PDA

View Full Version : Most Tactical Army?



w3rm
17-09-2009, 02:21
What army is the requires the most tactics to use such as foresigt and planning? My vote is wood elves. Yours?

jayzerus
17-09-2009, 03:56
I would rank Bretonnians at the top.

Not being a good strategist and getting your opponent into charge scenarios / bad situations = failure

Condottiere
17-09-2009, 04:53
Wouldn't that be deployment to get the cavalry buses aligned with your primary targets?

bludsturm
17-09-2009, 04:56
Beastmen, for sure!

shartmatau
17-09-2009, 04:59
I think Wood Elves are pretty difficult to play. They don't really require lots of planning because you have lots of fast moving/easy to move units, but being so fragile require lots of tactics to bait, lure your opponent, and strike only when you know you can win the fight.

I think Empire struggle because they require lots of long term strategy, starting with being able to deploy lots of guys. Empire has a ton of guys who are weak with low leadership. They suffer against fear, everyone has better fighting units, most people have better magic. An empire army requires setting up well and being able to recover from a bad situation.

Falkman
17-09-2009, 07:37
Wouldn't that be deployment to get the cavalry buses aligned with your primary targets?
And being diverted away endlessly?

Max1mum
17-09-2009, 08:04
i play wood elves and chaos,

and tbh i think chaos is actualy more tactical then wood elves,

at least chaos requires much more thinking and planning from my part to score that massacre ;-)

..that might just mean i'm better at playing elves then chaos, i might just need more practice/sacrifices_to_the_dark_gods to get there..

Aranel
17-09-2009, 09:32
I would say elves of any description, expensive and fragile the sum is always greater than the parts. However, make a stupid mistake and they are often very unforgiving. At my local, the four best players all play with some type of elf army. They pick balanced lists and play with a certain elegance. the 5th best plays along a similar theme with an Empire army and again uses a combined arms approach to achieve victory.

I don't see any subtlety with the Brets. Their about as subtle as a brick!

Condottiere
17-09-2009, 10:00
The lance formation does resemble a brick.

Makaber
17-09-2009, 10:36
I'd say the top contenders would be either Beasts of Chaos, becasue with low Leadership and extremely fragile troops, you can't just throw them in there and "hope for the best". Either that, or Empire, with no real "super-troops", and a special rule (Detatchments) that really just requires even more planning.

But I think the basic premise of the thread is a bit naff. I find most armies take about the same level of savvy, it only manifests differently.

Tower_Of_The_Stars
17-09-2009, 11:49
Warriors of Chaos :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I agree with the following sentiment,


But I think the basic premise of the thread is a bit naff. I find most armies take about the same level of savvy, it only manifests differently.

In addition, I think it's likely that players will have differing interpretations as to what the word "tactical" means within the context of the question and that even if there was a "Warseerial" agreement as to what it meant, the question of a tactical army extends further than the limits of the question to army list composition and the player in charge also.

SabaLoth
17-09-2009, 12:53
Every army has diificulties.

I always find myself struggling with \OK but that has multiple reasons(i play DE with them :( )

The SkaerKrow
17-09-2009, 13:32
Empire, by a wide margin. The Empire army list has all of the tools in it that one needs for victory, but if you do not apply them correctly, you will lose. A well played Empire army is a daunting opponent, a sloppily played one is steaming offal.

Eta
17-09-2009, 15:34
Empire, by a wide margin. The Empire army list has all of the tools in it that one needs for victory, but if you do not apply them correctly, you will lose. A well played Empire army is a daunting opponent, a sloppily played one is steaming offal.

That can be said about all armies, even sloppily played daemons will eventually be overwhelmed.

Greetings
Eta

Maoriboy007
18-09-2009, 04:41
tomb Kings get my vote, every move meant life or (un)death, had to keep step by step track of your magic phase. I had such a headaches after evry game, thats why I swapped to VC towards the end of 6th Edition.

Dranthar
18-09-2009, 05:08
Daemons. Definitely.
Deciding whether to take a Blood Thirster with Rerolling S7 attacks or a Keeper of Secrets with Siren spam is really hard. Then you need to do all that maths to figure out how many flamers you can take in the list...

;)

Seriously though, I'm putting in my vote for the bottom-tiered armies - Beasts and Ogres. In fact, I'm shocked that the latter hasn't been mentioned yet.

In both cases, the tools (units) you have to work with are just not that great. They're inefficient, have very average Ld, and some glaring weaknesses for your opponent to take advantage of. The only real strength is their mobility. It isn't as good as the mobility of some other armies (ie. cavalry heavy ones), but it's pretty much your only route to victory. Funnily enough, mobility also happens to require the most thinking to do well.

gemozor
18-09-2009, 10:23
Yeah I think wood elfes is an difficult army. They need to be always in movement because a wood elfe in melee is a dead wood elfe xD

zanzibar
19-09-2009, 07:39
Beasts especially with its increasingly cheesy oponents. basic gor is more expensive than empire swordsmen with either a 6+ or no save at all. "Bestigor" heavy armoured and armed featherweights:( who suck when compared with the cheaper and better greatswordsmen...
Also from personal experience, in order to stand a chance of winning, a clear battle plan and use of ambush is integral before you even start playing!
New WOC dont need as much tactical planning, better basic footsoldiers and cheap troops make for a more adjustable and less brittle force. In addition chaos sorcorors are some of the best basic magic users and fighter out there! plus there pretty cheap.
Empire also require tactical skill if you wanna use detachment system to full effect but are also less brittle and more versatile than Beasts in many ways.

