets around to redoing DE, they're going to have to seriously tone down the Raider Rush and WWP armies while making a more balanced force a more viable approach.

The_Patriot
22-12-2007, 15:00
There's a few points I disagree with that I want to address here.

3: Sisters of Battle Acts of Faith
I actually just want to offer a correction: some Acts of Faith require rolling equal to or over the unit size, but there's also about an equal amount that requires rolling equal to or under the unit size.

What correction is needed when I had already stated that?


Acts of Faith and Faith Points are unreliable for any unit outside of a Canoness or Seraphim since you need to roll equal to or under squad size or equal to and over squad size to get them off. This means 20 Sister squads will rarely get off the Acts of Faith that require to roll over their squad size and cuts their effectiveness in half.

Being a Sisters player I know all too well the rules for my army. ;)

SaintofVirtue
22-12-2007, 15:45
Let's see how I rank each army... I'll go with forgiving, not so much and pray you don't make a mistake.

easy:

Eldar(First appearance): Certain kinds of eldar are very forgiving to play with. Others not so much

Space marines. Obviously being the average troop gives you some flexability

Tau: I place these here because; well they don't have don't have a many different tactics. It's shoot and find new ways to shoot.

ORKS: Ummm WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!! What more do you need to know?

Average:

Necrons: They are here not in easy because even though you can't kill them they have trouble killing their own weight.

Guard: Despite having loads of numbers you have to be careful with these boys. Tanks can be a little to easy to pop.

Chaos: I put them here because they have a few more tactics and different variations than normal marines.

Certain Eldar: Eldar can be many different flavors some can be hard as heck to use others are simple gunlines. This is a shout out to gunlines.

Tough:

Nid: Can be very tough. To much versitility if you are not careful you could end up building a weak army by going crazy with upgrades.

Dark Eldar: They are here even though most of the players I see run the witch assualt force and press the win button. If you don't field one of the 3 lists that are nigh unbeatable then this is a nice spot for dark eldar.

Inquisition/GreyKnights: Fragile troops or expensive ones? A list dedicated to these two is very tough to make work.

Eldar (Again): The eldar can be very difficult to use as well as easy. I find that these lists are more dangerous then the average lists but require more skill. These lists tend to totally destroy their foes but if something goes even slightly wrong the eldar have a tough time recovering from that.


I agree with you, MysteryGilgamesh. Eldar honestly aren't that hard to win with. I've found Eldar players to be the worst for self-congratulatory back-patting and mutual masturbating about how "difficult" it is to play their army (and therefore how superior they are to other players). The IQ of Eldar players isn't higher than everyone else, but it makes them feel superior to everyone else (the elf mentality is appealing to the players), so it goes on and on. They play differently from Space Marines, so if someone used to playing Space Marines and try to play Eldar the same way, you'll lose. I think that basically sums up the self-deception that Eldar players have that they're these Alexander the Great reborns.

As a rule in 40K, I find that fragile armies that depend on mobility are most difficult to play.

Like eldar? lol.

The inflated ego eldar generals probably play "easy" difficulty lists then assume that it is a tough list to play since it is eldar. Eldar adapt to the general, if you want an easy list to play with play Tri-Falcon. It is easy to play and very forgiving but it is harder than it looks to win with it. Don't misunderstand me. I wouldn't play that list if my life depended upon it. It's just by having three falcons you reduce the level of game. How many, non-objective based massacres does this kind of list get? Very few. It doesn't pack that much punch. It's a classic example of lowering the stakes in battle.

But I don't wish to turn this thread into a trifalcon debate. Take it for granted that eldar can be tough to play but they can be easy as well. If your eldar players have a big head, switch armies with them. Let them play your list and you play theirs. Should help clarify if it is tough to play or not.

Or it might be that eldar players know their weaknesses and are just waiting for someone to take advantage of them and destory their entire battleplan in one stroke.

newellm
22-12-2007, 15:54
Easiest: Marines, chaos, tyranids, orks
midway: Tau, Eldar, Guard
difficult: Necrons, Demon hunters, witch hunters, dark eldar

Ianos
22-12-2007, 16:41
Every army can be hard or easy to play depending the setup, mission and opponent. However there are certain armies that have the most builds that can survive under almost any circumstances and deal damage. These armies are all the MEQ equivalents, i.e. Marines, Chaos, Necrons and some very specific WH and DH lists. The two most resilient armies out there are Necrons which with a monolith and lord become nigh impervious to all weapons and have great mobility and Space marines which are not so impervious in terms of toughness but have the best morale in the game and the best troops out there.

Then come the armies that seem fragile but compensate with numbers, like Nids, Orks and IG. The so called GEQs which also are practically immune to damage especially if used right and can also become nigh or completely fearless. These armies however require a little more advanced play as you can have weaknesses in any built, i.e. IG gunline must avoid cc as much as possible. These armies are in the middle ground of difficulty IMHO.

Then come the Eldar and DE, they are all t3 and the DE have practically no save. They are not immune to morale and while the DE can hit hard with their cc units they lack protection to get there whereas the Eldar have protection but are specialized and in the end their small squads don't hit that hard or survive the counterattack. These are the hardest armies to play IMO.

Note that in all the above, i am referring to the general army builds, as i can already see the whole 3 falcon harlies coming up again. Suffice to say that if we go there (don't care how and if broken or how much relatively to the others), there are also other extreme lists for all armies like Nidzilla (which is tougher than necrons and IMHO THE most forgiving and probably no weakness army), 15 destroyers, Assault cannon spam, Loota orks etc. and then the categorization to easiness of play changes again.

intellectawe
22-12-2007, 16:50
DE are easy to play. Their entire game lies in deployment. Once you get used to the army, you'll now if you will win by deplyment alone.

