Most difficult race to play [Archive]

Brenil

28th Feb 09, 7:12 PM

The Farseer sucks more than the WSE, trust me. His ability to ninja-cap would synergise well if Shees and WS were viable again (Shees taking the role of the commander, spiders for the call-in ability) but Eldar need their commander too much right now and neither the WSE or the FS can fulfil that role adequetely.

No kidding. My problem the last few games is I can beat the foe on the field of battle but cannot hold map control because my units individually stand no chance against the other races'. When I used the Warlock, at least my hero could stand up to the other races' units. Right now the Farseer gets her assed kicked by Sluggas and Gaunts.

I cannot buy a win and the TS matching me up against 30+ players everytime I auto isn't helping, heh.

In regards to teamplay, Eldar are actually fine in teamplay, they can hold their own for the most part and heros like the Farseer are indispensable for her aura and buffs/debuffs.

I don't much hold a moarning candle for SM when it comes to 1vs1, this is mainly due to the fact that shottie-scouts > Guardians in a big way unless you get off a lucky grenade that isn't dodged. This alone makes getting map control against SM - and the good 'ol Razorback rush - enough to make SM a viable threat in the right hands.

Eldar work because good players make them work, but the average player (like me) do poorly with them unless using the Warlock.

hellic

1st Mar 09, 6:25 PM

Probably Eldar, but Orks don't fit my playstyle so I'm better with Eldar than with Orks.

Vertrucio

1st Mar 09, 6:29 PM

Orks do well at tier 1, at tier 2 I'd say they go above Eldar as hardest to play.

Eldar can get really wasted at Tier 1 due to squishyness and lack of support. Orks can get the same at Tier 2 due to escalation and lack of scaling.

Unicron

9th Mar 09, 9:12 AM

Is the Farseer even an option for 1vs1? By the way, what's the dmg increase for Guide? 25%?

Sin Fang Bous

9th Mar 09, 9:29 AM

30%

Saias

9th Mar 09, 9:46 AM

For team games i'd say Eldar followed by SM then orks, then at the kids table sit the tyranids.
I lack a lot of respect for tyranids in team games because they're either ludicrously easy to kill or they do nothing but tech to carnifexes, you occasionally get a good tyranid player (such as on my team) but those are far and few between.

Eldar Farseers become much more viable in team games, however the warlock is probably still better.

Steel*Faith

9th Mar 09, 11:53 AM

Orks are a tough race to play, perhaps the toughest. They have a fairly strong tier 1, but are outclassed by all other races in tier 2-3. Although we don't get a true suppression unit until tier 2, but by then suppression has lost much of it's meaning.

Many ork units are micro intensive, and they are very fragile as well. By reaping the full benefits of WAAAGH!, by grouping several squads near one another, you're also making your squads more exposed to a variety of deadly attacks, and limiting you're own tactical positioning.

PlasmaSargeant

9th Mar 09, 12:05 PM

Stikkbombas are very lethal, indeed.

I'd see the toughest to face (right now) are the Tyranids because of their OP units.

The Eldar's heroes are definitely the hardest to defeat as it is, lest you use an entire army your hero is probably going to be beat head to head everytime (without higher level or expensive wargear).

Sin Fang Bous

9th Mar 09, 12:17 PM

lol, Plasma?

The Farseer and WSE can't hold their own in battle at all. The only Eldar commander who can actually get into the thick of things is the Warlock.

mccrorie

9th Mar 09, 2:32 PM

Definitely eldar. Early encounters can end in disaster if you're not careful because eldar = fragile. Though I'm not hugely exp yet - but using gaurdians well is hugely rewarding. Using FOF like a mad bugger to flank and nade AI is hellishly fun, yet difficult to master (please god don't let relic do something bad to nades)

Brenil

9th Mar 09, 3:21 PM

Is the Farseer even an option for 1vs1? By the way, what's the dmg increase for Guide? 25%?

Since my last post in this thread, I've been on a bit of a winning streak with my beautiful Farseer, so yes I can say that the Farseer is a viable (but not an easy) option for 1vs1. She plays unlike any other hero in the game, therefore you must adapt to the new play style of harassing with the Farseer and picking up the slack with your Guardians and Banshees (or Rangers). You will retreat alot, so know how to grenade spike and retreat then quickly return to the field of battle.

I still think that the hardest race/hero combination to win as is Eldar and the Farseer, but SM with the Techmarine might be a close second.

Malecite

9th Mar 09, 3:31 PM

Only ever play 3 v 3 with Eldar but I love doing it.

Problems I have with 1 v 1 right now.

1) Impossible Map Control. Gaurdians are too weak for their cost to fight off things like sluggas, infiltrated scouts with shotties, hell even a ripper swarm can take a squad of gaurdians. Their strength comes in numbers and kitting so you need at least 2.
2) Lack Of mobility: due to the need of safety in numbers. Dont mention Web Way gates or ill E punch you as their just plain silly in their current incarnation.
3) Heroes: other than lock, are weak initially and require wargear to buff. I like the FS but I find its tough against warbosses and tyrants unless you can ambush them.

However in team games the eldar really shine, and im not the hugest fan of 1 v 1 anyways.

Brenil

9th Mar 09, 3:43 PM

1) Impossible Map Control. Gaurdians are too weak for their cost to fight off things like sluggas, infiltrated scouts with shotties, hell even a ripper swarm can take a squad of gaurdians. Their strength comes in numbers and kitting so you need at least 2.

Sluggas are a problem, if you can grenade spike retreat then FoF back to the field, you'll crush them and take the field. Scouts, melee them, you'll win (after the kit upgrade anyway), Rippers, plasma grenade will take out all but two or three of them if you do it right, from there you can typically force a retreat. Gaunts are the same as Sluggas, grenade spike, FoF back, finish them off or force a retreat.

2) Lack Of mobility: due to the need of safety in numbers. Dont mention Web Way gates or ill E punch you as their just plain silly in their current incarnation.