Awilla the Hun
19-09-2009, 11:29
All armies are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Daemon Tzeentch Magic Lines (shudder) have to work out complex angles of fire and methods of avoiding close combat, whilst neutralising the enemy's magic defence. (Well, actually, they don't, because they blast enough magic fire to melt through the Earth's Crust, and therefore any magic defence, and fire on the move with their magic, and use magic against enemies in close combat, and...) But they're pretty complex, anyway. If you decide to march towards the enemy, and that enemy can spring light cavalry or flyers into the Horror mobs, then you're in some trouble.

Vampire Counts have to avoid sunlight, or they'll sparkle and reveal their positions to enemy artillery emplacements, and that might mean that the Vampires get shelled and then the entire army stops functioning properly.

Bretonnian Peasant armies just have to get everyone close to Knights, and then overwhelm the enemy with weight of high leadership numbers!

And so on...

But Ogre Kingdoms do sound far more tactical than most. You have to avoid the enemy's missile fire (with huge models and bases), and get into charge range whilst simultaneously being further away from the enemy...

gdsora
19-09-2009, 18:01
Holy heck!?
Only one mention of Tomb Kings?!?

Our whole army is based on that!
Hence 3 out of are 4 spells are all non-offensive, SPAM that incantation until i get that Charge with my chariots/Ushabti, into your flank!



I can't think of any army that needs more *Tactics* to be used then tomb kings
We're slow, fairly expensive, and lack a lot of powerful units.

One mistake can easily cost you the game with Tomb kings :cries:

Condottiere
19-09-2009, 18:27
I find that DoW has a more challenging time, since none of our units are over the top, our magic somewhat mediocre and the whole thing works usually when you can successfully carry out a combined arms doctrine.

Seabo
20-09-2009, 02:47
Beasts of Chaos hands down. Very low leafdership, mediocre stats, no shooting and no real heavy anvil choices make these guys tough to play.
Don't get me wrong..I love BoCs. They are my main fantasy army. But tactics with the goatboys start as soon as you see your table and opponent.
I have developed a very elaborate system of baiters and flankers backed up by somewhat decent combat units followed by the real powerhitters..
If a Beasts player is not hitting you from at least 2 different directions there is definitely something wrong...

Kalec
20-09-2009, 06:11
That can be said about all armies, even sloppily played daemons will eventually be overwhelmed.

Greetings
Eta

It is far more true for Empire then most other armies.

zanzibar
21-09-2009, 00:25
I agree with Seabo completely. I have played several armies including both empire and WOC. Empire have lots of choices and the detachment system for sure, however tactically for the gamer, beasts are no.1.
Just becuase it says in the fluff that empire need to be the most delicatley used to win with detachments, when push comes to shove the amount of soldiers, warmachines and knights youu cant take cushions serious tactical errors.
With beasts if you mess up, you are much more likley to lose.

kyinpie
21-09-2009, 00:33
Holy heck!?
Only one mention of Tomb Kings?!?

Our whole army is based on that!
Hence 3 out of are 4 spells are all non-offensive, SPAM that incantation until i get that Charge with my chariots/Ushabti, into your flank!



I can't think of any army that needs more *Tactics* to be used then tomb kings
We're slow, fairly expensive, and lack a lot of powerful units.

One mistake can easily cost you the game with Tomb kings :cries:

i agree here! tomb kings is not a forgiving army, one mistake and the game is lost. every movment takes alot of thought, range of spells, how many casters in range, what spell is the most impartant, can the enemy see my weak ass hirophant, if the enemy moves in his turn can the enemy see my hirophant, etc and the list goes on! lol.
in my experience in most of the armies, tomb kings need alot more thought and planning than other armies!! i find that with tomb kings you NEED to be able to plan you next 3-4 turns and have a fairly good idea of what the enemy is going to do in those same turns!
i also find ogres a very diffecult army to use, but i cann't comment on them as im still learning to use them!

i found BoC alot easy to use than is being stated here! the gors and ungors are skirmishers that rank up!! they arnt over price IMHO! saying that i have a higher opinion of BoC than most people on here have! :S

zanzibar
22-09-2009, 05:05
Dont get me wrong i Love BoC, which is why i think there the most tactically difficult=)
I have an even higher opinion of players that can win with BoC in tourneys, i have yet to do so...
As such BoC win in this regard.

Putty
22-09-2009, 05:09
it used to be Dogs of War.

Now its nearest equivalent is Empire.

Condottiere
22-09-2009, 08:31
It still is Dogs of War, considering the variety of units that you can use in one army.

PeG
22-09-2009, 08:53
I would vote WE as for being most tactical due to its requirements of movement and planned charges. This is however not the same as saying that they are the hardest army to win with which may be beasts or OK but that is more due to them having weak army lists to begin with.

