PDA

View Full Version : most gimped army?



madival
17-07-2009, 03:20
which army is it that is most gimped and why? what makes the army seem badly balanced in favor of any opponent or in the most extreme case unplayable? As a player who is just now starting to advance into other armies, I want to know which army is at the biggest disadvantage of all the armies

Monospot
17-07-2009, 03:24
The one run by a lousy player. The rest tend to do pretty well when run by a decent wargamer...necrons, DE, black templars, eldar, they all win when played correctly.

madival
17-07-2009, 03:26
The one run by a lousy player. The rest tend to do pretty well when run by a decent wargamer...necrons, DE, black templars, eldar, they all win when played correctly.

yes, but what in your pesonal experience is the army that is hardest to play on an equal level on a competetive stage?

Dranthar
17-07-2009, 03:30
Well in terms of the 4th edition to 5th edition rules change, Necrons almost definitely got "gimped" the worst.

Gauss weapons became worse at tank-hunting and their very expensive troops choice became central to actually winning games. Worst of all was the assault rules. With a lack of fearlessness, I2 and poor/barely average combat stats, it is now very easy to completely wipe out a unit of necrons from overrun. Basically then, necrons became extremely vulnerable to assault. Their monolith became even more unkillable, but that's about the only benefit they got with the new rules.

In a more general sense, Witch Hunters/Daemon Hunters have always been very difficult armies to use well and I making a tournament-competitive army with them isn't easy. But I don't think they're quite as bad off as the poor Necrons.

Triggerdog
17-07-2009, 04:26
Necrons took a proverbial tire iron to the knee, thats a fact.

Then again they needed it. When your basic trooper has something that can kill EVERYTHING in the game, something is wrong.

Bookwrak
17-07-2009, 04:28
Actually, that's not right at all. There was nothing really wrong with the gauss rule, save for the fact that it killed vehicles a little too well. Given that they had none of the options for dealing with varied targets like other lists do, gauss worked.

Necrons took the hardest hit from 4th to 5th. Heavy Destroyers are the only AP2 gun in the regular list, as well the only one above S6. That makes it very hard for them to kill anything with a 3+ save, as volume of fire is their only way to deal with it - couple this with the fact that with the change to vehicle damage, they need that same high volume of fire to take down vehicles (since they have a very hard time penning anything over av 11) means that they rarely have the sheer volume of shots to effectively deal with threats.

The new assault rules also hurt. While Necrons have always been lousy in CC, in 4th, they're high LD meant they probably stuck around at least a few rounds, giving you a chance to use silly teleportation tricks to save their cans. Now, the negative CC modifiers means they break much easier, and are quite likely to be rundown.

BrotherMoses
17-07-2009, 04:31
From all of the crying in some of these threads I'm waiting for one of the CSM players to say they are :P I haven't played that many different armies, but necrons seem to be hurting pretty bad from what I've read on these boards.

madival
17-07-2009, 04:31
so why are the space puppies recieving a new codex before the necrons? sounds like necrons are barely playable in 5E. everyone runs something mobile or even full mech or has some fast assault aspect that would dominate them.

Bookwrak
17-07-2009, 04:33
Because Space Wolves are more popular than Necrons? I'd say DE need the update most of all, but who knows when they're actually doing to get it.

polymphus
17-07-2009, 04:34
Dark Eldar, or possibly Slaanesh. Lash on Domination and all.

On a more serious note, I'm gonna agree with 'crons, and stick tau out there as well. Both FoF and JSJ got hit pretty hard by the nerf hammer, both of which were the only things that really made the army competative. Still, they're playable so I'll agree with the above on the necrons.

madival
17-07-2009, 04:50
Because Space Wolves are more popular than Necrons?

well the rule of thumb I have seen is that if a codex comes out, a bunch of players advance towards that race. it would get more people playing crons and space puppies already have a good chunk of people who are going to play it

Edonil
17-07-2009, 04:50
Necrons got the most gimped, however, I'm tossing in Daemonhunters. Witch Hunters work fairly reliably, although they are certainly not a beginner friendly army, but they are workable. Daemonhunters from the beginning haven't been that strong- too many options are overpriced, or barely effective.

senorcardgage
17-07-2009, 05:31
In a more general sense, Witch Hunters/Daemon Hunters have always been very difficult armies to use well and I making a tournament-competitive army with them isn't easy. But I don't think they're quite as bad off as the poor Necrons.

