Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
My two roommates were just reminiscing about this game from their times playing it roughly 8 years ago to hear them say it. Anyway, they were thinking of starting playing again, and so I am looking to get an army.
Based on nothing but looks and a few considerations to what it appears the armies strengths are, I decided I like the look of 3 separate and apparently very different armies:
Granted I know next to nothing about these three, but I feel Daemonhunters are more defensive, some decent guns, and some decent melee. Eldar appear to be great range and power, but lack in armor. Necrons seem like they are the zerg, which isn't all that appealing compared to the others, but if they are very powerful they may be fun.
Apparently my roommates do not play as hardcore as others, so they do not worry about what types of guns are fitted on their units, but generally play that their units are what they are. Sorry I don't have any other insight into this, as I haven't really watched any games yet.
My roommate with the most experiences has two armies:
Chaos (his favored)
The other roommate also has two armies:
Imperial Guard (his favored)
I am mostly interested in either Eldar, Necron, or Daemonhunters. My good buddy played against Eldar in the past, and is the one who originally suggested I play them years ago before his circle of friends stopped playing. He has never heard of Necron, and thinks Daemonhunters are still only a sub-class of another army.
I do not know much about tabletop games, so to illustrate my preference in playstyles, I suppose the best analogies I can use are the types of classes I play in MMO / RPG. I always like hybrid characters, ones with flexibility. In EQ I was a bard, DAOC a friar and warden, FF11 a bard and beastmaster, SWG a teras kasi artiest, CoH a spines/invuln scrapper, EQ2 a bard, WoW a shaman and druid, In D&D games I play wizards, monks, or dex dual wielders.
I prefer a hybrid type character, leaning more towards the defensive side. I am generally conservative with units in strategy games and chess.
Anyway, past the different army selections, I need one that can stand up against the armies I have listed my roommates as having. I don't believe either of them ever played in tournaments, so I doubt they will be the best players. But I would like to stand a chance against them.
Sorry for the essay, but if i'm to spend hundreds of dollars, i'd like to make sure I covered most my bases.
Thanks ahead of time for your input.
Last edited by Naurhir; March 27th, 2007 at 04:45.
I really think that choosing an army is based more on your particular style of play than on appearance. I myself have learned this the hard way and have recently realized I have tried to play a nid army with everything but nids, but my nids are actually 7-2 W-L.
Look around for other gamers in the area, watch a few games being played, some people are even nice enough to let you try their army out at a small point limit. If nothing else spend the money to get the army books first and proxy in units from your buddies' armies.
Most of all play first. Make sure you even enjoy the game before you go off and start buying an army. I love 40K and play as often as I am allowed, but its not for everybody. And there is nothing worse than wasting a couple hundred of your hard earned bucks on something you find you won't enjoy.
They're ladies. We can't hit ladies.
No, no. They're Daemonettes. They'll tear you limb from limb and steal your soul
But sar, thats what ladies do.
Just a note to other random newbies that are thinking of starting a thread like this - This is the type of thread that will get you the best results. It's well organized, gives plenty of information, and narrows down the choices. Well done.
Ehm, back on topic. You mention that the Necrons seem like the Zerg to you - I have to disagree. Far from it, in fact. The race that best embodies the Zerg would be the Tyranids. Lots of little gribblies that swarm you while the big boys beat you down.
The Necrons are more like.... space undead. Their armies tend to be pretty generic, as they don't have many options to choose from. They excel at the mid-range firepower game, using their excellent resiliency of even the most basic models and decent weaponry options to blow their opponents away. They also have a few units that are capable in Close Combat, but can't really match other races dedicated assault units.
Necrons are an excellent place to start 40K, as the army is especially forgiving of mistakes and is relatively easy for a new player to wield. Many players however find that Necrons are too limiting due to the lack of a real armoury and unit upgrades, and will move on once they feel Necrons have nothing more to offer them.
Daemonhunters are one of the harder races to play. They also excel with mid-range firepower, being just a slight bit more mobile than Necrons, but also do well in the Close Combat arena. Grey Knights are sort of the "Good at everything" type of model.
The worst part of Daemonhunters is that they're expensive. The basic Grey Knight costs 40% more points than the basic Necron Warrior. This means that Daemonhunter armies tend to be very small, and every model killed will hurt. Grey Knight armies are rather difficult to play, even in the hands of an expert. I personaly don't recommend starting here if you're just starting out.
Eldar are nothing like the other two. Where Necrons and Grey Knights can generalize themselves (be good at everything, just a little bit), Eldar revolves around every unit having a set, defined role and sticking to that role. The amount of firepower that Eldar can put out is only rivaled by one other army (Tau), and they're one of the most mobile armies in the game. Simply put, a well constructed and played Eldar army is nigh-unbeatable.
However, they're extremely unforgiving. Eldar have a steep learning curve, as their armies tend to be low on the model count, their units aren't exceptionally resilient (with the exception of Holo-Field skimmers...) and you sort of need to know what each unit is capable of. Out of your three choices, I think Eldar will be the hardest to get into, but be the most rewarding as you grow more skilled.