Seabo
22-09-2009, 12:07
Well considering that I am going to a rather large tourney (16 players I believe..) with my BoCs we shall see just how tactical they have to be :D
I will hopefully be posting a batrep blog of the touney if I can get my dang camera to work :)

Witchblade
22-09-2009, 12:14
I don't understand why people think low tier armies are more tactical. Yes, they require more tactics to wín with, but they are not inherently more tactial. Some armies can be competitive by outmanoeuvring the opponent and developing synergy between units working in tandem, while other armies simply rely on overwhelming the opponent with 6 units of heavy cavalry or a complete gunline. A decent criterium of the amount of tactics an army has available is to look at the performance variance between skilled and unskilled players. If skilled players can dominate using a certain army, while unskilled players get smashed, the army is arguably tactically demanding. Note that the size of the gap between the two is the important factor, not the actual performance.

I'm personally inclined to vote for WE as well. They need to play the game on their terms, or they lose.

Dwarfs and Bretonnia rank rock bottom IMO. They're straightforward armies with limited options. This goes for Skaven as well to a lesser degree. Daemons and vamps also rank inherently low, as they rely relatively little on charge reactions - they can't flee or stand and shoot - and don't suffer as much from failed break tests. They also basically miss out on the entire shooting phase and the psychology section of the game.

Seabo
22-09-2009, 14:47
VCs and Demons being tough to play? Now that is the best laugh I've had in a while :D
Both are about as subtle as rocks. Point em at the enemy and go. A trained monkey could win with them.
The only way that VC or Demons will lose is if
A) The player is a complete and utter incompetant (apologies to any incompetant people out there :D)
B) The dice gods hate you and you bunk every roll
C) Your opponent knows his army inside and out and is the master of the bait and flank game whereas you are just a powergamer who picked up the Auto IWIN army to stomp all over poor little kids and laugh horribly as they cry then lurk back to your parents basement and plan your next outing of destruction...at least until you lose then you throw a tantrum in the middle of the store and get banned.
(Actually happened to a player I knew. Lifetime ban from the LGS :D.)

Avian
22-09-2009, 15:00
I'm personally inclined to vote for WE as well. They need to play the game on their terms, or they lose.
With Wood Elves you don't need to worry about Movement and you don't need to worry about Psychology, your shooting and combat abilities are both good, helped greatly by the advantages you have with Movement, and the only minor downside (some units in the list are a bit squishy for the cost) can be largely overlooked due to good Movement.

Nah, Wood Elves has always seemed to me like an army that plays itself. Sure, you don't stand still and roll dice like Dwarfs do, but I always cringe when I hear of Wood Elf players saying that their army requires tactics - tactics is what your opponent needs because they have so many things stacked against them.

Beastmen (non-chariot or frenzied minotaur spam, anyway), I can agree with is a tactical army. You don't get all the easy breaks WE players get, so you need to be a much better player to do well.

Hrogoff the Destructor
22-09-2009, 15:04
I think that in term of "balanced" lists (containing a little bit of everything the army book has to offer), the most tactical armies are:

Wood elves
Beastmen
Tomb Kings
And maybe Empire

Witchblade
22-09-2009, 15:42
With Wood Elves you don't need to worry about Movement and you don't need to worry about Psychology
I'd argue movement is THE most important thing you need to worry about when playing WE. Psychology is not really an issue, no, but they're not invulernable to it. The war machine hunters still take fear/terror checks and your archer line can be terror bombed. Also, your troops will be scattered across the board, so you won't be able to effectively use your general's ld.


your shooting and combat abilities are both good, helped greatly by the advantages you have with Movement, and the only minor downside (some units in the list are a bit squishy for the cost) can be largely overlooked due to good Movement.
Shooting is medium (no magic or war machines, just small arms) and close combat is only good on the offence. WE have no SCR to speak of and no real hammer units, so you really need multiple units to take on serious enemies. Furthermore, all units apart from the trees are not 'a bit squishy for the cost' but 'dead when attacked and expensive'. Tree spirits are also extra vulnerable to magic, which WE have immense trouble dealing with anyway due to crappy magic defence and offence.

WE actually have a lot of trouble dealing with nasty units like GG, thristers, dragons, heavy cav and hydras.

I think you were talking about Dárk Elves.



You don't get all the easy breaks WE players get, so you need to be a much better player to do well.
I'd say Beastmen are simply a less strong army, but not an inherently more tactical one. The tactical diversity is lower and the play style is more straight forward, especially if you consider tournament armies which rely solely on magic and chariot spam.

As I said, you need a better player to do well with Beastmen than with WE, but that doesn't mean they're more tactial. It means they're lower on the tier list. The performance variance for skill is a much better indicator of which army is more tactical.

Enigmatik1
22-09-2009, 16:10
I'd say Beastmen are simply a less strong army, but not an inherently more tactical one. The tactical diversity is lower and the play style is more straight forward, especially if you consider tournament armies which rely solely on magic and chariot spam.

As I said, you need a better player to do well with Beastmen than with WE, but that doesn't mean they're more tactial. It means they're lower on the tier list. The performance variance for skill is a much better indicator of which army is more tactical.

I think in the minds of many, it's hard to separate the two however. When you are using an inherently weaker army, logic dictates that since you can't overpower your enemy, you have to out think and/or outmaneuver him. This is indicative of being more tactical, at least to me.