I think that witch hunters can actually be extremely competitive!

madival
17-07-2009, 05:45
I think that witch hunters can actually be extremely competitive!

wasnt one of the 08 GT winners a witch hunters army? I think the highest i have heard of an 08-09 necron army was 18th and it was
lord with destroyer and gear
30 warriors
15 destroyers
and this list doesnt seem like it would be any fun to play

Bookwrak
17-07-2009, 05:54
Even in 4th edition, you very rarely saw Necrons placing consistently in tournaments. They were never quite as 'cheesy!' or 'over-powered!!' as detractors liked to cry, especially the not-very-well-thought-out-whine, 'but they can wound any model on a 6!' completely ignorant of the fact that you know what else can wound any model on a 6? Bolters. The only difference between a space marine bolter and a warrior's gauss weapon was that the gauss weapon could wound wraithlords, talos, and grotesques, while the bolter couldn't.

The bump to vehicles made mechanized sisters very competitive, because while Rhinos, and transports in general were considered death traps in 4th, in 5th, you can throw a rhino 12", have the sisters jump out and drop 3-5 flame templates, usually with Divine Guidance to turn 6s into AP1. Hits very hard.

madival
17-07-2009, 06:18
I think I have a theory why necrons suck atm. alot of what makes the new lists competetive is the addition of vehicles and usually transports. it make infantry more manuverable and more protected. this is a vital aspect of the game that necrons dont have at all.

Creeping Dementia
17-07-2009, 06:25
There isn't really a theory required.

It's easier to lose combat in 5th.
Necrons aren't good in CC.
You don't get WBB from sweeping advance.
Therefore, Necrons phase out easier than they used to.

The Gauss change had some effect, but the the CC changes are what really flushed them.


On another note, Sisters melt faces... or they are a terrible army. It depends on the player, a lot, and on whether that player gets stuck on trying to make the un-useable units work (Repentia, Penitents, Inquisitors, etc.).

Daemonhunters also can be competitive, but they still really suffer from low-model-count syndrome, everything is just a little overpriced.

Tau have taken a hit, but are deffinately still usable. You just can't bring 3 Hammerheads and expect to automatically be competitive anymore (I think thats why a lot of Tau players have left). You've got to be familiar with things, like tactics and timing.

Dark Angels seems to have lost some luster as well, they seemed to just be the guinea pigs for the new SM codex, which is unfortunate because they're a favorite chapter of mine because they actually have some flavor.

Dark Eldar seem to be sitting right around where Sisters are, the core is still solid, but half the codex is un-useable. The army is deadly as hell in the right hands (especially against MeQ), but newcomers seem to struggle, again generally the ones that try out radically different builds for the sake of being different.

Most the other armies seem solid to me.

Also, I don't really mind that SW are getting a new 'Dex. Sure they're Space Marines, but at least they're Space Marines with flavor. I'm going to be playing against Space Marines all the time anyway, might as well make it interesting.

Dranthar
17-07-2009, 06:26
I think I have a theory why necrons suck atm. alot of what makes the new lists competetive is the addition of vehicles and usually transports. it make infantry more manuverable and more protected. this is a vital aspect of the game that necrons dont have at all.

I disagree. Maneuverability is important, sure. But the necrons still have that in spades, in the form of destroyers, monoliths, veil of Darkness, scarabs and Wraiths.

As for protection, WBB is pretty good as far as protection goes. It's got advantages and disadvantages over sitting in a transport, but I'd say it's broadly equivalent.

At the moment, I would say that Necrons are not as competitive as other armies because of the lethal combination of I2 and not being fearless in combat. Adding fearless to all necron models is not the only thing that a Necron army could do with, but it would go a very long way in fixing it's biggest weak point.

madival
17-07-2009, 06:32
yeah but with transports they could actually stay out of CC

Edonil
17-07-2009, 06:40
yeah but with transports they could actually stay out of CC

And then you give them flamers, meltaguns, some sort of 'faith point' system...oh, I'm sorry. You've just recreated the Sisters...