DE are not difficult to play. Loosing that MEQ mentality to win with DE is what most players cannot seem to do.

But it is all subjective. I believe it is all in the player, not the army personally. Just like chess. The pieces by themselves don't do anything but collect dust. Its teh players who win and loose games.

Slaaneshi Slave
22-12-2007, 16:59
I am not sure why people consistantly put Witch Hunters in the "difficult" box, but with a decently set up list I've not had any trouble keeping my win rate above water.

Dominus_Serui
22-12-2007, 17:08
One would rank Witch Hunter/Daemon Hunter relativly easy to win with - pure Grey Knight and pure SoB do have some trouble though - expecially if your deep-strike rolls go massivly wrong every time....like mine...

Grand Master Raziel
22-12-2007, 17:33
What correction is needed when I had already stated that?
Being a Sisters player I know all too well the rules for my army. ;)

On the one hand: my bad. I misread what you wrote.

On the other hand, having properly read your statement, I don't entirely agree with it. The way the Acts of Faith are set up presupposes that units will take casualties during the game. The =-or-under Acts are good for when the SoB units are at full strength, and the =-or-over Acts are good for when they're at low strength. So, over the course of a game, your units should be able to use any given Act, it's just that they won't get to use any given Act on any given turn. That's not really being half as effective, that's just having abilities that are appropriate to use at particular times.

The_Patriot
22-12-2007, 17:40
On the one hand: my bad. I misread what you wrote.

On the other hand, having properly read your statement, I don't entirely agree with it. The way the Acts of Faith are set up presupposes that units will take casualties during the game. The =-or-under Acts are good for when the SoB units are at full strength, and the =-or-over Acts are good for when they're at low strength. So, over the course of a game, your units should be able to use any given Act, it's just that they won't get to use any given Act on any given turn. That's not really being half as effective, that's just having abilities that are appropriate to use at particular times.

Granted but you won't be taking that many casualties if you play it right. The Acts you can use at 20 Sister strong squads are Hand of the Emperor and Divine Guidance. The Passion, Light of the Emperor, and Spirit of the Martyr you can't use meaning that you can never have super fast close combat, fearless, or an invulnerable save. So basically a full sized Sister squad will rarely win combat if against opponents armed with power weapons and are higher initiative. By the time your squads are down to the size to where you can use the other three Acts they are broken due to being below half strength and most likely routed. It also means that they are no longer a scoring unit for objectives.

Slaaneshi Slave
22-12-2007, 17:42
What possible reason could you have for taking Sisters in squads larger than 10 though? Above 10 you are minimising faith points and mobility.

Hicks
22-12-2007, 17:53
Space Marines: Fairly forgiving, the troops are pretty resilient and have a good chance of succeeding in whatever you need them to. The abundance of specialized anti-MEQ armies can hurt though. Overall--> Easy

Chaos Marines: Same as marines, but with the ability to get specialized troops and flying monstous creatures. The danger is to go overboard and end up with too few units. Overall--> Easy

Tau: The Tau can be very hard to kill, they have the advantage of high mobility and they shoot HARD. To me, they are the easiest army to win with. Overall--> Easy

Eldar: They have access to unkillable vehicles and they can load them with super good specialized troops. Unlike marines who have units that can adapt to anything without being overly good, Eldars have an answer to any situation in the form of their specialized troops. You just need the right tool at the right time... but fire dragons and harlequins could be considered must haves. Overall--> Easy

Orks: They have numbers, but also a selection of good quality troops. With their trucks they can quickly bog down the ennemy's troops and beat them down with powerclaw attacks. Their shooting can also cause a lot of damage, so the ennemy only really has one turn to hurt them a lot before finding himself in a world of hurt. Overall-- Easy

Guard: You have an army with great amount of firepower, and that's it. Everything form the tanks to the infantry is super fragile, so you are bound to have a huge casualty rate. The army has 2 modes of play, the part before CC and the part when the ennemy reaches CC. Managing CC is fun, but it is also where you could easily loose the game. Add to that the fact that most missions can't be won if you stay in your deployement zone and you get an army that can hold it's own in a fight to the death, but is hard to win with otherwise. Overall--> Medium

Tyranids: You have the numbers, but like Guards your units are very fragile. You have to rely on the monstrous creatures do do any real damage while protecting them with the gaunts. Tanks and heavy infantry is generaly hard to take down with nids since potential threats are easy to kill for the opponent. Overall--> Medium

Dark Eldar: When your main concern is whether or not you will get first turn raather than what the opponent is fielding I don't how they can be that hard to play with. They become a bit overkill against horde armies, but otherwise they are extremely effective. Overall-->

Necron: Never fought them so I can't tell.

Witch Hunters: Sisters are some of the best troops I've seen for their points. The acts of faith can also be pretty absurd making the army a bit forgiving. The lack of offensive power in both shooting and CC is what makes them hard to play IMO. Overall--> Medium-Hard

Daemon Hunters: They pay way too much for troops that get mauled by any other armies cheaper specialists. If that wasn't bad enough, they need to risk deep strinking or they need to walk to the fight. Every battle is an uphill one for them. Overall--> Hard

Lord Raneus
22-12-2007, 21:31
The problem with categorizing armies by difficulties is that many armies, wvwn SM, can have sub-armies that are much harder to win with- for example, all-bike armies like White Scars or all Assualt-Marine armies, or other armies created with Chapter Traits.