I don't think there is an army where you can be devoid of tactical acumen and be successful...no, not even Daemons. However, there are some armies, which ironically happen to be most of the 6th edition (read: weaker) armies where not only do you have to work harder for a win, you have to do it with inferior troops or a limited playstyle. This all plays into a given armies tactics, at least to me.

Having said all that, I think from the perspective of a balanced list (which is the only fair comparision), Wood Elves are the most "tactical" in my mind of the armies I know anything about (so that eliminates, but does not invalidate, Dogs of War). That's not to say that Beasts of Chaos, Ogres or Tomb Kings are easy. I rate them both slightly less tactical than Wood Elves simply because they have fewer options by a large margin at their disposal than Wood Elves. More valid options expands the availability of usable tactics.

Prince_Archadion
23-09-2009, 19:34
I would have to put in my vote for elven armies (Dark Elves not so much if you decide to have a cheesy list) purely because your troops are expensive and squishy, so mistakes are costly.
Movement for Wood Elves is essential to avoid combat (something I never did particularly well) and their combat units are very vunerable to magic, even low power magic missiles.
IMHO the tactical armies are the ones that are completely devistating when used by people who really know what they are doing (the ones where the whole is stronger than the parts) without being gun-line or spam lists. (*cough Dwarves and Bretonians cough*)

seraphius
23-09-2009, 21:19
1: wood elf -reason is they are costly, low as, low t and require alot of movement and coord to work at all.

2: Bretts- reason is large units(even if you go minimum) with little room to move around alot(let`s face it.. it is one charge then out of the game for 2-3 turns)

3:Ogre kingdoms- Large models with high cost, few units so easy to run around of you outnumber, high t yes, but little to no as to speak of.

Imo ofc..

isidril93
23-09-2009, 21:28
tactical does not mean hardest...
its mean one where tactical possiblities are high and it is trough these tactics best results are acheived
armies that dont win are not tactical...as they dont give the possibilities to player to use tactics
tactical armies are a precise glass hammer

so the elves win my vote

lakissov
23-09-2009, 21:50
I'm with Witchblade and Isidril93 on the approach of what to call 'Tactical'

Really weak doesn't equal tactical, and it's surprising to see how many people confuse the two things.

To me, a tactical army is a one that has reliable instruments, which can help it achieve victory against an equally-powered list, and which are also not overly straightforward. Equally-powered is very important in the definition.

I'd say, elves of all three kinds are very tactical. The instruments that they have are reliable and not straightforward. Beastmen are less tactical, simply because they are less reliable.

Daemons and WoC are less tactical, because they are more straightforward. Empire is less tactical, because it's both less reliable and more straightforward. Ogres don't have the correct range of instruments, which makes the ones they have a bit too straightforward; they also suffer from low reliability.

Vampires I'd rank more or less the same as elves - they are probably slightly more straightforward (but not overly so), but they are more reliable than elves.

Dwarfs are reliable, but 100% straightforward, and so not tactical at all. Brets are almost as straightforward, and also less reliable, so there's nothing to do with tactics there either.

Lizards, actually, are reliable - even more so than elves, and they rank equally on straightforwardness, I'd say. Hm... I guess I'd have to rank them as the most tactical army.

Can't really rank skaven and TK - haven't played agaisnt them much.

Just my 2c

Sambojin
24-09-2009, 13:09
There really isn't a most tactical army, or rather, there are alot of things that people can call tactics. Dark elves require tactics to use effectively, as do VC. DOW and Khemri are harder to play, but use similar tactics to the first two armies respectively (similar units, just weaker). Are DE more tactical then DOW or less? They both use infantry, skirmishers, flankers, cav and shooters in the same roles. But DE are cheaper, better and have more crutches/hitters (monsters, core flyers, better flankers, better/more shooting and cheaper/better infantry). Does this mean they have more tactical options or just require less use of tactics to win? Its kind of hard to say...................

VC require a bit of forethought to use to their peak potential, but can also be helped tremendously by list design. TK require alot of forethought that is more linearly defined and don't have the same versatilaty of useful units. Don't really play the same, but use magic based tactics. Which is more tactical? More, better options or using worse units more effectively?

Kind of a pointless post. Considering we all know the answer is O+G anyway (heaps of options, quite weak list wise, always need to plan for best and worst outcomes and do it two turns ahead, annoys people when they lose against you with DE). We've are da bested finkers.......... :P

Laughingmonk
24-09-2009, 15:42
I wouldn't say elves are all that tactical. They just have a million special rules.
I fail to see how elf units are not straightfoward. White lions don't break, swordmasters kill stuff, phoenix guard are durable. Don't even get me started on Dark elves.

There is a bit of subtlety in the wood elf list, but when you factor in dryads, and 30 inch bows that can move and shoot without penalty, the tactical side goes out the window.

I've played wood elves. Empire much of the time requires more effort to win with. Especially if there are woods on the board.

I would actually have to say tomb kings are the most tactical army. Crappy troops, but reliable magic that must be cast in a certain way. They I think are the most precise army in fantasy. They're troops are the epitome of reliable. Their shooting always hits on the same role. They, more than most, can be devastating, but if you do not know what you are doing, you WILL die. Horribly.

Other than that, I would say Empire. Empire have only one army wide special: Detachments. They do not have hatred, immunity to march blocking, immune to psychology, and army wide ASF and high leadership.