Part of the Necron 'thing' is the lack of armor. They just aren't known for it. There are other ways to fix them than making them a short range high mobility shooty army (mechanized Sisters in a nutshell).

LoneSniperSG
17-07-2009, 06:49
Their monolith became even more unkillable, but that's about the only benefit they got with the new rules.


I Lol'ed.

Well, Necrons can be a pain to use even if you're a skilled player. Dark Eldar kind of suffer unless you really like light, fast armies and know how to rock them harder than anyone else.

Witch Hunters are kinda picky to use, as well. Not many players can adapt to the whole "Faith Point" thing.. and they're something only a few dozen games will get sunk into you.

Edonil
17-07-2009, 06:51
I Lol'ed.

Well, Necrons can be a pain to use even if you're a skilled player. Dark Eldar kind of suffer unless you really like light, fast armies and know how to rock them harder than anyone else.

Witch Hunters are kinda picky to use, as well. Not many players can adapt to the whole "Faith Point" thing.. and they're something only a few dozen games will get sunk into you.

Yeah, but the 'not beginner friendly' aspect of Witch Hunters hardly make them a weak army...I've seen a lot of highly competitive builds out of many armies that aren't user friendly

Creeping Dementia
17-07-2009, 06:53
I'd be fine with the Necrons gaining more of a transport(er) type of ability. Tone down the Lith a bit, but make it a bit easier to teleport more units around, making the Monolith more of a transportation hub, rather than just an invincible black chunk of metal thats really annoying when it drops on your troops. I agree that Crons need some more mobility, but inter-battlefield teleportation is the way to give it to them, not just give them a 'Rhino'.

CrownAxe
17-07-2009, 06:54
well instead of mechanized, necrons could really expand on their whole "teleport" idea. While something like the monolith or VoD would be the really good teleport, their could be a more general form of teleporting that isn't nearly as effect. Something possible like out-flanking, Fantasy's Green Knight's jumping from terrain-to-terrain or heck some sorta psychic power that jumps the unit up some distnace

Corax
17-07-2009, 06:56
The ones that are gimped the most are those that GW can't be bothered updating more than once every ten years or so, while others get updated roughly every three to four years.

Hrafn
17-07-2009, 06:59
so why are the space puppies recieving a new codex before the necrons?

Because:

1) The current SW Codex is very old - the next oldest as far I remember.
2) While playable, SW has plenty of rules, wargear and pricing issues caused by its age.
3) The current SW Codex is dependent on the main SM Codex - a Codex which has gone through 2 editions since then
4) New Codex means new models, and the SW minis are really beginning to show their age, the newest of them (barring the 13th company ones) being from 3rd edition, and the bulk from 2nd edition.

I play neither Necrons nor Space Wolves, but from my PoV it's rather understandable thatn SW get their Codex first. If anything, it was the Dark Eldar which should get one - they are certainly the most deserving of all the armies!

eyeolas
17-07-2009, 07:02
Personally, I'd say daemonhunters (as a single army without allies) are seriously disadvantaged atm. They just don't have enough firepower to kill things fast enough, and they have vertually no anti tank weaponry, which in the age of vehicles is a massive issue.

Necrons, although nerfed, I still recon do have some fight in them. Its true that against some armies you may as well pack them away. Outflanking stealers and similar units are simply going to kill necron armies, there isn't much that can stop them (especially stealers with their init 6, so there's vertually no chance of getting away), but against other balanced armies they can have very good games (my current record is 5-1 in my favour with crons in fact). They WILL use all 3 heavy slots on either HDs or liths, as they have suddely become necessary to poping vehicles and getting your troops to objectives, and WBB remains on of the best rules in the book (who cares about faze out at 25% when your troops last 100% longer, space marines would be dead long ago before crons phase out...). The one thing I do think, however, that really does merk over crons is walkers. Without a war scyth or tomb spider (both generally bad options) you can't touch an AV11+ walker in combat, and since glancings can't destroy, glancing on 6s will take a very long time for very little reward (you usually need 4 WD or Immo results to kill one, which is 144 attacks, and thats if your lucky enough to have the combat gaunce rule...)

