Thinking about army to start...

[Half-drow]

Sometimes fantasy becomes abit boring, so sometimes i play with idea of building a 40K army. What have alvays stopped me is a choise of side. Now I seem to end on 4 of them.

Which Hunters/Sisters of Battle -- like their minis, like the background. What stopped me (on 16th mini) was perspective of all metall army (any minor conversion takes hacksaw and blowtourch ) and "holy trinity" (great wariety -- bolters, big bolters, flamers, big flamers meltas, big...).

Space marines --new codex, so at least some time without fear about "what are they gonna do with them?" Plus I can customize my chapter. But they are.. too mainstreamy.

Chaos Spacemarines -- look funnier then loyalist ones. However, they would have to be mass converted (every core/troop one) to really be what I want them to be...

Eldar -- Would have started them long ago. Bot there is one concern -- heard that their currnt codex leaves them quite weak. Plus -- some feeling that next codex edition would easily turn mush things upside down (leaving collected army little with little value)

Your thoughts, please...

[Rork]

Which Hunters/Sisters of Battle -- like their minis, like the background. What stopped me (on 16th mini) was perspective of all metall army (any minor conversion takes hacksaw and blowtourch ) and "holy trinity" (great wariety -- bolters, big bolters, flamers, big flamers meltas, big...).

They are quite interesting. It's marine army without being dull - the rules are interesting, the army isn't quite so all-singing, all dancing and there are some nice toys (Exorcist...just convert a whirlwind, though).

Space marines --new codex, so at least some time without fear about "what are they gonna do with them?" Plus I can customize my chapter. But they are.. too mainstreamy.

Chaos Spacemarines -- look funnier then loyalist ones. However, they would have to be mass converted (every core/troop one) to really be what I want them to be...

Playing as either can be a bit dull if you want to make 40k an interesting experience (especially if you come from playing warhammer). I played CSM for a while - you are either confident about what it can do or hiding from starcannons. They are so reliable it can be dull to use after a while.

Eldar -- Would have started them long ago. Bot there is one concern -- heard that their currnt codex leaves them quite weak. Plus -- some feeling that next codex edition would easily turn mush things upside down (leaving collected army little with little value)

They aren't weak. But the expensive aspect units are more difficult to get working well at the moment. Since you can't assault out of a transport after it has moved, having a T3 unit stranded for a turn can cause a headache. That, or they are relegated to a counter-charge role.

Eldar can still play a good, manouvrable mobile firepower army that can go where it pleases. If you have nothing to tie down your line (Support weapons, reapers etc) you can dictate play or press your opponent as you please.

[Half-drow]

Thanks!

[Kanish the reaper]

Half-Drow I am in the same position as you in that having played Warhammer for over 10 years, I am planning on embarking on my first Wh40K army (with BFG fleet).
I know everyone seems 2 think Space Marines are boring but they fit my idea of an army which is tatically flexible and fluff wise empire conquering/subduing force although a more evil army would be preferable (Dark Angels seem to fit the bill). Not to mention that the models are great...

[Rork]

I know everyone seems 2 think Space Marines are boring but they fit my idea of an army which is tatically flexible

Space Marines are flexible, no doubt, but potentially too forgiving. Failing morale checks, running from combat and the like isn't too much bother for a marine army. While this is exceptionally characterful (marines really do fight as you would expect them to), it does make for a style of play that is far from inspiring. With other armies protecting your units is the order of the day - the use of cover only comes into a marine army in the face of star/battle cannons .

The interaction between units isn't inspiring, while with other armies you do require a strategy and co-ordinated plan to get the most out of your army (as long as it is balanced. 15 starcannon armies have the strategy of a rusty bucket).

Not to mention that the models are great...

No doubt about it . I still don't think you can beat the grace of most of the Eldar line, though.

[Kanish the reaper]

I still don't think you can beat the grace of most of the Eldar line, though.

True but with the apparent update of the Eldar codex it doesn't seem the best time to start collecting a new Eldar force (although the Ulthwe strike force is a interest unit).

[Rork]

True but with the apparent update of the Eldar codex it doesn't seem the best time to start collecting a new Eldar force

True - but like the marine army I doubt many units will be replaced completely - hopefully the ugly/antiquated (scorpions and rangers, for example) will be, of course.

[Kanish the reaper]

Failing morale checks, running from combat and the like isn't too much bother for a marine army. While this is exceptionally characterful (marines really do fight as you would expect them to), it does make for a style of play that is far from inspiring.

Maybe so but it depends how you choose to play - Space marines do offer the temptation to play in a dull manner (due to all round good stats). But the wide range of choices mean u can play a range of armies such Ravenwing (Dark Angels) which require more tactical thinking.

Rork, as you seem more informed on 40K which race(s) provide more strategic flexibilty and co-ordinated plans. From what I saw from the Eye of Terror campaign there seems to be a considerable larger number of players with what you would characterise as 'good' races which makes me inclined towards an 'evil' race.