Gearwar
24-09-2009, 16:42
I would say that a army is as tactical as the player allow them to be.

"Military tactics, the art of organizing an army, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle." - wikipedia


In my opinion it all comes down to the player. Units by themself isnt tactical its the player who uses them in that way.

Enigmatik1
24-09-2009, 17:58
I would say that a army is as tactical as the player allow them to be.

"Military tactics, the art of organizing an army, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle." - wikipedia


In my opinion it all comes down to the player. Units by themself isnt tactical its the player who uses them in that way.

This is tempered somewhat by the effectiveness of available forces, I think. Which is why I don't think you can entirely discount how harder an army is to use. This difficulty is almost always defined by the limiting factors of the unit, like point cost vs. effectiveness, stats, etc. These, and other factors, listed all contribute to ones tactical decisions.

Gearwar
24-09-2009, 18:05
effectiveness of available forces says more about how good the army is then how good it is to use tactical?

"Which is why I don't think you can entirely discount how harder an army is to use."
Do you mean that unbalanced armys are harder to use?

Oguleth
28-09-2009, 18:19
My vote would be DoW and Empire, really.

I kinda laugh about Wood Elf (and other elf flavours) ideas about them being all tactical and challenging, when they can happily "break" most rules that makes movement challenging. Actually, I'd say the game turns more tactical for the opponents of Wood Elves as they have to manage to move tricksy fast paced moves and non-engagement. Most elven units are specialists just like Bretts and chaos etc too, not much different in the whole brick argument.

Empire and DoW (and Greenskins too now that I think about it) however, has to get the whole mixed arms things going, with pretty trashy units that can end up running often, cant really redeploy well and so on. Barring of course extreme armies like double stank and gunline type armies.

foxtrinee
28-09-2009, 19:14
I vote for skaven :D
i played a lot with them in my days and 1 big hit takes the whole army down, so they are kinda hard to play + they have lots of units to choose from and that sums up to be a "TACTICAL" army in my opinion.

Lord_Buster
28-09-2009, 23:16
I would say that WoC can be a very tactical army when played, I played a game against my friend, he was using Dwarves with me using WoC. The way he played his army was as a gun line, I beat him not through superior strength, I used magic to turn the tide by making him lose control of his army. I cast hysterical frenzy to provoke many of his units out of their positions, amd completely distorted his armies movements. Thusy I used my cavalry, made some decisive charges and took a victory from what was shaping up to be a pretty difficult match, WoC aren't always about running up to an enemy and soaking him in blows, they don't have to be a big hammer, sometimes with the right ideas and some imagination you can use them to be as elegant as a rapier.

Idle Scholar
29-09-2009, 15:28
I'm going to define 'most tactical' here as variety as opposed to opportunity, and on that basis my vote is for Empire, for two reasons. First many armies/lists demand tactics to win (and many don't) but are limited to a few different (vaguely) competitive army types.

You have 'elite' armies that have few but very powerful troops that can't be wasted, you have horde armies that have tons of troops that are rubbish and need to work together. You have gunline armies that dominate through shooting and offensive magic. You have cavalry armies that are err, all or mostly cavalry and hence massively mobile and you have combinations of the above.

Only Empire can really field armies of all types, though they are a bit weak on the elite side. Elves and TK struggle to horde, O&G elites aren't really elite enough, and WoC can only approximate a gunline with hellcannons and wizards, and definitely have to cut back on their other stuff to do it. To be honest if pushed away from the herohammer and min-maxing you can squeeze a lot more variety out of many armies but some are still pretty proscribed. I mean try running an 'elite' Skaven army (say mostly SV, PM, RO) etc) or a 'horde' of Daemons. Possible but I'm not sure how they would fare.

The other related reason is that Empire have troops for every battlefield roll. Flyers, grunts, skirmishers, artillery, light horse, heave cavalry, elite foot soldiers etc.

Enigmatik1
29-09-2009, 15:44
That actually makes way too much sense when you put it in those terms. :D

Artemis360
30-09-2009, 01:41
To be honest my knowledge of beasts of chaos is pretty much nothing, so apart from them I would say Ogres. Seriously man, ogre bulls are just such sitting ducks. They are as expensive and fragile as hell. Their movement is quite fast but they are not necessarily maneuverable. To get impact hits your charge needs to be somewhere between exactly 7 - 12 inches long (so not only do you HAVE to get the charge off, but at a certain distance too). Their leadership is total garbage and everything they have is way too expensive. They have scrap launchers and so on, but when it comes down to it, they're pretty much purely a combat army which is overpriced and actually pretty sucky in combat. Like someone said about beasts, if theyre not hitting you from more than one angle or at least flanking with a very strong unit, they don't win. Hell, at least Bretonians get the lance formation. Why can't we have 3 ogres make a rank? Can you imagine trying to wheel with a unit of ogres 5 wide? *shudder*

Artemis360
30-09-2009, 03:23
I'm with Witchblade and Isidril93 on the approach of what to call 'Tactical'

Really weak doesn't equal tactical, and it's surprising to see how many people confuse the two things.

To me, a tactical army is a one that has reliable instruments, which can help it achieve victory against an equally-powered list, and which are also not overly straightforward. Equally-powered is very important in the definition.