Dranthar
17-07-2009, 07:06
yeah but with transports they could actually stay out of CC

Even if transports keep them out of combat for longer, it still boils down to the fact that HTH is the necron armies weakness, not movement. Adding transports, as you've suggested, is just another way of trying to address this problem and frankly, there are better ways to stop necrons getting unreasonably owned in assault.

Also as Corax said, no transports is a defining part of the army style. It'd be like giving tyranids a Tank, or genestealers to the Tau.

Nehemiah
17-07-2009, 07:32
I think Demonhunters are the least useable force as a stand alone army. In pretty much any scenario they will be greatly outnumbered by their opponent due to their high point cost.
However I can understand the problems Necrons face due to the changes to close combat in 5th edition, and would put them at a close second.


Also as Corax said, no transports is a defining part of the army style. It'd be like giving tyranids a Tank, or genestealers to the Tau.

Technically, Tau do have genestealers. They are just lousy and are called Kroot.

big squig
17-07-2009, 07:36
Necrons, bugs, and chaos.

Necrons are just unplayable.

Bugs just need a new book. Even in 4th the only viable army was nidzilla.

Chaos have only one real good list (double lash, plague marines) the rest of the army is just a really weak space marine army with nearly nothing special. But, that's not really a major deal...the big deal is that chaos lost all flavor.

Vaktathi
17-07-2009, 07:40
which army is it that is most gimped and why? what makes the army seem badly balanced in favor of any opponent or in the most extreme case unplayable? As a player who is just now starting to advance into other armies, I want to know which army is at the biggest disadvantage of all the armies

I'd say Daemonhunters.


They have extremely limited access to ranged anti tank weapons, and although their basic troops are ok at taking out most tanks in CC, they have to get there first.

In an age where the mechanized army reigns supreme, DH can't bring much in the way of mechanization for their good troops, and their troops that they can mechanize are very poor (old Stormtroopers). Almost all the infantry are overcosted for their abilities, and have relatively light weight of fire.

Basically-low model count, overcosted units, unable to meet a wide variety of threats, and extremely limited unit selection.

That said, they do look totally awesome.

My reasons for not picking other armies:

Space Marines: nothing need be said here
Chaos Space Marines: amazing troops, Oblits, Terminators, DP's
Eldar: a solid mechanized army that can meet almost any threat and is incredibly mobile
Witch Hunters: Able to field large numbers of quality troops, great when mechanized
Dark Eldar: (imo) terrible against orks and IG, but amazing at tabling MEQ armies in 3-4 turns.
Tyranids: Troops need work, but HQ, Elites, and HS are all still very solid, able to meet most threats well.
Tau: see Tyranids
Imperial Guard: Codex Loltanks. fielding 15 armored units of AV12-14 and 76 infantry with 42 heavy weapons, 3 ordnance weapons, and 18 special weapons in a 2000pt army is awesome.
Chaos Daemons: serious problems with deployment and opponent reaction ability, but they do have many tools Daemon Hunters don't, and have the ability to meet most threats, even if they stand a good chance of being intercepted. e
Dark Angels: Weak, but still far better off and more versatile than DH
Blood Angels: pretty ok all around, not amazing, but pretty solid
Space Wolves: Some things suck, some things are ridiculously undercosted. The army is rock solid.

big squig
17-07-2009, 07:41
Yeah, but even in 4th ed daemon hunters were pretty crap.

LonelyPath
17-07-2009, 11:44
In 4th edition my DH faired pretty well, in 5th edition they lose more than they win, but they still win. At the end of a game I'm happy to have had fun, the outcome is secondary. Then again, having 11 terminators (including GM) on the field in 1750 or 2000 point games helps there, get them stuck in and not alot can stand against them. GK are also a lesson in learning to use cover to the best advantage, never leave them in the open, regardless of The Shrouding they're still easy pickings if left in the open for a couple of turns. When I see people taking a severe beating with their GK they tend to be just standing them in the open and shooting, not using cover and closing the distance for close range fire and assault, a tactic that tends to work well for me.

DA have suffered with the new SM dex, but I still play them most often without and R/DW on the table and do fairly well.