Now, all of that above is my opinion, and someone might (and probably will) disagree with me. My best advice is to borrow your friends models for a few games and proxy the various armies and see which fits your play style best. Nothing is worse than building an entire army only to realize that you hate how it plays, and then leaving the hobby. There is nothing wrong with proxying a few games - just don't make a habit of it, and you'll do fine.
Thanks for the quick replies, and insightful dialog regarding the choices I was looking at. A little more background information on myself, I am a good critical thinker, pretty good at strategy games on the computer / small board games like risk etc. I also am what some would consider an elitist. I will buy and study everything I can to be the best, and will put in far more effort than most people to ensure victory.
By being "hardcore" at anything I choose to do, I am not really put off by the Daemonhunters and Eldar, per Caluin's description, but moreso intrigued in the Eldar. I would probably be the type to get bored with the Necrons quickly, if they have little variability to them, and wouldn't want to put an investment in on a starter army I feel I have the potential to quickly out-grow. The MMORPG characters I had mentioned, generally started off weak, and didn't "come into their own" until much higher in levels than most other characters. But they offered a great deal of variability, and by being more difficult to play, really let me inherent skills for gaming, critical thinking, problem solving etc. shine, and allow me to do things most others would call impossible.
I am open to suggestions outside the armies I previously selected, if anyone feels something would be a better fit for me. Since I would be up against Chaos, and I am under the impression that they are a "high cost" army, I don't feel that Daemonhunters would be a bad choice to go against them, even if they are also high, or higher in cost; and the versatility their Grey Knights have is very appealing. As far as the Eldar, I recognized them from the start to be one of the harder armies to play, but it is also popular, and I can get help with them while I need it, and due to it's specialized capabilities, can empower me greatly when I really learn what i'm doing. I am always open to persuasion though as well. I only have a passing knowledge of the game, and know armies solely by summaries found on the web.
Thanks again for the replies, both previous and hopefully future.
If you are looking for armies that really are customizable (ie. don't run out of options like eldar)
then Eldar, Tau, and Nids are good.
All of these armies are incredibly customizable.
Both Tau and Eldar mech lists are the best mech lists in the game.
Both tau and eldar can go for an infantry army, or hybrid.
Tau are nice because you can start off with basic static tactics, like static defense, and as you invest more time and grow as a general, you can move into more advanced tactics, customize your crisis suits more, etc.
Eldar has pretty much been covered.
Nids are very customizable with Godzilla armies, horde armies, flying armies, etc.
each are nice, and none disappointing.
Painting wise and looks wise, tau and eldar are easy to paint and look nice, while nids are a little harder, but still look nice.
Turtles For the Turtle God!
Shells For the Shell Throne!
The GK units aren't Versatile, they do a few things and they do those well. GKs against Tyranid? Have fun blowing away all thier models before they can touch you. (based on terrain and other such things) GKs Vs Mechanised armies (lots of tanks/transports) well, lets just say if you win, chances are you've earned the right to brag about it!
GK armies just have a tough time against armor, but I feel that if you play your cards right it can all balance out in the end kind of thing.
It depends on how competive or how serious you are about winning all the time, if you are serious go with Eldar, step learning curve yes, but once you get to the end of that curve, you'll be tough to beat.
Otherwise if you were looking for some more fun, I'd go Deamonhunters, they are fun to play and are very flexible due to thier access to allies and the different styles found withint the book. (DH and GKs)
Tau is a good suggestion, though I think Eldar will better fit Naurhir's personality. They might not have the individual, unit level customizability that Tau do, but their army list is far more robust, and gives you many more options to create varied armies. Maybe it's just me, but Tau armies tend to all look the same to me. Eldar armies have all kinds of variety.
Both can be very rewarding, however. Those are just my thoughts on the subject of Tau. The best way I can describe the relationship is that Tau excel in defensive shooting, where as Eldar excel in offensive shooting. Eldar also have the bonus of having some hardcore assault units to fall back on.
But, enough of Tau. You asked about Necrons, Daemonhunters, and Eldar.
Based on what you stated, I don't think Necrons will fit your play style. Nor do I think Daemonhunters, as they really don't have much slack in army composition. Eldar I think would be your best choice. I played EQ from Kunark until Gates (Wizard all the way, baby - nothing like soloing quicker than when in a group), and like to think that anyone crazy enough to play a Bard (and play them well) is the type of person that likes to be able to have a tool for every situation at all times. That's what Eldar are like - every unit is a tool, used for a specific purpose.
As an added bonus of going with Eldar, you'll have the second newest Codex (released not more than a few months ago), which is chock full of fluff and history. One of the best things is that out of the entire Eldar codex, only one or two units can be considered even remotely 'bad,' and even then, they're far from useless. No other Codex can claim that right now.
If you decide to go with Eldar, dont' get discouraged if you start losing your first games. Eldar tend to have low model count armies, but each unit packs a serious whallop. Just from what you've listed, I think they'll fit your personality and play style the best.
Its prolly one fo the best 4th edition codexes released thus far I venture to say.
So yeah, you can ignore that particular part of my post.
Thank you all for your advice. I have decided, based on your recommendations, as well as my own inclinations, to play the Eldar. I will begin reading that specific army forums, and ask questions as they become necessary. I really appreciate the assistance you all have offered, as well as the functionality and "community" offered by these boards.