I'd say, elves of all three kinds are very tactical. The instruments that they have are reliable and not straightforward. Beastmen are less tactical, simply because they are less reliable.

Daemons and WoC are less tactical, because they are more straightforward. Empire is less tactical, because it's both less reliable and more straightforward. Ogres don't have the correct range of instruments, which makes the ones they have a bit too straightforward; they also suffer from low reliability.

Vampires I'd rank more or less the same as elves - they are probably slightly more straightforward (but not overly so), but they are more reliable than elves.

Dwarfs are reliable, but 100% straightforward, and so not tactical at all. Brets are almost as straightforward, and also less reliable, so there's nothing to do with tactics there either.

Lizards, actually, are reliable - even more so than elves, and they rank equally on straightforwardness, I'd say. Hm... I guess I'd have to rank them as the most tactical army.

Can't really rank skaven and TK - haven't played agaisnt them much.

Just my 2c

I'm guessing you don't play anything but elves. WoC are not straight forward at all. Most WoC players worth their salt count their warhounds as one of their most valuable assets because it gives their army as a whole the ability to perform complex maneuvers while sabotaging those of the enemy. Easy access to ItP is about the only straight forward thing about WoC, everything else takes as much finesse to use properly as any except the most tricky of armies.

ivrg
30-09-2009, 09:38
TK, empire and OK imo.

Condottiere
30-09-2009, 09:50
What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?

Thulsa Doom

Jericho
30-09-2009, 23:50
Aah, the riddle of steel :p

Anyway I vote for Wood Elves. Dogs of War are another interesting one, much like the Wood Elves they really struggle in direct confrontations because their magic, shooting and close combat units all lack the sheer damage output of other armies. They don't hit particularly hard, they don't soak damage terribly well, and they really heavily rely on careful use of stuff like Duelists and other bait/screen/redirect units to survive. After playing Wood Elves for a couple years I got a lot of experience micro-managing the movement phase which really helped make my Dogs somewhat competitive again in my local gaming group.

Enigmatik1
01-10-2009, 17:46
Aah, the riddle of steel :p

... they really struggle in direct confrontations because their magic, shooting and close combat units all lack the sheer damage output of other armies.

You just described Tomb Kings and Ogre Kingdoms as well, believe it or not.

Paraelix
02-10-2009, 01:05
Beasts/Ogres/TKs

pringles978
02-10-2009, 03:28
Beasts/Ogres/TKs

these are not the most tactical to use, just the worst and ergo most difficult.

i would say empire. whilst they have access to a wide range of abilities, they dont really do any one thing well, so with lack of access to hugely powerfull units you learn to make the best of what you have.

isidril93
02-10-2009, 10:21
tactical basically means an army that allow the general to use all his tactical abilities.
wood elves are tactical due to good movement...so a very complex and tactical movement phase is available. they suffer in the fact that they have low toughness sop battles have to be picked...but since thewy do have the ability to pick battles it makes them tactical as loads of tactics and tricks (flanking, hit and run) can be used

same goes for other elves.

daemons...although easy to use are also tactical, they have hammer and anvil, fast movement everything a person needs to employ his tactics

Shiodome
02-10-2009, 11:57
I'm gonna include 'potential' in my definition of 'tactical', and thus go with Wood Elves. They've (imo) got the potential for the greatest range of tactical options in any given game using a balanced all-comers list. So their ability to choose the approach to deal with any situation makes them the 'most tactical'. I don't think how 'hard' or 'complicated' it is to pull off maneuvers makes it more tactical, more the range of maneuvers available. If i was asked which was more tactical; the roman legions or the Gauls... i wouldn't discount the Romans simply because their training made their maneuvers easier :P

But i also agree that it's the play that decides how tactically a force will be used, and not the army list.

Tokamak
02-10-2009, 12:01
Wood Elves focus on simplifying a part of warhammer that most people consider tactical. It's not difficult to appear tactically advanced with wood elves simply because the army plays that way.

That doesn't mean it's more tactical army than other armies. Compare it to a martial arts guy who starts striking lots of different weird poses to appear skilled.

StarFyre
02-10-2009, 12:06
I say tomb kings because they are design (or appear to be) in such a way that any mistake in a phase, and you can lose.

Pretty much every other army can recover for whatever reasons (with or without luck) but TK seem to be devoid of that, except if from that point on, they keep rolling 6s and enemy keeps rolling 1s...

Sanjay

Shiodome
02-10-2009, 15:02
well again tomahawk, that says something has to be harder for it to be tactical. it's the tactics implementable that matter, not the difficulty in implementing tactics. otherwise it'd just be whichever army is the worst is the most tactical (BoC?) by default.

isidril93
02-10-2009, 15:06
I say tomb kings because they are design (or appear to be) in such a way that any mistake in a phase, and you can lose.

Pretty much every other army can recover for whatever reasons (with or without luck) but TK seem to be devoid of that, except if from that point on, they keep rolling 6s and enemy keeps rolling 1s...

Sanjay

but how are they tactical? you might need to employ tactics to win but they certainly dont give a large range of tactics

Mokamiki
04-10-2009, 10:27
I'd say Goblin army is one of the most challenging ones.