I guess I must like the underdogs, lol.

ashc
17-07-2009, 12:16
With the amount of whining on Warseer usually you could be mistaken in thinking it was any kind of space marine army :D

In all seriousness though, Necrons took the biggest hit with the changes to 5th edition. Their codex wouldn't be especially underpowered if it wasn't for the changes to close combat and the improved vehicle damage tables.

Underpowered codex prizes go to the inquisitorial codexes and Dark Eldar; yes these armies can have strong builds, but they do this by sacrificing most of the options in their books because they are far too underpowered/overcosted. Actually, that sounds like Necrons too! :p

Captain Micha
17-07-2009, 12:45
I would pick the Necrons as probably the most currently Gimped. Stupid Combat resolution.

If I had to pick a second? Tau. Let me explain, most of their special rules mean nothing now (such as anything Target Priority related), and frankly the Multitracker is worthless (stupid defensive weapons), SMF also doesn't work for them any more despite having a pt cost with it obviously in mind, ontop of that everyone has had a serious transport cost reduction since the Tau book was new. the new combat resolution rules being as terrible as they are, means that like crons they get screwed over and run away, and promptly get swept. Everyone has also gotten substantial firepower improvements since the Tau book was new.

Wut?
17-07-2009, 13:07
they should just change the masive cannon on 'lith into a lash style teleporter (for your own troops) 24" range and can dump without scatter, and make troops cheaper.

CEO Kasen
17-07-2009, 13:16
With the amount of whining on Warseer usually you could be mistaken in thinking it was any kind of space marine army :D

Yeah, seriously. What the hell's with the "Marines are Gimped" attitude I keep seeing? I play 'em, played 'em since 3rd edition, and I really like what we have. Just off the top of my head, a lot of our costs went down. Our Apothecaries got better. We got bastards with 2+ Armor Saves and 3+ Invulnerables, and Machine Spirits that can hit what you point them at. We get frags and kraks for no points increase, we get Combat Tactics and all its myriad variants.

I might wish our non-SC Captain-Type HQs were cheaper and that we still had access to Terminator Honors for 'em, but all my gripes are tweak-and-wishlist stuff; Overall, I'm pretty happy.


I'm definitely on the boat of those who feel it's the Necrons you've got to feel sorry for because of what they lost in the transition from 4th to 5th; that theorietical implacability and marching doom now so easily crushed by a squad containing one yokel with a power fist.

Lord Damocles
17-07-2009, 13:22
I wonder if the result of this thread will be any different to the last time (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189837&highlight=worst+army+40k) this happened?

:rolleyes:

CEO Kasen
17-07-2009, 13:25
I wonder if the result of this thread will be any different to the last time (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189837&highlight=worst+army+40k) this happened?

:rolleyes:

Oh, come on. :D You've been on Warseer long enough to know that nothing ever gets utterly and finally settled, right? We're just here t'chat...

ARVO
17-07-2009, 13:29
Witch Hunters are gimpled? I think not. I played a sisters army for the first time a month ago and just managed to pull up a tie. She apparently had 3+ invulnerable saves on her troops and a vehicle that shot d6 stregth 8 shots at me form 48' away! how is that gimped?

Oblivion_Necroninja
17-07-2009, 14:12
And then you give them flamers, meltaguns, some sort of 'faith point' system...oh, I'm sorry. You've just recreated the Sisters...

Part of the Necron 'thing' is the lack of armor. They just aren't known for it. There are other ways to fix them than making them a short range high mobility shooty army (mechanized Sisters in a nutshell).

Funny... I thought the reason the Necrons had no armor was because the technologically oriented C'tan (the Dragon) was still taking a nap on mars...

With any luck, he'll wake up before the Necrons get their codex updated...

Lord Damocles
17-07-2009, 14:28
Funny... I thought the reason the Necrons had no armor was because the technologically oriented C'tan (the Dragon) was still taking a nap on mars...

With any luck, he'll wake up before the Necrons get their codex updated...

I can't decide if my sarcasm detector is broken. For now I'll assume I'm running at full capacity...

You thought wrong.