Um.. Fleet of Foot? Eldar are one of the most mobile races. Granted some units like Banshees are slower than they should be (Sluggas outrun them for some reason), but FoF evens the playing field. Using the above advice in dealing with other races' capping units, upgraded Guardians can easily out manuever an enemy. Remember just because you retreat, doesn't mean you've been beat. Retreating when you're not dying sometimes will throw the enemy off and with FoF, you can come back to the battle twice as fast.

3) Heroes: other than lock, are weak initially and require wargear to buff. I like the FS but I find its tough against warbosses and tyrants unless you can ambush them.

I can't say much about the Warp Spider Exarch, but I'm plenty experienced with the Farseer. The Farseer supported by Fortune (which should always be your first wargear purchase) and guided will stand up to all heros in 1vs1, she may not win, but she'll give them a fight and give your Guardians long enough time to either focus fire on the hero (and thus kill or force a retreat) or kill or force a retreat on his support. Buffs make the Farseer and FoF give Eldar the ability to fight battles only they want to fight, so if you know you cannot win, FoF away and harass them where they're weakest, split them up, or come back when you know you can win.

Oakwarrior

11th Mar 09, 6:27 AM

Space Marines.
They've taken over the easy to learn, hard to master race spot from Eldar IMO.

Sin Fang Bous

11th Mar 09, 6:56 AM

Brenil, you don't have grenades until a minute in, and I'd be willing to bet that you'll have an encounter before that Battle Gear is ready...

This is my biggest problem. I lose the first battle almost every time and I'm stuck playing catch up for the duration of the match.

Synthmon

11th Mar 09, 2:49 PM

If you always lose the first battle, don't fight it. Doesn't take Sun Tzu to figure that out.

Instead, walk around him. That, if anything, is what the Eldar is capable of doing. Then get the wargear and you should be fine. Well, at least for the first few battles.

jujumbura

11th Mar 09, 2:58 PM

Wut up Synth :)

But that's not always a great option. There are some maps with super-duper critical chokes just like CoH, where if you lose the initial sparring and the other team sets up shop you will be fighting uphill the rest of the game. Double VP halves where each point is accessible to both sides ( like Plateau ) tend to fall into this category.

Although in theory you can flank and take power half, but these games are really pretty damn fast; 5 minutes of ownage by the other team will bleed you out nearly halfway. And the problem is, to be really effective and "hit em where they ain't", what you needed to do was to attack the other side before you got routed... but of course you had no way of knowing you were going to lose that first skirmish then.

There's quite a bit of guesswork, especially if you're in a PUG.

Brenil

11th Mar 09, 3:02 PM

Brenil, you don't have grenades until a minute in, and I'd be willing to bet that you'll have an encounter before that Battle Gear is ready...

Funny, I don't really have this problem. I always get at least one Battle Gear on my first Guardian Squad as soon as I get 10 power, which is usually 30-45 seconds into the match and right around first contact. If I'm not ready to fight, then I retreat or mass up my Guardians for flanking fire. If completely overwhelmed, I retreat and attack an area of the map they're not massing.

This game isn't heavy on the slippery slope, you can mount comebacks quite easily and just because you lose the first skirmish or avoid it all together doesn't mean at all you've lost. What matters is how fast you get back out onto the field and take the fight to the enemy.

Synthmon

11th Mar 09, 3:11 PM

But that's not always a great option. There are some maps with super-duper critical chokes just like CoH, where if you lose the initial sparring and the other team sets up shop you will be fighting uphill the rest of the game. Double VP halves where each point is accessible to both sides ( like Plateau ) tend to fall into this category.

Although in theory you can flank and take power half, but these games are really pretty damn fast; 5 minutes of ownage by the other team will bleed you out nearly halfway. And the problem is, to be really effective and "hit em where they ain't", what you needed to do was to attack the other side before you got routed... but of course you had no way of knowing you were going to lose that first skirmish then.

There's quite a bit of guesswork, especially if you're in a PUG.

In my experience - and we should totally take another game Mike - sometimes you can very much either avoid him or take another route. It's situational, but if you sometimes just do not push as hard as you want to you can avoid first contact. I, for one, always retreat my foray parties if I spot enemies, and it works out decently. I'm not going to debate the success of my matches in general, as my record sucks, but just that move generally works. Guardians are deployed in enough numbers to allow for versatility, and quickly redeploying one squad once you retreat from first contact will allow you to "hit 'em where they ain't".

Mokino

11th Mar 09, 3:47 PM

1. Eldar - very squishy army, low numbers compared to nids and orkz, rely on special abilities. Very powerful vehicles, if you survive to tech up to them. Heroes are terrible in straight combat.

2. Orkz - a lot of squishy infantry (but not all,) crappy T3 tank and walker. A few really powerful infantry options, when used correctly. Very dependant on cover. Warboss is very powerful, Kommando has to be used more like Eldar units and the Mekboy sucks until later tiers. Very dependant on Waaagh ability which takes orky version of zeal to use.

3. Space Marines - low infantry numbers make map control harder. More durable units than above races. Force Commander and Apoth are great heroes, Techmarine has poor call-in unit (Ven Dread.) Require special abilities to take down harder targets.

4. Tyranids - large numbers of surprisingly durable units (most vulnerable to flamer weapons, though,) rippers are fast, cheap and hard to kill in T1-early T2, warrior and gaunt combos are very powerful, Carnifex is insanely powerful, dishes out a lot of damage and takes a lot of focused firepower to kill. Outside of heroes, very few special abilities are necessary for most play, leading to much less micro.

Brenil

11th Mar 09, 4:08 PM

Heroes are terrible in straight combat.

The Warlock and Singing Spear-armed Farseer disagree with you. The Warlock especially is definately a frontline hero that when equiped right can do terrible things to enemy units and is very difficult to take down.

WWWladimir

12th Mar 09, 5:06 AM

Of course Eldar. Only Eldar need micro. =)

Oakwarrior

12th Mar 09, 8:09 AM

That's like saying only humans need water.