Goblins have a very nice SCR but their fighting skill is something to laught at. Without a fanatic hidden in a big block they cant really harm average troops. So I say ist quite hard to manoeure them to the right place without letting your opponent to get know whitch block(s) hides the fanatic.:evilgrin:

sorry for bad English XD

theweck
06-10-2009, 19:52
Orc's and Goblins. You have a wide variety of units, specialized for a variety of purposes, they don't ignore much of any of the standard rules of the game, and thanks to animosity, you need to make plans within plans to make sure that all contingencies are covered. With all of the very random elements in the list, it is a challenge to put oneself in such a position to try to maximize on the elements of chance that are floating around.

Urgat
06-10-2009, 20:58
But Ogre Kingdoms do sound far more tactical than most. You have to avoid the enemy's missile fire (with huge models and bases), and get into charge range whilst simultaneously being further away from the enemy...

That. OK, if you don't think ahead, you're in for a world of hurt. One little screw up during the battle and I lose, usually. I lose a lot with them :p

smokemeakipper
06-10-2009, 21:14
id go for the horde armies who somehow have to deal with extremely powerful hand to hand units or extremely mobile armies ripping them apart (goblins and probably skaven). probably not relevant but high elves seem to remove a lot of tactics from the game by always striking first.... poor goblins!

billytheid
11-10-2009, 15:03
Where does this obsession with BoC being useless come from? I've been playing Warhammer for going on 15 years now and have used all of the 'classic' armies at one stage or another. I honestly think that BoC require the most insightful approach to battle planning. Don't get me wrong, all armies require tactical forethought, but with a BoC army you walk a knife edge of forethought versus adaptability that I've just not found in any other army list.

You can never take a good BoC army at face value, you never know what their real deployment is until the Ambush is used. To be honest, if a BoC armies battle plan is obvious before they ambush then they have already lost. This is why I personally have found BoC to be the most 'tactical' army to play with; the use of misdirection and unit interaction as opposed to the use of obvious battle field roles makes them so dynamic and at the same time so very challenging.

I also must say again that BoC are really not a 'poor' or 'low tier' army. I cannot understand this assertion. Added to that, the comments about Empire and Orcs and Goblins are also pretty accurate; although they do not benefit from the plethora of predetermined 'special rules' that define the nature of so many armies and their troops, they still do not enjoy the dynamics and 'in-game' adaptability of BoC units.

blackstork
16-10-2009, 20:46
I would like to comment the most often 'votes' on this topic.
Wood Elves? - No. Their are able to put on table exclusively units which are immune to psychology, has 5+WSv vs. non-magical attacks (ok, it's a nice suplement, not a truly trump) and are skirmishers. A lot of posibillities of move with a not bad speed (minimum 5) create some problems to your oponent. Don't forget about very good shooting (without penalty for move-and-fire). Theirs maybe one problem is magic or magic resistance.
Tomb Kings? - Yes. Althought they look strong (magic, shooting, psychology) they require a good plan for each turn in battle. They are slow (4" for infranty, musn't make a march move), so manoeuvring them is hard. Next, they are unbreakable, but suffers wounds if they've losed. Believe me, it's not hard to find and use a unit, which almost for sure will win a battle with skeletons. Special rule: 'It came from bellow' is connected with a certain risk. And the most important: Tomb Kings Player must to protect his hierophant, for each price.
Empire? - No. That army is maybe only one from total Warhammer, which is prepared for each type of units. Why? Because they have each type of units: options of infranty, shooters, 'Imperial ZOO', interesting possibilities of magic and wizard plus warrior priests, cannons! and not bad characters.
Beasts of Chaos? - Yes. I'll write only I agree with billytheid.
So my votes are: Tomb Kings and BoCh.

Dexter099
17-10-2009, 19:13
Wood Elves, probably.

Hammer49
17-10-2009, 20:29
I would say TK,and elves generally as they just cant cope when taking damage, and hence don't enable you to make many mistakes and recover as there usually compact in size (but especially WE).
Orcs and goblins as what ever you plan to do may need to be changed next turn due to animosity, where as other armies are more reliable and predictable.

Souppilgrim
18-10-2009, 06:35
WE, Empire, and DoW. All for the same reasons, lot's of possibilities, very unforgiving.

outbreak
18-10-2009, 06:48
Easily tomb kings. Doesn't make them the most underpowered army but really i think some other armies people are listing here don't need so much of tactics as luck and nice rolls and peoples comments seem more their hard to win with then they rely on tactics. Tomb kings are a tactics based army no questions asked. Also need to factor in tomb kings magic phase which is structured and very much relies on bluffs and trying to cast the same spell mutliple times or trying to draw out dispell dice with weaker bounds spells that look scary.

Ax'ataxa
18-10-2009, 07:48
Lizardmen, because it took me to leave my slann out in the open to realize that people will focus so much on him that i almost beat an all tzeentch daemons list with karios

billytheid
20-10-2009, 04:40
Why Tomb Kings? I'd give my right eye for an unbreakable unit.

scarvet
20-10-2009, 06:11
Any list that consist little skirmish, not rely on offensive magic, and do not posses killer shooting/cc units....

BTW, I don't think BoC is tactical, but rather the fact that they were design to combine with the old Horde of Chaos in mind...simply put, armycreep.

fluffstalker
21-10-2009, 00:06
Skaven, O n G, and Tomb Kings.