So we have to keep that in mind. ;)

And I'm not sure I would call Necrons hard, as they can be very hard to put down under the right circumstances and even their basic troops can pop vehicles, and be teleported out of combat, which is very handy.

Slaaneshi Slave
22-12-2007, 22:21
Witch Hunters: Sisters are some of the best troops I've seen for their points. The acts of faith can also be pretty absurd making the army a bit forgiving. The lack of offensive power in both shooting and CC is what makes them hard to play IMO. Overall--> Medium-Hard

We have massive offensive capabilities, but medium low defensive capabilities.

TzeentchForPresident
22-12-2007, 22:40
We have massive offensive capabilities, but medium low defensive capabilities.

Medium low defensive capabilities?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH

Slaaneshi Slave
22-12-2007, 22:49
T3 3+ save is medium low. T3 4+ is low. I can make units save invulnerable, but that still doesn't effect the fact that as many SoB as Marine Scouts die to bolters/lasguns. The only unit with good defensive abilities is the Canoness, who can make her save 2+/2+, but is still only T3, so most attacks will be insta killing her (you do have power fists in every squad, right?). Even Guardsmen with grenade launchers kill her in one hit.

Raddman
22-12-2007, 23:17
I would like to add two specialized SM armies that I play, 13th company and Deathwing.

Both are very tactic heavy, and neither are easy.

13th company has no armour whatsoever and Deathwing has a very low model count.

They are both fun to play, but not very competitive.


Rad.

MysteryGilgamesh
23-12-2007, 01:15
Yeah, I just tried 2 games today with my RW. I got hammed bad. You'd think T5 3+ would protect a guy from lasguns...RW definitely seem far more difficult. I didn't even try my DW...

Did 1 Eldar game, pounded the poor IG guy into the floor.

That Guy
23-12-2007, 01:36
I think that Tau are being brushed off a little too easily by some people. Yes, it's the most shooty army in the game (They beat out IG because IG actually has a legitimate counter-charge unit [Rough Riders]), but that's exactly what makes it challenging. Warhammer is all about the close combat phase. It's a lot easy to kill a lot more people in close combat, and a lot easier to make them run. Also, most missions require you to move towards an objective or two. With two forces converging on one point, close combat is going to happen. When I've played Eldar or SM, when my lines get hit, I counter-charge. When I play Tau, I need to completely redeploy to isolate the offending units without compromising my whole battle plan. I'm not saying that Tau are the hardest army to play, but I am saying that I find them to be an interesting tactical challenge and don't consider them easy.

For the most part, the player has to make the choice to play tactically. For example, Dark Eldar are the most fragile army in the game. However, as it has been pointed out, some army builds are almost an auto-win (particularly against my Tau....) So even though most balanced army builds require intricate tactics, others don't. Same with SM. Dark Angels with Bikes, Terminators, Tactical Squads backed up by a couple tanks? Everything has to work together. Drop Podding cleanse-and-purifyers? Point and click.

You don't have to take ineffective units to make a tactical army. Terminators are great, and so are footslogging DE warrior squads. It's just to make these units really effective they need to be a part of a larger whole, which requires a larger plan and thus more thinking.

All that being said, I feel like I'm just cheating and not actually answering the question so, generally speaking, here's the breakdown I see:

Easy: SM, CSM, Ork

All these armies are just so forgiving. Ork's have more where that came from. SM's have that wonderful 3+ save and a T 4, plus great morale. You can make a few mistakes and still win.

Medium: IG, Tau, Eldar, Necrons

No IG player has ever won a GT. They're a bit tricky, yet they can only do so much besides stand and shoot. I mentioned Tau above. Eldar require synchronization, but are pretty forgiving. Necrons are the most resilient army in the game, but are so damn slow. (I am assuming a balanced list. The Necron build of 30 Immortals and 15 Destoyers with two Lords with the Veil is definitely under easy).

Hard: Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar

Daemonhunters just don't have enough Grey Knights, and pound for pound Storm Troopers are really quite terrible. Dark Eldar are so fragile that you get one mistake and then you're done. The problem with sisters is that all their firepower is mid-range or short-range (except for the Exorcist...I wonder why you see the three Exorcist build so often...) and they can't hold their own in combat, which always ensues once you get to mid/close range.

Anyways, my two cents.

Epicenter
23-12-2007, 02:01
(A disclaimer I should put in about Eldar players: Not ALL Eldar players self-congratulatory types - in fact, most aren't. But anytime you get a few Eldar players together on some forum, it seems it's never that long before there's a lot of, "And that's why I play the most difficult army in the game!" posts followed by a bunch of "Hear hear!" from the other posters.)

As for army difficulty, I think it's very important to keep in mind that anyone can make a "gimped" army build by choosing less-than-optimal builds for their army. I think the point is that the ratings should be done assuming a "tournament" army has been made - that is, the list has been chosen with the most optimal units for the points and that no units have been chosen for "flavor."

SaintofVirtue
23-12-2007, 03:02
Going by that thought, it once again depends on the player. Personally I find eldar tri falcons to be a very inferior tournament list. A balanced list can be pretty forgiving in damage terms. On the other hand you can be badly burned on tactics. Then again, what do I know?

(I agree that I find myself frustrated by the sheer number of eldar players that claim it is the toughest army to play. It can be, no doubt; but I'm fairly certain that they are not using it that way.)

RUSSADER
23-12-2007, 03:07
From Easiest to Hardest to win with.