Jester Desu

12th Mar 09, 9:23 AM

All races need some Micro at a certain level. Eldar just need much more or they die, fast. Not noob friendly at all. You have 2 choices with Eldar, be a good micro player or lose 99% of your games versus other races who can just spam higher hit point and more versatile units at you all day.

Bepo5

12th Mar 09, 10:05 AM

Eldar without a doupt, if you mess up a move for even a second, half of your squad will probably be vaporized.

jcorqian

14th Mar 09, 12:10 AM

Quite honestly, I think SM is the hardest race to play EFFECTIVELY. Losing a squad can be gamebreaking. You don't want your Scout dead to sluggas due to carelessness, or your Tacs swarmed. With other races, this is much more forgiving since losses hurt less and take less time to replace.

There are a lot of bad SM players out there, and this is why.

Ducalion

14th Mar 09, 3:34 PM

WSE is micro intensive, but not terrible. Yeah, you can't take on enemy commanders head to head, but again - MICRO.

With a lot of micro the WSE is a very, very nasty enemy.

Brenil

14th Mar 09, 4:39 PM

Losing a squad can be gamebreaking.

Which is true for every race other than Space Marines. What you're not taking into account is the ecomonic disadvanage of having a less stout race than SM, unlike SM, they spend much of their income on reinforcements, which individually aren't very expensive, but quickly add up.

Therefore, with Eldar for example, you lose many Guardians and your costs quickly balloon to that of a full squad, ontop of this if you lose a squad (270 req), you also lose the time that squad isn't out on the field, the resources to upgrade them usefulness (Battle Gear and Warlock), and also the losses you've already reinforced. The end result equals or perhaps even surpasses SM loses. Tactical Squads are expensive, as are Assault Squads, but you reinforce them far less often than you do with less durable infantry.

As for there being a lot of poor SM players proving SM are difficult to play. You must also understand most newbies play SM because it is the iconic race of Dawn of War II (and indeed even Warhammer 40k in general), therefore you'll find quite a few new players choosing SM and learning the game; thus just because there are alot of 'bad' players who play SM doesn't mean it is a more difficult race to understand.

Eldar, Orks, SM, and Tyranids are in my mind the hardest to least difficult races to manage at the moment; but this isn't taking into account heros, which change things drastically as a race isn't complete without the hero and associated path you take by choosing them.

SteinerNein

14th Mar 09, 7:27 PM

None.

This entire game is easy in the sense that we're speaking of.

Detson202

15th Mar 09, 12:58 AM

Care to elaborate, Steiner? I know you play at a very high level, but doesn't it take more mental effort to micro 3 squads of Guardians with plasma grenades than it does to control a bunch of synapse'd up 'gaunts?

SteinerNein

15th Mar 09, 1:58 AM

Deston,

I don't play at a high level, I am a mediocre player and the thing keeping me from top is making execution mistakes which isn't so much about micro as it is about conceptual timing - I would say that most people have trouble with that more than anything else.

The thing with this as with any RTS is that you don't use mental effort in the traditional sense, i.e. 'out thinking' but really just 'muscle memory' or better yet 'instinct'. So, in the end, it's all the same. When I do triple guardian, it's about as much effort as I put into my Space Marines which can range from intense to low depending on the case.

Furthermore, if you want to play at a more active level and exploit your troops you won't simply 1a2a3a (attack move); there are always more traps to set up within the encounter and they make it worth it especially in how punishing they can be.

Microing guardians has just one more step in a flow chart and that really just depends on your gaming instinct which can be trained (read: time devouring) to be fairly good.

Let me line out a scenario for the case of using nids: Say, I do have some guants and warriors. I will not move my warriors forward by telling them to attack something but manually micro them to get into combat to juke a grenade toss. I will tell my gaunts to run beyond the guardians and then tell them to attack and just when I 'feel' they're going to retreat I'll move my gaunts along the retreat path to kill all of them due to the bonus.

The perception of Nids being 'easier' is mainly due to the case in how the curve plays out which there are plenty of arguments for and against - I think it's just a more noob friendly race but when you see it at the higher level you want to dodge that grenade and you want to make sure you annihilate everything that comes at you. Simply attack moving is not enough which is what you are suggesting.

The same goes for my space marines, I am not going to just move and not focus fire and not position myself for retreat interception or not melee you when I know I can win faster that way.

Now why do people find things difficult? Because they refuse to train themselves in such a boring fashion and I don't blame them.

Frosty

15th Mar 09, 1:59 PM

So basically you are saying that every race requires micro. Yeah, that's probably something we can all agree on.

However, this thread is about the question which race is definately the hardest to play, i.e., how much effort you have to put into microing to survive against an equally skilled player, how versatile your units are, whether or not you have to plan in advance or generally how (un)forgiving the race is when you make mistakes.

Personally, I think that Space Marines and Eldar (especially Eldar) are harder to play than Tyranids and Orks. In Dow2, hand-to-hand combat is generally the most effective way of dealing damage and killing units, especially ones that are retreating. Now, simply charging the enemy is a good way to take severe losses - But you have to admit, it's generally easier to tie the enemy in melee than stay out of range.

Brenil

15th Mar 09, 3:41 PM

The reason I think Orks are more difficult to play than SM is simply by virtue that many of their units don't have much utililty at the moment. Once all of their units are actually viable, then they'll be an easier race to play.

jcorqian

15th Mar 09, 5:11 PM

@ Brenil

Yes, I realize a lot of newbies play SM, SM reinforce less than other races, etc. BUT, I think difficulty to play overall is down to playstyle as well. When I play SM, I play the entire game until T2 (at which point a Razorback comes out) with FC, Scout, and Tac Squad. Three squads. If I lose any one of the three, I lose a lot of initiative and map control ability. Of course, this isn't for everyone, but I feel if you build more units in early T1 and T2 as SM you lose resources for upgrades, which is really what the SM need to be competitive (obv. other races need it too, but just less). If you have two squads of vanilla Tacs, two Scouts, and a FC you will get killed by AG warriors, etc. I play at TS 31 for reference.