[Loki]

makes me inclined towards an 'evil' race.

Even though Im not Rork (thank God ) Ill take a stab at this one. Orks are some what difficult to play and offer a chance to flex your tactical muscles. Orks have very little in the way of armour (both the mobile kind and armour saves) and they also have some difficulty when it comes to dealing with enemy tanks. But they can be awesome in combat and are quite ferocious. While they can take down almost anything in combat, it is your job to figure out how to get them there.

[Malevion]

I would go with chaos space marines. They are a good army to play for beginers and imo they are more interesting and have cooler models than normal space marines.

As people have already said both SMs are forgiving, because of their all round goodness you can pull off a victory even if you make heaps of mistakes.

If you want more of a challenge with CSMs you could try playing as one of the single god armies. Nurgle deathguard are my personal favourite

[Pmpn8ez]

It is a generally accepted fact that all armies are approximately as powerful as one another, that when a list from any race is composed with balance in mind, or even with WAAC or theme, that it will compete about evenly with any list composed in a like manner. Going from this presumption, every list has the capacity to win and be competitive. Because of this, my advice to you is not to consider the rules or abilities of any army until you've chosen it; completely disregard the entire army list and rules section of every army and go to the picture section. Consider each of your options only in the sense of how their models look; if you really like the models and want to build/ paint/ play with a certain race's models in particular over any other, they are the race for you. The army list itself is always secondary to whether or not you are happy with your army and whether or not you enjoyed the experience building it. Since every army can win and be competitive, you'd might as well do so with an army you enjoy than with one you don't.

[Blinkpunk]

ok... beautiful models, one of the rarest armies out there, but unofficial rules. the harlequins are practically the hardest to play and need the most thought as to tactics and army composition. They also have challenging strengths/ weaknesses and have uber fluff. not to mention really nice models. only problem is their rules aren't official, but should be included in the new codex which is eventually coming out. hopefully enxt yr some time.

necrons on the other hand are a little less forgiving, and also fairly demanding tactically, as well as having above average miniatures and decent rules.

[Arquinsiel]

the harlequins are practically the hardest to play and need the most thought as to tactics and army composition.

Pffft... take troupes, take a solitare, take max venoms and a few death jester. Hug cover, hit in combat. HOme for tea by turn four max.

necrons on the other hand are a little less forgiving, and also fairly demanding tactically,

Erm... they're the most forgiving, they get back up after all. And they just march forward and shoot, not particularly impressive or tactiacal.

[Ansob.]

It is a generally accepted fact that all armies are approximately as powerful as one another, that when a list from any race is composed with balance in mind, or even with WAAC or theme, that it will compete about evenly with any list composed in a like manner.

That should be true, yes, but I'd like to mention that it isn't. The Tau army (and Radical Daemonhunters. Perhaps the Necron one? I don't know) has no way whatsoever of creating a WAAC list. Even MechTau isn't a winning list unless you're damn good at what you play.

But anyway, it's pretty much a matter of personal taste. CSM are a lot less boring than ISM. Over all, I'd probably pick the Inquisition, though.
Of course, my real dream is to build an army of pre-Heresy Word Bearers...

[Pmpn8ez]

It's not necessarily true that all armies can create a WAAC list, but when they are with an evenly constructed list, they will be evenly matched. That said, the Necrons are easily cheese-able (or so I'm told) and Tau could probably made so as well, but not so much that they have an uber DP running around with 8 S6 attacks, more in the sense that they can deny their opponent VPs and only engage in certain fights much like Dark Eldar do. Radical daemonhunters are getting a bit specific; as a whole, DH armies can be made WAACy in the traditional sense, but not when you splice and dice it into radical or puritans (who have an even tougher time).

[Half-drow]

Many thanks for your suggestions!

[Blinkpunk]

the harlequins are practically the hardest to play and need the most thought as to tactics and army composition.

Pffft... take troupes, take a solitare, take max venoms and a few death jester. Hug cover, hit in combat. HOme for tea by turn four max.

hmm... and how often do you play with them, against any army you will be outnumbered, and the risk of having your venoms shot down by anything (bolt pistols) is relatively high, then you risk being entangled for a turn, shot to pieces, then there's the S3 in combat, meaning although you have 3 attacks , you still only kill 0.41 spacemarines per harlequin trouper, with out power weapons. in return the space marines will kill 0.22 harelquins. and seeing as you will be out numbered roughly 3:2, you will lose out in combat, which is the harlequins strength.

Necrons on the other hand, are a little less forgiving, and also fairly demanding tactically.

erm... they are the most forgiving, they get back up after all. and they just march forward and shoot, not particularly impressive or tactical.

yes, they can be geared that way, if you take 2 monoliths and a c-tan and lots of immortals, they're no worse than smace marines, and it's not like all of them get back up, there are certain restrictions......
when i said tactically challenging i meant in choosing what to put in the army, with only one troops choice, which is the most expensive in the game, it can be fairly restricing as to what goes into your army, and a challenge to make a decent, sporting list.