SM Easiest by far.
Nids
CSM (New book, otherwise they would be second or first)
Orks
Necrons
Eldar/Dark Eldar
Tau
IG

From hardest to easiest to play, (rules wise not win wise.)

CSM (New, otherwise 3.5 would pt them in the middle)
SM
IG
Necrons
Orks
Nids
Tau
Eldar/Darkeldar

Dragonlv8
23-12-2007, 07:11
Its a complex question because each faction can produce a number of different types of armies from its list.

A very rough assessment of the relative complexity levels of the armies in 40K (IMO) would be:

Easy: There are no 'easy' armies. 40k doesn't do easy.
Average: Chaos, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Space Marines.
Tricky: Eldar, Tau, Tyranids.
Hard: Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle.

My reasoning is as follows:

Average: These lists boast tough models (good T, Ld, Sv) (MEQ) or vast numbers (IG, Orks), meaning that they can absorb damage caused by tactical errors better than some of the other lists. These lists also tend to operate relatively straightforwardly, whether it be the traditional Ork charge, or the classic Guard gunline. Either way, these lists have standard strategies that are relatively simple to execute, and do not require the use of complex special rules or devious strategies.

Tricky: The lists in this category fall somewhere in between the other two in that they may have large numbers, or they may have tough models, or some combination of the two. However, what sets them apart from the average lists is that they require the use of certain special rules or unorthodox mechanics or strategies. An example of this would be the Tau battlesuit army, which relies on staying out of HtH and using the Move-Shoot-Move capability of the suits. Lists that focus on mobility (Tau, mech Eldar) or special mechanics such as Psychic powers (Eldar, 'nids) are the ones that fall into this category.

Hard: The armies that I have classed as hard are either very expensive (and consequently very few in number, even if they are tough)(GK), or are relatively weak (in terms of T, Ld, Sv) for their points cost (DE, Sisters). These are lists that are the least forgiving of mistakes, and require good judgment and tactical discipline. They are what I would call 'Mission' armies - this means that they must focus on completing the mission above all else and not get bogged down in a big fight. In a war of attrition, they lose.

PS: None of what I have said here is an absolute. These are simply some general thoughts about the relative complexity of armies, in my opinion.

Id agree except from experiance, Space marines are quite easy to run and hard to do badly.

fwacho
23-12-2007, 08:57
This should be a fun read.

Speed. Speed makes all kinds of things possible. It allows for maneuvering and setting up firelanes of death. It also gives you enough rope to hang yourself. Eldar in the hands of newbies frequently get clobbered because the speed gets them in trouble. Isolated units ect.

Speed allows for effectiveness but give equal potential to the opposite. Thus, fast armies will be more difficult to play as the opportunity to make bad decisions multiplies. also, speed tends to cost points which further magnifies a bad decision.

All that said, I'll speak my peace.
Spacemarines (balanced) are relatively easy to use. armor allows you to ignore heavy bolters and there is generally enough speed and armor in the list to allow you to shift a little bit as needed. There is also just enough specialization to allow for creation of a list that suits one's play style (that's makes a big difference) It's usually a forgiving list that can roll with a few punches.

Necrons. Necrons have unique version of speed I'll call mobility. They are kind of like mercury in bowl. Tehy can't go a long way fast but short distances are easy particually when employing a monolith to keep your troops moving add in veil of doom and some destoyers and you have a resonably quick list with a lot of firepower, and also enough rope to go get yourself hanged. Necrons score middle of the road but toward easy side. If "phase out" were not an issue they would be easy.

Tau are mobile like the Necrons. not huge 24" bursts of speed but 12" movement throughout the list. They do require some combined arms tactics for usefulness and the markerlights add in a whole new dimension (especially in higher point games). They've got plenty of rope to hang themselves with so i score them a medium. Firewarrior heavy with tanks score the difficult side of easy.

Guard are reasonably easy to use, but not necessarily win with. It's a matter of setting up firing lanes and making smart deployments. of course a bad deployment leaves guard in a world of hurt. Thus guard may not win a game on deployment, but they can lose it there.

Eldar. This really depends hugely on the list chosen. Mech lists can absoultely own if their general is paying attention. Combined arms approach makes for a very fun and challenging play style. The sniper forces tend to be on the easier to use side. Eldar tend to be easy once you've got a few games under your belt. A newbie,however, can expect to get creamed acouple times first.

Nids: I havne't fought a nid army in 3 years

Sisters: Medium seems to stand out. they've got good armor and their faith points can pull units out of a jam IF the general knows their rules well enough. You've got to know the rules to use this army well. they can gernally get enough numbers out there to make horde armies sweat, and force enough saves to give MEQ's trouble. However... You have to be very smart with thier movement to pull this off. there is a learning curve to get past.

Ravenwing. This is a hard army to play with. I win with my small army a lot, but when I loan it to someone else they get slaughtered. For such a fast army, they require a lot of patience. diminutive model count means every casualty hurts. although it packs a whallop and has a t-5 across the board it requires great care. Oh, it can be devastating, but it's fragile as anything. A lot of what is said here can be applied to other fast space marine armies (scars and BA for example)

Orks: I haven't seen the new codex yet but the old one made for some serious thinking to win.