When I play Eldar, Ork, and Nids, I usually have my hero along with three other squads, either Slugga Slugga Stickbomber, triple Guardian, or Hormagaunt Hormagaunt Warrior. If I lose a Slugga, Guardian, or gaunt squad, I feel I can still recover a lot of the initiative because building another one costs much less resources and time. As for your reinforcement argument, one Tac is 83 req to reinforce, while a Slugga is 22. That's almost four Sluggas for 1 Tac. An Ork player can basically keeping getting his squad almost wiped out while killing a single SM Tac and STILL be breaking even. I feel the reinforcement argument is very against the SM.

Think about it this way. I play you as SM vs. Eldar (I know you are an Eldar player) and three minutes into the game, I "delete" either my Scout or my Tac and you delete one of your Guardians. Who do you think will have a better chance of winning the game then?

Brenil

15th Mar 09, 8:09 PM

I play you as SM vs. Eldar (I know you are an Eldar player) and three minutes into the game, I "delete" either my Scout or my Tac and you delete one of your Guardians. Who do you think will have a better chance of winning the game then?

Except for the simple fact that unless you retreat a squad in the middle of a melee-fest, your odds of losing an entire squad of Tactical Marines is almost zero, unless... you're a newbie. Which makes your whole scenario of 'deleting' squads moot, since it is very difficult (in comparison to other races) to lose an entire squad of Tactical Marines. Tactical Squads are damn near impossible to wipe out unless you're making alot of mistakes to begin with. Guardian squads (and Sluggas/Gaunts) on the other hand are much easier to lose just by virtue of not paying attention for a second or so.

Tactical Marines generally can hold out quite along time in melee or in ranged, if you leave Sluggas alone in a firefight or Guardians in a melee one, they're going to die in seconds. Tactical Marines, nope. They're great at both, unless it is a specialist they're facing and they're out in the open, they'll take quite a bit longer to go down.

SM in general are a very friendly race for new players because once you learn the mechanics of the game you learn simple things like don't retreat in melee spam, retreat before you lose your entire squad, ect. It is the same for all races except you're punished more as other races for not reacting as quickly than as you do with SM. That isn't to say SM are an easy race to master, but they are one of the easiest races to learn to play as, which is indictive of the numbers of people who play them as their first race. Some stick with them, others move on to different races once they have the game somewhat down better. I agree mastering SM is a chore in comparison, but this thread isn't about which race is the hardest to master (which I still place them third but much closer to tied for second with Orks) it is about which race is the hardest to play.

Scouts, yes I agree they're very fragile, but they're not your mainline infantry and most people don't build more than one or two of them for the entire game. If your entire army was made of scouts then I would be on board with you, but since most SM players are Tactical heavy, I find my reinforcement arguement is still quite valid just simply by virtue that SM, all things being equal, will have a much better kill to death ratio than most other races.

jcorqian

16th Mar 09, 7:44 AM

I agree with pretty much everything you say actually (except nids easily wipe out Tacs, especially Rav). Often times I send Tacs into melee against Guardians and Scouts just because it's unexpected, kills them faster, and negates nades.

Again, I am not arguing that SM aren't friendly for new players, but I am not talking from the perspective of beginning players. I am arguing that they are the most difficult race to play effectively, i.e. master, in which case we are somewhat closer in agreement. The thread is which race requires the most skill to play properly, and for me that's SM. Either way, it's definitely not Nids.

If matched against a good player in the TS 28-35 range, I find it very difficult to get such kill ratios with Tacs because players are smart and run their squads away unless they have numerical superiority or some kind of advantage i.e. a heavy weapon. Also, other races produce units faster and reinforce faster, which is critical as well. This is why I disagree with the reinforcement argument.

XViper

17th Mar 09, 12:01 AM

I wouldn't say Eldar are weakest.
I'm approx 40-7 as Eldar playing mostly as WSE or Farseer.
The WSE mass teleport has won me many games, and entangle is made of epic win.
Farseer with Doom, Fortune, Mindwar & a squad of guardians or warpspiders can pretty much take on any other hero with any other supporting squad and win.

Eldar might seem squishy, but they have some of the best abilities in the game, and if used well, can turn the tide of most battles.

WSE + Banshees + Mass Teleport + Shimmer Orb vs heavily ranged opponent/position = win.
Phase armour also works treats when combined with his regular jump to tie up units while your force gets into position. (phase affects enemy units for those that didn't know).

The WSE is extremely underrated ;)

Most difficult to play for me would be Orks.
They seem to so often be either epic win or epic fail. So many Ork tactics seem to revolve around risky pushes, that if successfull, really turn the game. But if they fail, thats it. The Ork player practically loses a majority of his force. I've never had an "average" game with an Ork player. He's either decimated me completely, or I've wiped the floor with him.

Brenil

17th Mar 09, 3:38 AM

I'm approx 40-7 as Eldar playing mostly as WSE or Farseer.
The WSE mass teleport has won me many games, and entangle is made of epic win.

Team game wins?

SteinerNein

17th Mar 09, 3:45 AM

Brenil,

WSE is a pretty good hero actually but requires a specific kind of player.

Jester Desu

17th Mar 09, 7:39 AM

I used him constantly through beta, even simple things like being able to warp behind turrets ane melee them in tier 1 was very effective. Warping banshee behind an army back then was very lol.

The shield ability warlock gets was just too tempting for me tho.

SteinerNein

17th Mar 09, 7:42 AM

The point of the WSE is pretty obvious and that's CC, same goes for the Farseer but to a lesser extent.

mccrorie

18th Mar 09, 2:42 AM

please elucidate

searchuser

18th Mar 09, 9:39 AM

WastedTrojan

18th Mar 09, 11:50 AM

Tyranids are super tough to play. I mean attack moving with AG warriors and teching to carnifex is really hard. Also how are you supposed to maintain map control when you don't have any way to instantly move your entire army around the map or have a squad that is basically immune to ranged weapons to cap things???