Why would the Dragon (a C'tan not specifically known for it's legions containing more vehicles than any other C'tan's) not having woken up affect the ability of Tomb worlds under the influence of other C'tan to release/create vehicles?

Besides which there are other Necron vehicles, but they're just not represented at 40K scale - the Obelisk for example.


But that's not the real reason Necrons don't use [S]Rhinos conventional transports. It was a decision taken during the design process for the 3rd ed. [codex] list:

Inevitably the Necron army would include a big kit and it was clearly inappropriate to make a standard tank. The Necrons needed something that helped them to get around the table and the idea of using mobile dimensional portals reall appealed, not least because it was a very different approach but one which fitted the Necrons advanced technology very well.

Occulto
17-07-2009, 14:36
Necrons. They're just not scary to face unless you come up against a really good player. They can't even use meatshields to get cover, because that just phases them out quicker. They lost their main form of anti-tank. Finally, to add insult to injury - they get shafted in combat.

Hypaspist
17-07-2009, 14:47
Witch Hunters are gimpled? I think not. I played a sisters army for the first time a month ago and just managed to pull up a tie. She apparently had 3+ invulnerable saves on her troops and a vehicle that shot d6 stregth 8 shots at me form 48' away! how is that gimped?

Sisters are great, and not gimped in any way, the Exorcist is a good tank as well, the only weakness is the one gun leading to a similar issue as the vindicator (although less so because exorcist rockets don't scatter) Faith is good, but providing you know how to play against it, (example: threaten multiple units at the start of the shooting phase to force your opponent into tough faith spend decisions) it isn't that bad.


Necrons, bugs, and chaos.

Chaos? Seriously? no way.
I appreciate the fluff argument that the wider Chaos community is arguing over, but in terms of a gimped army absolutely nota chance. It has the best pound for pound heavy choice in the game (Obliterators) HQ's that are truly scary (DP) and some nice mechanisation opportunities with Berserkers and Plague marines the pick of the troops, far far from gimped.
Nids took a big hit in their ability to take on armour and as armour has subsequently become more popular this has (for me) really hurt nids a lot.

Necrons probably took the biggest hit though, I have seen them do well. But on the whole they need more options and more balance, as currently a necron list has to work hard to protect its assets (and avoid cc like the plague).

DrDoom
17-07-2009, 16:48
From all of the crying in some of these threads I'm waiting for one of the CSM players to say they are :P I haven't played that many different armies, but necrons seem to be hurting pretty bad from what I've read on these boards.

I actually LOL'd at that.

Necrons got hit pretty hard, its easy to take out their troops in HtH, and they don't have the firepower or mobility to really avoid a dedicated Assault force. I kinda feel bad for a Necron player about to face Da Green Tide.

CEO Kasen
17-07-2009, 16:51
Chaos Space Marines have a number of legitimate complaints. None of them have to do with the overall power scale of the army. :p

Deadnight
17-07-2009, 17:18
tau got a huge kick in the teeth with fifth.

they relied too much on SMF in 4th, and that was basically the only good way to play them. now theํr main style of play took a huge hit, and to be honest they dont have too much else to compensate, especially with the way the new codices are being built in terms of sheer power.
that and the fact the [previous guy who did them basically had no clue and made a huge mess of it.

seriously. shadowsun. the space pope. vespids. sniper drones. skyray. need more examples of dodgy units?

they're playable in general, but nowhere near the power level of other codices. in terms of power level, i would definately put the best tau builds somewhere at the lower end of the powerbuild spectrum.

Ixquic
17-07-2009, 17:42
Witch Hunters are gimpled? I think not. I played a sisters army for the first time a month ago and just managed to pull up a tie. She apparently had 3+ invulnerable saves on her troops and a vehicle that shot d6 stregth 8 shots at me form 48' away! how is that gimped?

Exorcist is a great tank but if you penetrate it there's a 50% (66% if it's ap1) chance it's done for the game since it only has one weapon. With front side 13 and side 11 it's pretty easy to pop. It's also the only real long range shooting the army has.

3+ invuls require the witchhunter player to use them at the very beginning of the shooting or combat phase so it's entirely possible for them to be wasted depending on how the opponent reacts. They also use finite points and require rolls over the squad size so it's not like you can just spam it unless you are playing some sort of maxed out faith army. Large units of sisters are easy to blow off the table with the new guard artillery.