Chaos: not totally easy. they do have a lot of stuff to choose from which makes losing focus with your army a potential problem. They are somewhat forgiving and allow building to a specific play style. They can get a bit fragile at times (aka a few casualties have a large impact) But tend to be resonably resiliant. I rank them just under necrons in difficulty

Demon hunters. I fight these armies a lot and play a lot of close games. This army is not terribly difficult to use if you have a decent army list (it's just making that list that's hard) I'm specifally refering o a list that's not pure grey knights but also inculdes an INQ and a few storm troopers. done that way they are slow but back a stong upper medium range punch.

my list
Easy to hard

Balanced marines
Chaos
Eldar (sniper)
Guard
Necrons
Tau
Eldar (Mech)
Demon hunters
Sisters
Bike based Marines

Not rated: DE, nids, new ork

gorenut
23-12-2007, 09:36
I agree with Ianos.. almost all armies can be tailored with a themed list that is harder to play. Most lists can also be totally cheeseballed. Certain armies are just pretty tricky to use no matter how you look at it, such as Grey Knights or Witchhunters.

Corax
23-12-2007, 09:46
To be honest, I think this entire thing is a really speculative argument, as most people's perceptions will tend to be shaped by their experience playing with or against the armies in question.

However, I believe there are certain key factors that are most influential in determining the relative position of armies. They are (IMO), in order importance:

1. Cost - How many points does the model cost? Is it good value for its points? Regardless of what GW may say about 'balance', we all know that some units are more equal than others. Armies that have more valuable units at reasonable costs will have an advantage. Models can be cheap but weak, or expensive and tough, but the key questions is are they good value for their points?

2. Mobility - How good is the unit/model at getting from A to B? Models that have jump packs, Fleet, teleport or do something else to move around quickly are infinitely better than footsloggers in a game where controlling objectives is essential to success. Good transport vehicles can also fall into this category.

3. Leadership - Models/units that have high Ld and/or abilities that stop them running away are always going to be better than those that are prone to fleeing. Models that stick around are better than those who don't.

4. Toughness - Not the 'toughness' stat per se, but the combination of T and Sv. How hard is the model to hurt. Models that are hard to hurt will stay around longer.

5. Bling - The bells and whistles that any army has attached to it. The various bits of wargear and special rules that help an army do its thing. This is not as vital a part of the army as the more basic elements of the capabilities of units, but it is still significant in terms of the overall effectiveness of the army.

Khaine's Fury
23-12-2007, 09:57
Well, just to add the Eldar veteran side of things...ahem...

Phil Kelly gave we Eldar players a very great thing, he gave us the ability to play almost any army build you can think of...from foot-slogging to fast bike or Mech, to stealthy. Eldar armies can be super-durable, fragile as crystal or a total mix of the two. But certain things stay the same....Eldar are expensive, specialised and other than ghost units, not very tough. It's this fragility which leads to the rep about being hard to play.

For experienced players, Eldar play themselves and i'm pretty sure this also stands for most armies out there where the owning player has a lot of experience fielding them. But new Eldar players get mauled, and this too leads to the hard-to-play rep.

Eldar players as back-slapping, self-congratulatory mastabators? Yes, i've witnessed that a lot......but i've seen it from Guard players just as much to be honest. And if you get any like-minded bunch of guys together talking about their pet hobby they'll be like this, taking part in a verbal never-ending circle jerk...cars, football, you name it.

I take a very balanced Eldar army which does not use 2 of anything ever apart from Spiders. I only use Falcons in Apocalypse, but feel ok to do this within the boundaries of this game since there is more than enough cheese being bandied about by all, so that my Falcon Cloudstrike formation almost looks petty....!! But i don't like all of the Falcon hate because i personally find it easy to contain. When i have handed my Eldar force to my opponent and used theirs, i have annihilated the Eldar, so this again makes them appear hard to play.

I think it depends largely on your mindset. I have always gravitated toward specialised forces because i prefer them to multi-role....they are easier to play in my opinion, not harder. It is clear what your Banshees are for....obvious what your Firedragons are for....you know where your Pathfinders are going to be shooting......hawks are going here, Spiders there...etc, etc.

And therein lies the difficulty. Your opponent can see this too if he has half a brain in his head. SMF or not, the tanks are AV12....the troops largely toughness 3, BS 3.......these are not ideal stats and Eldar do have to be placed optimaly to be capable of performing.....THIS is the difficulty Eldar players refer to, and it can be a real balancing act. But you have to look at these things with the whole picture in front of you, and it very much depends on your opponent, his army and list, terrain, evrything!! It is not just a case of turn-up and win, even for tri-Falcon lists....

Have a good Christmas guys, KF. :)

The necrons will rise
23-12-2007, 10:37
People rank the different factions about the same way I see. With the exeption of one. The necrons.. Even though the list gotta be the easiest to understand. Why this I ask myself? I believe it is because they have such a different set of rules.

They are MEQ and have some moblie units. But the phase out rule can be a real pain in the neck agains a veteran player. I would rank them as medium to use since there are not so many options and weapons to remember but phase out requires some thinking to avoid sometimes.

SaintofVirtue
23-12-2007, 16:41
Well, just to add the Eldar veteran side of things...ahem...

Phil Kelly gave we Eldar players a very great thing, he gave us the ability to play almost any army build you can think of...from foot-slogging to fast bike or Mech, to stealthy. Eldar armies can be super-durable, fragile as crystal or a total mix of the two. But certain things stay the same....Eldar are expensive, specialised and other than ghost units, not very tough. It's this fragility which leads to the rep about being hard to play.

For experienced players, Eldar play themselves and i'm pretty sure this also stands for most armies out there where the owning player has a lot of experience fielding them. But new Eldar players get mauled, and this too leads to the hard-to-play rep.

Eldar players as back-slapping, self-congratulatory mastabators? Yes, i've witnessed that a lot......but i've seen it from Guard players just as much to be honest. And if you get any like-minded bunch of guys together talking about their pet hobby they'll be like this, taking part in a verbal never-ending circle jerk...cars, football, you name it.