Seriously i would have to say eldar. I have played random for a while and I found the fragility of eldar very difficult to get used to. I mostly play orcs and I have had a few random squads of sluggas get owned in seconds by a space marine flamer but nothing like having a guardian squad killed by anything in seconds.

SteinerNein

18th Mar 09, 8:06 PM

please elucidate

Crowd Control skills -> Disruption/ Lock down / Holding units in place

Farseer is mainly a buff bot but she can be equipped for massive CC.

WSE is purely CC with teleport which can be considered a form of CC .

Dragoon

18th Mar 09, 8:32 PM

Im assuming team play, since I don't so much 1v1

Ive found orks the hardest to play effectively, they have really no stand out units at any tier, only the Predator is more disappointing at T3, and your pushes can easily backfire if something unexpected comes up. The Mek is kinda odd since it values trenching on a mobile army, the Warboss isn't bad, but its counterable, the Kommando can be fun tho and played well a real neausence at various points.

My issues with the races:
Space Marines: really meh at T3 until you can get terminators on the field. they do fine at T1 and the Plasma at T2 can be just brutal. But they can be really subpar at endgame unless you use your commanders well (Apothecary + well times assaults can brualize entire armies with a few squads)

Eldar: My favorite army, their only real downside is that their heroes do not really shine till T3 when you can get your army built correctly. Cheap supression at T1, Wraithlord at 2, Avatar at 3. Farseer seems really underrated just like the Exarch, take 3 Warp Spider and a Farseer at T3, 3 grenades kill all vehicles, and the time stopping power allows you to kill armies with the spiders. The Exarch is fun for jumping arround and annoying.

Tyranid: Probably the most simple to play army, but it works well. Throw some Hormines and Rippers with a set of warriors and go to town. Not alot changes per se in T2 and T3 except that you can do more killing in more fun ways, so always a plus. Only thing I dislike is I never have found much use for the Lictor compared to the tunnels of the Ravener and the early synapse and invulnerability of the Tyrant.

mccrorie

18th Mar 09, 10:10 PM

Crowd Control skills -> Disruption/ Lock down / Holding units in place

I've been doing this in 3vs3 and its hell fun. But not the CC part? I guess I just prefer the net wargear + gravity nade and general hooliganism...

Is he really that good in CC?

The Voltr0n

19th Mar 09, 6:28 PM

Eldar, so micro intensive as if u look away they die lol

Nids are by far the easiers, macro macro macro and they are hard to kill.

Waffls112

20th Mar 09, 12:45 AM

Wow, I do wonderful with the eldar, and I'm not too good at this game, I think why everyone thinks that eldar are sooo hard is because they just dont have the mircoing down and proper. My tactics sucks, my manuevers aren't so hot, but I have a quick finger and a strong memory of the hotkeys, that alone has won me out of alot of pickles from a more intellegent player.

Bowkers

20th Mar 09, 9:09 AM

Don't hurt me for this comment. But I've played all races, and in my opinion, I had such a difficult time with Orks. Suprising I know. I love playing as the other three, Eldar I managed fine, as soon as I got to the greenskins, hopeless. But it seems I'm one of many, so it must just be me :)

Brenil

20th Mar 09, 11:43 AM

so it must just be me

It isn't you. Orks are really close to Eldar right now in terms of difficulty to play and probably are the most difficult race to play in 3vs3 right now. 1vs1 I still go with Eldar but Orks are a very close second and the reason for this is because their main units (Shootas/Sluggas) are very fragile and not altogether inexpensive and other units (Stormboyz, Beamy Lootas, Kommandos, and even Deff Dreads) are rather questionable in their usefulness at the moment.

That's the primary reason why Orks are difficult to play, half of their units are either completely useless or close to it. Therefore they must rely on their more fragile sluggas and shootas (which are both still good), and questionably balanced stikkbombas to get the job done until Nobz in Tier 3.

Steakmancer

20th Mar 09, 2:03 PM

Tyranids are the most difficult race to play, as you are posed with questions such as:

"Should I get AG warriors or AG warriors?"

"Should I burrow my Ravener Alpha or let him die?"

"Should I get a Carnifex or a Carnifex?"
:stick:That's why I play as them now.

Shinova

22nd Mar 09, 11:46 PM

The WSE's power claws actually do quite a good amount of damage against infantry. He does some damage to vehicles, but it's not good enough to warrant taking him up against anything tougher than Falcons/Razorbacks/Truks.

Putting heavy gauge plus targeters on him and turning on the ability makes him do just about as much or nearly as much damage as a shuriken cannon, so there's that option too.

EDIT: Ah, I'm sorry, shuriken still does boatloads more. But you can't teleport the team around on a whim now, can we?

Brenil

22nd Mar 09, 11:49 PM

The WSE's power claws actually do quite a good amount of damage against infantry. He does some damage to vehicles, but it's not good enough to warrant taking him up against anything tougher than Falcons/Razorbacks/Truks.

That's actually true of the Farseer and the Singing Spear as well. It does ho-hum damage to vehicles, but absolutely crazy damage to infantry and structures.

Shinova

23rd Mar 09, 12:01 AM

Oh and Kommando Nob's assashun knife's default attack does 70 dps according to dow codex, so don't take that knife lightly either. :)

Look through the list and you'll see plenty of interesting stuff. You'll see that the Farseer's weapons actually do more damage than the Warlock's gear; it's just his speed, health, and abilities that put him over the seer in melee.

hellic

23rd Mar 09, 1:06 AM

The WSE's power claws actually do quite a good amount of damage against infantry. He does some damage to vehicles, but it's not good enough to warrant taking him up against anything tougher than Falcons/Razorbacks/Truks.
Most people underestimate the Powerclaws, so they're content to leave their squads in melee with the WSE. To put things in perspective, the Powerblades do more damage than the Apothecary's Sanguine Chainsword and Power Axe, the Warlock's Immolater and Witchblade of Kronus, and the default DPS of the Farseer, Warlock, Apoth, Force Commander, and Lictor. So basically, all the melee heroes except the Warboss and HT.