It's not a gimped army and I really like mech sisters. It really needs a new book since lots of stuff is plain out of date (50 point naked rhinos with only 1 firepoint) and half the book is totally unuseable.

mattnaik
17-07-2009, 19:30
Chaos have only one real good list (double lash, plague marines) the rest of the army is just a really weak space marine army with nearly nothing special. But, that's not really a major deal...the big deal is that chaos lost all flavor.

You either play them completely wrong, or play people who have no idea how to use them. Chaos is still probably in the top 3 most powerful armies (and im not referring to the cheese list you mentioned). Even the regular CSM troop choice one of the best bargains in the game at 15 pts each and they are better than space marines cause they get 3 attacks on the charge!

I do agree they lost their "flavor" a bit, but to say they got gimped is just ignorant

Brother Alexos
17-07-2009, 22:14
well it depends on what army you picked first, if you picked the space marines then you shouldnt try the eldar because the eldar depend on magick and finesse. If you played eldar then you shouldnt do the space marines because your probably used to a finesse that is a handicap on the space marines

Vedar
17-07-2009, 22:57
I think this says it all.

MoonReaper
17-07-2009, 23:33
Atm the most gimped army in 5th is easily Necrons. They got very seriously nerfed in many many different areas that most people who dont play them know barely half of their problems.

They CAN still put a fight however. Just very very differently from what they used to. But they can still win.
Its just RIDICULUS nowdays with the phase out rule and the new CC morale check. The phase out was there to balance the army, now its here to ruin ANY perfectly strategy mission and downspiral it to a 75% annihilation mission.

Atm the worse thing that the Necrons can have is their Troops. CC them and you SA them and you almost win by phase out. And the necron cannot opt for another troop OR opt not to use any.

Think of the Necron warriors as this:
you MUST use in every game a minimum of 2 x mobile, gauss armed, phase out objectives.
They have 2 special abilities :
a) reduce your game point limit of your list by a minimum of 360pts
b) Get swept when a CC specialist unit assaults them. WBB res orb etc are ignored. any HQ that joined them gets destroyed with no WBB or orb either.

Now you get a more clearer picture why playing vs Necrons is like ripping the mission pages from the BRB and playing the same mission again, and again, and again ad nauseum. IF for some reason phase out isnt very likely, oh look you can try to get the normal mission objectives.

However, I still believe the worst army that you can field in War40k is pure Grey Knights. I pity them.

Havock
17-07-2009, 23:38
*raises hand and voice*

Ahem.

Radical Daemonhunters?

II Orar II
18-07-2009, 00:46
Lmfao vedar good picture, we all know that necrons have clearly suffered worst and don't say gk because they were bad before without non gk units. Also the funny article in white dwarf when 5th ed was released and they outlined what each army gained from it. I seem to remember reading new los rules for tau improve there firepower... does that really help in comparison to the rest of the book lmao. And for necrons increased reliance on troops with there superb warrior troops choice lol. I'd say Orks benefited if anyone and chaos players don't complain you still have it good.

Edonil
18-07-2009, 02:26
*raises hand and voice*

Ahem.

Radical Daemonhunters?

...Excellent point. They weren't any good from the get go, and they just got worse...actually, I still stand by my opinion that that is the book that needs the most work to make them competitive, pure GK, Radical, Puritan Inquisitor or otherwise...a spattering of Grey Knights in other armies can really help them out, but as the primary book, Daemonhunters are really bad.

lain2k3
18-07-2009, 03:10
Tau, Chaos, Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar all suffer from lack of competitive variety, but only Necrons and Daemonhunters are truly subpar in terms of potential performance right now.


I did not include SW because I have essentially no knowledge of them beyond them having some different tank and weird scout rules.

madival
18-07-2009, 03:46
but even the demonhunters can take from outside their codex to make up for there short comings and such.

lain2k3
18-07-2009, 04:33
But once you do that, you really begin to question the merits of running any DH at all and will likely end up using the ally list instead.