I take a very balanced Eldar army which does not use 2 of anything ever apart from Spiders. I only use Falcons in Apocalypse, but feel ok to do this within the boundaries of this game since there is more than enough cheese being bandied about by all, so that my Falcon Cloudstrike formation almost looks petty....!! But i don't like all of the Falcon hate because i personally find it easy to contain. When i have handed my Eldar force to my opponent and used theirs, i have annihilated the Eldar, so this again makes them appear hard to play.

I think it depends largely on your mindset. I have always gravitated toward specialised forces because i prefer them to multi-role....they are easier to play in my opinion, not harder. It is clear what your Banshees are for....obvious what your Firedragons are for....you know where your Pathfinders are going to be shooting......hawks are going here, Spiders there...etc, etc.

And therein lies the difficulty. Your opponent can see this too if he has half a brain in his head. SMF or not, the tanks are AV12....the troops largely toughness 3, BS 3.......these are not ideal stats and Eldar do have to be placed optimaly to be capable of performing.....THIS is the difficulty Eldar players refer to, and it can be a real balancing act. But you have to look at these things with the whole picture in front of you, and it very much depends on your opponent, his army and list, terrain, evrything!! It is not just a case of turn-up and win, even for tri-Falcon lists....

Have a good Christmas guys, KF.


Thats' a very good call there. Eldar do really play themselves with a skilled general. Without a good commander behind the wheel though they tend to flounder about before they die. Then when a rookie finally gets the eldar working for him, well he thinks that he has mastered the "toughest" amy. Personally I think the toughest army to play is one that runs counter to how you think. I couldn't ever play a tau army and do aswell with it as I do with my eldar, no matter how hard I try. I disagree with the philosophy of how they fight, emphasis on shooting. Just like I couldn't play a khorne army well. I don't like charging like maniacs across the table. They don't fit me. A balanced, tricky, and sneaky list on the other hand, fits me like a glove. That may be why the eldar codex can be the most dangerous codex out there. You can taylor it to your playing style. The others you can taylor somewhat but not to the same degree. It would also explain why people tend to do poorly with someone elses' eldar army, it doesn't play like they think it does.

EmperorEternalXIX
23-12-2007, 18:51
The easiest to win with, to me, has to be any CC army. The simple fact is, their weakness is shooting mostly, and once they breach your line your guns fire no more...

As for the hardest, I would say the Guard. Just because they take such a beating each game it's always a gamble.

Epicenter
24-12-2007, 00:19
Eldar players as back-slapping, self-congratulatory mastabators? Yes, i've witnessed that a lot......but i've seen it from Guard players just as much to be honest. And if you get any like-minded bunch of guys together talking about their pet hobby they'll be like this, taking part in a verbal never-ending circle jerk...cars, football, you name it.

It's true. On the other hand, doing that about the worst-ranked army in tourneys is basically like a bunch of fat kids hiding in the locker room after getting bullied on yet again, saying, "Well, at least I kicked the Eldar kid in the shin. I think he even felt it through his shinguards!" "Yeah, I slapped the Marine player before he smacked me with his brass knuckles!" - I sort of indulge it (being a Guard player myself), I suppose because it's hard to take seriously. ;)


Have a good Christmas guys, KF. :)

Happy holidays, KF.

Gensuke626
24-12-2007, 00:55
In my days, I've played 4 armies, so I figure I'd share my experiences with them in order of when I got them.

Eldar - Even with new Eldar, I can see them being tough buggers to play. You can run a "Dirty Tricks" army that basically plays itself, but unless the commander has a good grasp of Target Prioritization, Eldar tend to crumble. I used to run a Guardian heavy + Fireprism build that used vypers to tankhunt. In the months leading up to the nex codex I brought my Eldar out of Retirement and ran an Avenger heavy + Rangers list with Firedragons in a Falcon (Which was almost as unkillable back then). I did well, but I managed to still lose a good deal. I haven't tried the new Codex, but it seems to not have changed much in terms of overall feel.
Overall rating - Challenging. Troops are relatively fragile, and aren't as skilled as "elite Troops." Elite troops are highly skilled, but expensive, fragile, and highly specialized. Tanks are amazing. Requires a relatively keen sense of strategy.

Tyranids - Ahh my first horde army. I started with nids back during Armageddon 3. For me it's always been Horde of Gaunts Charge and try to tear everything apart while other things come in. I played tyranids pretty much right up untill the months leading up to the 4th ed Eldar dex. I mostly ran a Stealer/Lictor Flank sweep style army. I did pretty well with it, though I didn't like what they did to my favorite Toy (The Lictor) in 4th ed so I decided it was time to move on.
Overall rating - Moderate. Gaunts die so fast that I never bothered to count, but they always made it easy for my big boyz to come out and play in relative safety. I love Genestealers. The Army pratically plays itself on some days, but it still needs a half-way decent hive-mind to direct the feeding Frenzy.

Chaos (Night Lords) - Oh my night lords...Probably my worst army. I started them for the Eye of Terror Campaign to be the "Bad Guys" to my friend's Imperial Guard army. The small, elite aspect of the troops didn't lend itself well to my way of thinking. I flinched everytime I watched a Nightlord die, and I was usually a tad powerless to stop it. I ran a 50+ marine Mechanized army. 2 units of marines to hold objectives and stand back, 1 unit of marines in a rhino to rush up and take forward objectives, 2 rhino mounted havoc squads with 4 tankhunting Meltas...to...er...tankhunt...backed up by 2 5 man Raptor squads. I was underwhelmed but I had fun.
Overall Rating - Moderate. Reading the new Dex and looking at what I had, I realized I probably designed the army wrong. But in any event, Chaos seems to be a pretty solid army now, pretty forgiving while able to dish out major punishment. For my own army I'd rate it at Frustratingly Difficult, but I'm not a Marine player at heart.