Shinova

28th Mar 09, 2:43 AM

I too find Orks much, much harder to play with than Eldar, at least in 3v3. Guardians+shurikens pack so much more punch than sluggas+shootas and are cheaper to boot, maybe not durability but clever positioning of multiple shurikens fixes that. Stikkbommazs are awesome, but plasma grenades are easier to get and pack more of a blast. And I agree that the rest of the unit lineup is more consistently useful for Eldar than Orks.

And is just me or are lootas just..... meh? I had two of them firing into a bunch of enemies and it seemed like not even one of them became suppressed over time. Shurikens on the other hand suppress like crazy; not as hard as heavy bolters, but fairly close.

Goobers

28th Mar 09, 6:17 AM

I find Orkz the hardest to play.

They don't have a single unit they can rely on so heavily as Guardians.

Really power hungry T1, quasi-worthless T2, expensive T3. No real artillery, no cheap spammable grenades, and just as Squishy as most Eldar units with the added bonus of being melee orientated.

Demonhorde

28th Mar 09, 6:20 AM

I agree orks are hardest

Vertrucio

29th Mar 09, 12:33 AM

Orks by far are the hardest.

Their core units do not scale up into tier 2-3, especially once enemy units start leveling up and buying upgrades that kill basic troops quickly. The Nob leader doesn't do much to help either.

Their only dedicated suppression unit, Lootas, come out at tier 2 when everyone already has plenty of units and abilities that can bypass or kill suppression weapons. They cost 300 req and more power for the same suppression as tier 1 suppression. Sadly, it's this suppression that the Orks need to keep their core units alive.

AlienHack

2nd Apr 09, 6:38 AM

I want to go back at what jcorqian said!

SM are very difficult to play not because they need more micro than other races BUT because 1 mistake usually leads to losing the game. I explain:
If in one of the initial battles you lose your first tacs then its almost certainly game over. The reason? SM have already problems with map control, especially against nyds that can spawn 2-3 cheap rippers to take 3 cp at the same time.. So by losing 1 of your tacts wich cost 500req.. then game over. AND BELIEVE me in T1 they die VERY easily because of bugs in pathfinding, you hit x to retreat and they run in cicles because one marine has stuck somewhere or is in a middle of a cc animation.. those things suck.

Also what SteinerNein points out is correct!
The way this game's mechanics are , winning is 60-70% player skill and micro and the rest 30-40% is chance.
What i mean by chance? well as i mentioned above, while retreating if 1 marine gets stuck in an animation its game over for the tact squad, or lets say the enemy builds his 1 st vehicle and you have droped its health to almost zero, it just needs 1 more shot to go down but at the last moment before your tacs fire they get stuck and change target firing at a nearby homo squad (happens a lot in missle tacs , you have to keep clicking them where to attack) and you lose the missle squad from the vehicles incoming fire because their firing cycle is like 7 secs.. , after you lose this squad because as i mentioned SM have map control issues probably you lose the game.. So because of a luck (or bug??) thing (a single marine gets stuck while retreating, or a missle squad changes a target) the game is lost or VERY difficult to regain.

Also i want to keep talking about luck, i have lost many games to even lower lvl players cause of lucky moments, and even won games against lvl30+ players cause i was lucky. The way resources work make the game a luck fest.

Think of this. A game starts and a SM player decides (by chance) to move his scouts at the left side of the map BUT because of his bad luck the TYR moved his homos there too! so the scouts lose 1 member in the innitial attack and have to retreat fast! this small 1st battle that was lost by chance (if the tyr had gone to the other side of the map then the scouts would have taken over an energy point or req point) will give the time to the tyr player to take map control.. and then the SM will have no way of taking it back.

Continuing on chance , think of this.

2 SM players one against the other, they share the map , they both have their comander their innitial scouts and 1 tac squad. NOW HERE IS THE MOMENT OF LUCK!
one goes assault marine or a razor and even upgrade his first tac to plasma. The other builds at the same time a dread. In 30secs the dred comes in and then the 1st player HAS NO WAY TO COUNTER THE DRED! the dred has the ability to even chase the retreating marines in the enemy's base and slaughter them while the bases turrets just scratch his paint. I HAVE SEEN THIS HAPEN EVEN WITH A RAZOR(he got the razor in my base and slaughtered 2 tacs while i was trying to reenforce them and dance).

Even if the 1st player manages to somehow destroy the dred then all this time (1-2 mins) the other player will have gained map control and... game over.. FOR the SM player these small luck mistakes are even more critical cause of the cost of his units and the slow speed they move!!

on the above example if the first player didnt build a razor and/or assault marines and went for a second tac with missle he would probably own the dread and then the second player would have problems cause a dread is 500req and 80 energy!! very hard to replace it even with a tac squad (500req) and in the meantime he would lose map control..

SO AS YOU SEE small little luck things decide the fate of the whole game , especially for a SM player. THE GAMES nature does not forgive even the slightest mistake even if this mistake is atributed to luck!!

so my opinion? cause 30% of the game is luck whatever race you take has just 70% impact on the result. Of course races like tyrs that can build cheap and fast units have more chances to come back from such a misfortune-bad luck, SM marines on the other hand no , so they are the most difficult IMO to play.

Count CHocula

2nd Apr 09, 11:09 AM

Only humans need water.

mccrorie

2nd Apr 09, 3:19 PM

"FOR the SM player these small luck mistakes are even more critical cause of the cost of his units and the slow speed they move"

While I agree the bad path AI effects everyone in some horrid way, how long do you think retreating guardian units last if they get stuck next to a squad of sluggas? Or, god forbid, ASM or Tacs... They already get slaughtered in melee with those units. The extra damage provided by the retreat status practically ensures the destruction of such fragile units.