Sekhmet
18-07-2009, 05:07
Even in 4th edition, you very rarely saw Necrons placing consistently in tournaments. They were never quite as 'cheesy!' or 'over-powered!!' as detractors liked to cry, especially the not-very-well-thought-out-whine, 'but they can wound any model on a 6!' completely ignorant of the fact that you know what else can wound any model on a 6? Bolters. The only difference between a space marine bolter and a warrior's gauss weapon was that the gauss weapon could wound wraithlords, talos, and grotesques, while the bolter couldn't.hard.
Actually bolters can wound talos and grotesques and carnifexes with +1 T.
The only thing the entire Gauss "wound" affects is Gauss Flayers against Wraithlords and C'tan (and T8 Apocalypse stuff, but those don't count).



Think of the Necron warriors as this:
you MUST use in every game a minimum of 2 x mobile, gauss armed, phase out objectives.
They have 2 special abilities :
a) reduce your game point limit of your list by a minimum of 360pts
b) Get swept when a CC specialist unit assaults them. WBB res orb etc are ignored. any HQ that joined them gets destroyed with no WBB or orb either.

I lol'd and agree.


*raises hand and voice*

Ahem.

Radical Daemonhunters?
Didn't Radical Daemonhunters get a buff with the new IG and SM codices?

Havock
19-07-2009, 11:39
...Excellent point. They weren't any good from the get go, and they just got worse...actually, I still stand by my opinion that that is the book that needs the most work to make them competitive, pure GK, Radical, Puritan Inquisitor or otherwise...a spattering of Grey Knights in other armies can really help them out, but as the primary book, Daemonhunters are really bad.

Fair enough, but I'd still rate them at the bottom rung. At least Grey Knight are somewhat resilient (shrouding + MEQ = decent).
Though I have to admit that the Imperial Armour two update from FW does make it a bit more playable. Cheap rhino's and chimeras mean you can cram in a bit more ground pounders, which is what the list really needs.

dariakus
20-07-2009, 05:50
Fair enough, but I'd still rate them at the bottom rung. At least Grey Knight are somewhat resilient (shrouding + MEQ = decent).
Though I have to admit that the Imperial Armour two update from FW does make it a bit more playable. Cheap rhino's and chimeras mean you can cram in a bit more ground pounders, which is what the list really needs.

Too bad the cheap Rhinos still just have one fire point :( I'd gladly give up the free Storm Bolter we get for a second fire point.

Taking the IA2 update also handicaps us in other ways--Dreadnoughts can no longer take missile launchers :wtf: and LRCs no longer come with multi-meltas as standard gear, and you can't buy them as upgrades either :wtf:

We need some serious love on the Inquisition end over here.

As to something someone else said earlier--once you start taking allies from Marines or Guard, you start to realize it's just not worth taking any DH units at all, since you can almost always fill those points with much more useful units from either of the ally lists.

Netfreakk
20-07-2009, 06:24
I never played Necron so....

Dark Angels seems pretty gimped.

If only taking Deathwing, you get less models than Pure Grey knights, if taking only Ravenwing you get less models than White scar, and if taking both, in a 1500point game you get 25 models I believe.

Dark Angels don't really get any special rules except terminators as troops and bikes as troops. While other terminators in all other flavors except maybe blood angels gets something, ie: black templars: possible furious charge/ Tank hunter/ infiltrate and if the Champ gets Preferred enemies and they can take 2 heavy choices in each 5man termi group. Grey knights WS5 S6 I4. Spacewolves can have up to 3 heavy weapon choices and other things, but this might change with the new codex. C:SM can have +3 invuln SS.

Using tact squads Dark Angels get less models than C:SM and no special rules other than, (and this is actually is quite good) 1 special weapon / 5 man tact. Though if you take 10man C:SM combat squad and get the free special weapon this doesn't really do anything different.

Dark angels get a better chaplain and a lib with a better psychic hood (don't know about the I for C:SM.

People talk a lot about playing for fluff wise and that's all fine and dandy, but imho if you want to play without a handicap don't play Dark angels as other SM codices do a better job on the table.

R3pr3ssor
20-07-2009, 15:37
I think that people are probably right about necrons. they have no choice or variety at all if you want a successful army, and as people have mentioned before have difficulties with good armour saves.