Orkz - And I come to my current army, my Orkz. With the new codex on the horizon, my oppinion will no doubt change soon, but I have to point out a few things for you viewers who don't play Orkz. 1. The average ork is pretty fragile. T4 with a 6+ is't a whole lot of protection when the average strength of weapons I find myself on the recieving end of is S 5 ap 4. 2. The boyz are cheap, but not that cheap at 9 points per...so I can soak fire pretty good, especially with a grot screen. 3. BS 2 is a major hinderance...except to my Rokkits...which seem to hit often enough that I've unofficially declared my Tankbustaz to be BS 4. I never play them as BS 4 but they make my dice roll high for some reason. 4. it is very easy to get caught in Terrain.
But...The Army is so much fun to play, It's all forgiven....to be honest, when I play I can't tell if I'm running the army or if the army is running me (What with me Screaming WAAAGH! at the top of my lungs when a Good hit lands or chanting "Orkz, Orkz, Orkz, Orkz!" as I move.) I run mostly Foot Sloggers, but I have a Looted Demolisher and 2 trukks to "Cause Mayhem in the enemy lines" while my Boyz and grots secure objectives and gnerally try to get to the enemy line.
Overall rating - Pretty challenging. You have to know how to make them work, and you have to be willing to sacrifice about 75% of your army...but if you can do both then you're golden.

MadJackMcJack
24-12-2007, 01:18
There seems to be an odd trend towards thinking that all you need to do to win with Orks is charge at the enemy and shout "Get 'em lads!" in this thread. Having T4 isn't that much of a boon when you have esstentially no armour vs shooting (only AP- weapon I can think of is the lasgun). To avoid shooting tearing you up, you need to either hug terrain (not always possible, and even then tough for all the boys to do so), splash out on meks with force fields (pricey and limited availability), or buy a grot mob (effective right up until the point where a smart opponent simply kills them off first, then goes to work on the now-uncovered Orks). It's not without good reason that most Ork players rush fast-movers in first in order to tie up enemy shooters long enough for the foot-sloggers to arrive.

Gensuke626
24-12-2007, 01:20
Agreed Madjack...I get the feeling that most people who claim that orks can simply WAAAGH! their way to victory don't actually play orks...

MadJackMcJack
24-12-2007, 13:04
Although with the new codex, we can quite litterally WAAAAGH! to victory. Fleeting Orks should scare the bejesus out of anyone except 'nids (who'll be fleeting towards you anyway).

Grand Master Raziel
24-12-2007, 13:32
One thing I don't understand is why Looted Rhinos never caught on with Ork players. Even if you don't use them to shuttle units around (although they'd be good for units like Burna Boyz or Tankbusterz), they could be used as a mobile wall that blocks opponents' lanes of fire at footslogging mobz. Any guns that are good for mowing down Orks would tend to bounce off of Rhinos. Plus, if your opponent does shoot at them, he creates LOS-blocking terrain that grants 4+ cover saves. Seems like a win-win situation for an Ork player to me.

EmperorEternalXIX
24-12-2007, 19:48
Actually, I have to change my answer, and I will probably get crap for it, but...I seriously think Eldar is the easiest army in the game to win with. Why? Simply because in the Eldar army you have MAXIMUM capability to deal with everything.

Fast army? You're faster.

Horde army? You can have tons of shots from miles away.

Mechanized? You tanks are feared by players throughout the game, they can cross the board very quickly and let out a squad of Fire Dragons and eat any tank for breakfast as they shoot underneath the nigh-invulnerable skimmer.

CC? Harlequins are one of the most whined-about and feared CC troops in the game.

Shooty armies? Eldar (at least in my admittedly limited experience) seem to have more high strength shots than any other army I've encountered so far (Yes, even Tau. As good as they are, BS3 and the points spent on lesser ranged battlesuits evens it out).

Objective mission? Big deal. Keep a falcon with an expensive scoring unit in it and snatch it at the last second. 400+ VP easy, no?

And let's not forget the Fearless melta-belching monstrous creature...

My eldar friend that I see most doesn't play very well -- in fact at times, in the spirit of being crazy he does downright stupid things. But he still manages to basically accidentally maul necrons, gunline/mech/droptroop guard, nids, and even the old codex Khorne army -- which fell to him in once in little over two turns (thanks to some bad dice rolls, but still).

Even my friend who actually plays the Eldar feels that they have some cheese in their codex, and as such, he has never even used Wraithlords -- he refuses to, as he seems to be of the mind that his build would crush all of our friends too easily if he used them -- and he only uses 1 wraithlord.

Recently my gaming group all swapped codices to see what it was like to play each other's armies, you know -- just for fun. One of my friends took the Dark Angels codex from me and actually asked me how the hell you were supposed to win with a gimped force like that. I played Dark Angels for six months and other than one match where a lucky ToF killed an icon bearer and stopped a boatload of demons from showing up I never won a single game.

Every time I played we'd be adding up VPs and people would ask of an easily killed dreadnought, "How much was that, 120?" and I'd say "No...190." And they'd look at me like I was daft.

It was the same for every squad:

"That three man bike squad with two meltas and a fist? What is that, a hundred?"
"No. It was 170."