Other races get the bonus of competent melee in T1 that doesn't cost 400/15. This is a boon, as skirmishes that end in one side retreating usually favour those who won through melee engagement.

The number of times I've worked hard to successfully trap a SM squad or whoever else into a platform trap, only to have them Hit X and wave goodbye, is just frustrating beyond belief. Granted other races have to deal with this situation as well, I'm interested in peoples opinions on how this effects eldar T1 relative to the other races (ie what do competent players of the other races feel about retreat as it is now)

AlienHack

2nd Apr 09, 11:47 PM

mccrorie I agree that all races' units get stuck BUT even if you lose the wholw guardian squad you can replace it with 270 (?) req in 10 secs while if a SM loses his tacs he needs 500req and 20 secs.. thats why the loss is heavier for him..

mccrorie

2nd Apr 09, 11:57 PM

Of course, but they're much less likely to die that way - unless you make a huge mistake...

AlienHack

3rd Apr 09, 2:19 AM

yes, but how much does it cost to reinforce a guardian and how much to reinforce a tac? even if you lose 2-3 guardian soldiers its better than to replace even 1 marine!!

Overcow

3rd Apr 09, 2:27 AM

I would say the Eldar, that's not a bad thing though.

If you know how to use 'em the reward is great. If not, well go play 'nids or something.

I've also got to disagree about the FS, she is by far the best Eldar hero in the game. Guide, Doom and Fortune are (if used correctly) the best "abilities" in the game. She is also a viable endgame unit because of her Lev and Time abilities. Run into a horde of Orks, pop a lev and then pick 'em of with a strong long range squad.

Cheesenium

4th Apr 09, 6:28 AM

Since DoW1,both Eldar and Orks are hard for me to play.

General_II

4th Apr 09, 7:49 PM

I'd say Orks, given their general UP-ness and how fragile their tier one units are (just slightly above Eldar, if that). Eldar may be somewhat micro-intensive, but it doesn't take *too much* micro to fleet of foot-throw grenade-retreat: f, click, g, click, x. Personally, I've always found Eldar the easiest to play, if no other reason than that the playing style is reminiscent of CoH.

Space Marines using the Techmarine are also pretty difficult.When you have so few units on the field, a misclick or bad unit pathing can completely screw you over. I can't count the number of times a building has bugged out a heavy bolter squad and screwed the game for me.

AlienHack

8th Apr 09, 6:36 AM

Space Marines using the Techmarine are also pretty difficult.When you have so few units on the field, a misclick or bad unit pathing can completely screw you over. I can't count the number of times a building has bugged out a heavy bolter squad and screwed the game for me.

+1000% thats what i'm talking about. with SM all the time i had an anxiety that a unit would get stuck or a bad pathfinding would kill my retreating units and that would mean game over. cause its so expensive and time consuming to build a new SM squad.

For 3 days now i play Tyrs for the first time and i feel relaxed! I have played like 8-9 games and won all of them!!
the whole point is in the initial 2 mins, if you move fast and cap the energy points (you just leave the other player with 1 energy point, which you take out later after you win the first skirmishes) then its one way from then on.. he tries to cap o point you even let him do this and the moment he leaves you just send a ripper squad to take it back.. its fun & relaxed playing tyrs but gets bad for the oponent..

Adrian_mx

10th Apr 09, 6:21 PM

Space Marines

JK.
Eldar FTW.

Dux

10th Apr 09, 7:06 PM

Balance right now is like this:
Tyranids >>> Eldar > SM > Orks

Ease of play is like this:
SM > Tyranids >> Orks = Eldar

SM is easy to pick up simply because their units have so much HP, which make them a very forgiving race to play; however, at high skill levels Eldar and Tyranids both have an edge over SM.

cyborgZero

10th Apr 09, 7:33 PM

ORKS, because all their tier 1 units become obsolete by tier 2 no matter the upgrades provided, and what makes it even worse are their terrible choices for tier 2 and the weakness of their tankbustas which allows kiting vehicles (razor/falcon) to decimate them with minimal losses.

Once you reach tier 3, their units are expensive and weak. The only wayt o win is to reach tier 3 before you opponenets do by using your tier 1.

mccrorie

10th Apr 09, 8:02 PM

Shifting my opinion towards orks. Though a good player will soon have more time to bully T1 Guardians from their req/pwr.

Remains to be seen what WS will do to orks =)

Shinova

11th Apr 09, 2:39 AM

Try playing some more Orks in 3v3. You will know the definition of PAIN!!!

Man, seriously though; both Eldar and Orks require greater finesse to wield than the other races, but at least Eldar has a wide array of totally useful units and tactics against pretty much any kind of situation. Orks..... eek.

whatsleft

11th Apr 09, 5:01 AM

orks in 3v3, eldars dont even come close.

1v1 is a different ballgame altogether.

dual waagh nerf is definitely uncalled for.

iko

11th Apr 09, 5:29 AM

Ork.

Shinova

12th Apr 09, 1:41 PM

My most recent games have lead me to agree with what Dux has said. Between Eldar and SM, the former needs more finesse to handle but among two players both familiar with their races, the Eldar player seems to have the advantage.

That said, I haven't faced a real mass tac spam yet (four or more squads).

Seth Dracovitch

12th Apr 09, 9:42 PM

I'd say Orks are hardest. Maybe because they're one of my least favorite races in the 40K unioverse or maybe they really are just that much of a pain in the ass to handle. After that I'd have to say Space Marines for the same reasons as the Orks. Personally I play 'nids cuz I have been playing nids for years in TT. After that it's the Eldar, which do require a ton of Micro but the Farseer can be a powerhouse if you know how to use her right.

Al_Ka_Pwn

20th Apr 09, 6:19 PM

jeeze, it is the orks, i swear that slugga boyz die too damn fast, maybe if tier 2 nobs actually did something to make all your sluggas more awesome, but they don't

b00mslang

20th Apr 09, 6:56 PM

ichigoarrancar

20th Apr 09, 9:10 PM

I find the hardest race to play to be in the following order:
-Orks
-Eldar
-Space Marines
-Tyranids (being the easiest)

IExiledI

26th Apr 09, 2:49 AM

i agree, i would say orcs, then eldar. eldar off the bat have so much surp that if not acted upon fast enough lets them get a gimmie off the bat (not saying win, just saying a 1 up)

Ruzdreg

27th Apr 09, 7:41 AM

I say make them harder to play by giving them more choices for T2/T3 units!

I say make them harder to play by re-working synapse.
I really wanted the whole army to focus around that and be heavyly needed, currently its their to just over power units.

Its as if they're just walking Mek boy Waaargh! banners - that fight back.

Penitent Engine

28th Apr 09, 8:24 AM

i find the farseer the best option for 1v1, i have won most of my games with her. i don't much like the WSE at all, i jsu don't have the skill or the patience for him.

Back on topic though; i've never played tyranids enough to comment though orks and aldar are harder the play than SM.

burnT

15th May 09, 5:37 AM

Think of this. A game starts and a SM player decides (by chance) to move his scouts at the left side of the map BUT because of his bad luck the TYR moved his homos there too! so the scouts lose 1 member in the innitial attack and have to retreat fast!

AlienHack, First of all, no one ever decides to move a unit somewhere by luck, a good player moves a unit to a spot because there is a reason for it. There should ALWAYS be a reason for any movement you do in this game. We dont roll dice to decide where we put our units.

and second, you can most definitely see a homo squad (via red dot on map) and then proceed to react before it does anything, its possible to escape without losing one unit if you are actually watching.

2 SM players one against the other, they share the map , they both have their comander their innitial scouts and 1 tac squad. NOW HERE IS THE MOMENT OF LUCK!
one goes assault marine or a razor and even upgrade his first tac to plasma. The other builds at the same time a dread.

How can you just assume they are doing these actions at the same time? Right here you are just creating situations of luck. What if one player decides to wait and see what their opponent spends resources on?

When a player decides to do something, he/she doesnt exactly know if the other player does it at the same time as well, and this is where skill comes into play.

I find a lot of this game is based on reactive play. Sometimes immediately spending available resources might not be the best course of action.

Codex

15th May 09, 5:47 AM

"2 SM players one against the other, they share the map , they both have their comander their innitial scouts and 1 tac squad. NOW HERE IS THE MOMENT OF LUCK!
one goes assault marine or a razor and even upgrade his first tac to plasma. The other builds at the same time a dread. "

he gets ASM, RB and plasma tac... well he deserves to lose. no AV, whatsoever?! save a melta bomb? a kiting RB by itself would harass that build to death.

it is about reactive play, as the previous poster said. even if you know you're AV weak or AI weak, you want to lure them into going that way, and hit them where they're weak e.g. you have ASM, RB and an unupgraded tac. he puts out a dread. now you retreat, and come back with a ML and meltas. dread gets seriously damaged if not dead.

PS. Eldar. Eldar are not (that) underpowered, but do take the most skill to use effectively. Orks come 2nd. The number of waaagh abilities you have to use, timed correctly, to make orks effective is crazy.

BudgetMessiah

15th May 09, 6:57 AM

For me, orks are more difficult to play than eldar. With Fleet of Foot, I feel much more comfortable moving about the map, knowing I can avoid damage if I need to. Their guardians are scaleable, they all can carry a grenade, and the warlock is worth buying (sorry sluggas!). They have functional area denial weapons, whereas lootas are generally considered inferior and are seldom fielded, forcing orks to maintain an active defense. Their heroes offer great no-brainer synergies with their troops, whereas the ork troops feel like an accessory for my hero who ends up doing most of the heavy lifting until nobs come out.

Speaking of which, to the guy who said, "Eldar have only one viable strategy" while oh-so-cleverly avoiding naming it so as to be above reproach, I'll say you're wrong, twice. You're wrong because the eldar have a number of viable strategies, and units that are great at each tier. Orks on the other hand have a crutch at T2 that they hobble along with until they get to nobs. You need nobs, they're the only viable option, except perhaps mekboys who like shiny red fast tanks. Even they are likely to get nobs because they're the only infantry unit worth a damn in T3 that the orks have.

Oh, and that bit about eldar being more "squishy" (can't we just say "fragile" or some other word that doesn't come from the vocabulary of a 6-year-old girl?) is just nonsense. An upgraded level 1 guardian model is tougher by far than a slugga. Slugs get a whopping 100 hp. Guardians with gear and a warlock have an equivalent of 160. Fragile race my ass.

So, yeah. Put me down for orks.

acrimitis

15th May 09, 8:58 AM

I feel it's a toss up between Orks and Eldar, Eldar do scale better, true, but it's a lot easier for Orks to establish early map control, and the resources to quickly reach tier 3.

And saying that Orks are squishier (heh, it's an established term for games, so deal with it :-P) is only half true, waaagh! can easily make it so sluggas are more durable than guardians. Yes, guardians carry nades, but orks have stikkbommas.

But, i really feel they're about on the same tier as far as learning to use them. The reason for this is that they are pretty unique when compaired to races/factions found in other RTS games. Orks are a race of rather weak melee that has an ability which can make them uber for brief periods of time. Eldar are a high dps race that need to be incredibly careful every step of the way because although they can kill fast, they die just as, if not faster. Other RTS incorperate this into thier races, sure, but often it's only a few base units, and the rest are your standard units. SM and nids are your basic RTS model; big strong guys that can take a beating and dish one out, and itty bitty guys who's main idea is 'i'm gona get all these guys and attack you with them'. These are very general statements, and i know none of the races are 100% tied to these cookie cutter ideas, but it is general the theme in thier successful use.