"Those landspeeders 100 points?"
"No. 175."

It wasn't just with points, either. It plagued me through gameplay too:

"Why didn't you roll an invulnerable save for your librarian?"
"He can't have one."
"Oh...wow."

"You should put more guys in your command squad next time."
"I can't. It caps at 5."
"Are you sure?"


"What happened to those Veterans you used to use in the regular SM codex? Those guys were good, you should use them with the DA."
"They don't have furious charge."

"Your assault marines would be better if you gave them some power weapons."
"I can't."
"Oh. What about Furious Charge?"
"Nothing in the DA codex can get furious charge."
"What?!"

"You forgot to shoot with the Ravenwing master landspeeder."
"No, he's stunned. He's been shaken or stunned since the beginning of the game."
"He's immune to that, isn't he?"
"No, he's not." [shows book]
"Oh. Well at least he's probably not that...wow, 200 points...wow."

"You should attach your techmarine to a squad."
"I can't. He's not an independent character."
"I know, once his squad dies though he--"
"No, he can't, ever. He just can't." [shows book] "See?"
"Oh..."

"You know those terminators would do a lot better if they had two assault cannons or more guys."
"I can only have five guys and one assault cannon."

For this and for the obvious RW/DW handicaps, I deem the Dark Angels the crappest crap that ever crapped, and by far the most common loser in both my and the club's experiences. So logically I'm gonna say that they are one of my top picks for tough to play.

Kahadras
24-12-2007, 20:18
Ranking armies is difficult IMHO due to different builds and the local metagame. People go on about how easy Marine armies are to play but actualy I find that isn't the case due to the anti MEq bias. I've regularly faced armies stuffed to the gills with plasma, lazcannon, missile launchers and about every other weapon that has an AP of 3 or less.

Kahadras

Madfool2
24-12-2007, 20:38
I have to say Orks are tough to use but VERY fun.

I used an army yesterday, I used it badly as it was the first time I had used orks (ever). But it was a laugh, even when my boyz got mowed down by gauss fire.

I still won, mega nobs made a mad dash to the enemy deployment zone (Alpha recon, what fun!)

Champsguy
24-12-2007, 20:51
Recently my gaming group all swapped codices to see what it was like to play each other's armies, you know -- just for fun. One of my friends took the Dark Angels codex from me and actually asked me how the hell you were supposed to win with a gimped force like that. I played Dark Angels for six months and other than one match where a lucky ToF killed an icon bearer and stopped a boatload of demons from showing up I never won a single game.

<snipped complaints>

For this and for the obvious RW/DW handicaps, I deem the Dark Angels the crappest crap that ever crapped, and by far the most common loser in both my and the club's experiences. So logically I'm gonna say that they are one of my top picks for tough to play.

Certain units in the DA codex are not point efficient, it's true. But DA players can also get certain units for a steal. I'm starting a DA army (haven't played it yet -- I'm paying a guy to paint my army right now, should be ready in a month or so), and I'm drooling over some of the possibilities. A good Dark Angel army will look a lot different from a standard Marine army. Predator Destructors for 95 points, Razorbacks for 50. Combat squads on Devastators. There are lots of good things in the DA codex. They just aren't the same ones that the normal Space Marines have.

SaintofVirtue
24-12-2007, 21:33
Indeed DA can be a very dangerous army. I have a friend that plays them and his win /loss record is almost as impressive as my own. I think he wins about 80% of the time. The thing is they play totally different from normal marines. I think one of the biggest things is the Deathwing. Half of them deep strike in the first turn. I'm pretty sure that includes dreadnoughts as well.

AngryAngel
25-12-2007, 03:39
I think every army can be easy or hard..or medium. Its all about the people who play them. I don't think anyone has an easier or harder army really. People just say those things to make themselves feel smart, superior or better then their fellow man. If you actually are smart..and focus on learning your army..each army can deliver and destroy the same.

Edit: For those who don't think the DA are hard to play. I suggest you actually do it. We have all the increases of the new chaos. Benefits of dubious use, the best thing we got is combat squads. Think your cool all ya want..but don't sit back and judge someones army as easy until you actually use it. Alot of people have tried DA and forsaken them as too hard..or too weak. I'm not one of those..but then I always played them because I really enjoyed their fluff..not because they were the uber marines of doom..which they will never be.

Champsguy
25-12-2007, 06:20
Edit: For those who don't think the DA are hard to play. I suggest you actually do it. We have all the increases of the new chaos. Benefits of dubious use, the best thing we got is combat squads. Think your cool all ya want..but don't sit back and judge someones army as easy until you actually use it. Alot of people have tried DA and forsaken them as too hard..or too weak. I'm not one of those..but then I always played them because I really enjoyed their fluff..not because they were the uber marines of doom..which they will never be.

I played Dark Angels in 3rd Edition with their 52 point Terminators, and I won games (and I used Terminators). I think I can handle 4th Ed. Dark Angels have some very nice advantages, and can bring to bear some great firepower. I'm looking forward to using them. I plan on bringing lots of 10 man Tactical Squads with Razorbacks and breaking them into combat squads. I'll leave the heavy weapon in a good firing position and advance with the Razorback to deploy the close combat group. It'll be fun.

The army that would be hardest to play for me is Guard. That's because I simply could never keep my eyes open long enough to read through their army list. That book is like valium to me. "Imperial Guard... come from different planets... regiments... snore..." I still don't know how their FOC works. I'd never make it as a Guard player.

SaintofVirtue
30-12-2007, 06:46
Dark Angels strengths are in combat squads that's the key. So many scoring units!