WE are not that tough to play. Even a mediocre WE player will run rings around you with awesome shooting, awesome maneuverability, loads of hard to hit skirmishers and decent magic. Being "fragile" doesnt necessarily make an elven army especially difficult to play. Dwarves are pretty tough/resilient but unless you go a very min maxed gunline list, you'll have a tough time beating much faster, harder hitting opponents.

billytheid
21-10-2009, 00:09
BoC were also designed to be a stand alone list. This is evident from their army book. You might as well say that any army that can have allies was designed to be combined.

And I still don't understand the Tomb Kings assertions. They are so static.

Enigmatik1
21-10-2009, 15:29
And I still don't understand the Tomb Kings assertions. They are so static.

Tomb Kings are only static if you run Khalida bowlines, otherwise they can ill afford to be static, like say Dwarfs, due to inferior/overcosted units. Tomb Kings are more tactical than often given credit for simply by being forced to field generally inferior units at unreasonable point costs due to the Undead rule (Tomb Scorpions being the sole exception, but Scorpions are monsters not units). The backbone of the army is skeletons, which are terrible for being nearly 10 points per model. Have you ever seen what happens to skeletons when a DECENT unit engages them in close combat, even in combined charges with other units? It's not pretty, I assure you. :) A GOOD unit will wipe a skeleton unit out in one round of combat.

I tend to field lists with a model count akin to a High Elf army for instance, while being nowhere near as powerful as a High Elf army overtly in any phase of the game save shooting and that's predicated on me going with a defensive bowline and using a special character. But I'm not the norm because I don't like defensive lists and I field as few skeletons as possible now because they have proven to be useless against my common opponents.

They don't say Tomb Kings has among the highest learning curves in the game for nothing. ;) This implies to me that it requires a certain amount of tactical acumen and awareness to be successful, above and beyond what is considered normal. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I took things to mean when I chose the army (which I choose for its look more than anything else).

Scarvet is 100% correct in his criteria and what he just described is a Tomb King list. I think even OK and BoC can field units (not monsters/characters) that make you think twice about tangling with them. Tomb Kings can not, with the possible exception of Tomb Guard vs. certain types of units.

Debating tactical potential is something of a circular argument the more I think about it. I can probably justify why most armies in Warhammer are tactical and probably be right. It's too subjective to really know for sure and we can't help but interject our own personal biases into any discussion of this nature (myself included). I don't know if TK is the most tactical army in Warhammer. However, I do know that TK is one of the few armies that I have experience with where even the smallest mistake can and will cost you a game.

Philip Bright
21-10-2009, 17:15
I say BoC. The army have really big problems in creating a solid line, since the general often have 7 or 8 in leadership and no beast unit can make a good rank and file unit. Bestigor is way to expensive to take in big numbers and the beast herd cant get more then 2 ranks. Also they can be hard to control due to the unruly and stupidity.
But lets see how GW ruin this army even more when they release the new army book! :( I'll guess they be overpowered so people buy the models!

puppetmaster24
21-10-2009, 17:17
The lance formation does resemble a brick.

i am going to have to put that into my sig. WOO!! out of context lols!

scarvet
21-10-2009, 17:43
Beastial Gors? Not the best out there, but definitely nasty with your twin chaos armoured shaman.....well, before WoC anyways.
And I never play a BoC list without some sort of mortal/BSB. Uncontrollable randomness (unrully and drunken and other table) have nothing to do with tactics. On the other hand, O&G is tactical IF it does not have Lv6 magic power and/or over 3 fanatics.

Wolf 11x
21-10-2009, 17:45
To win with Ogres requires God-like foresight and planning. I would say they require the most tactics to be a viable force.

As for the most tactical army, I say Wood Elves. My army lends itself to clever maneuvering, baiting, fleeing, and charges. It's a lot of fun to play and greatly rewards good generalship.

Rupposed
21-10-2009, 18:00
Not sure why everyone keeps picking Woodies. Skirmishers remove the defining movement of warhammer, and most of their army skirmishes. Is it an easy army to play? Well, no, but positioning my queen effectively is a lot simpler than a knight.

I have to go with Ogre kingdoms. Especially considering the best tournament list for them is MSU units with three butchers. Setting up fleeing movement with counter-charges to get flank or rear angles is rather difficult. Not to mention they would need a gut attacks to beat most static units these days.

Enigmatik1
21-10-2009, 18:09
To win with Ogres requires God-like foresight and planning. I would say they require the most tactics to be a viable force.

Hrm...I think you're onto something here, Wolf. The addition of the viable force clause is appropriate and I think that's where most of us who play lower tier armies are coming from.

warhawk95
21-10-2009, 22:25
Setting up fleeing movement with counter-charges to get flank or rear angles is rather difficult. Not to mention they would need a gut attacks to beat most static units these days.

this is the main style for WE, fleeing, getting the flank charge, hiding ect. they are an army that must own the movment phase to win, sure they have rules to help them. but they are still an elf army (and the weakest of elves due to lack of almost any kind of armour save, atleast HE and DE get heavy armour) and the fact that almost all of there units cant even take a charge without being destroyed into the ground makes one mistake very unforgiving.
plus they only have a handful of units that can provide static CR, and only EG are used out of those...but not that often

now i dont think the WE are the most tactical army but i do think that they are top three. i would have to say that tomb kings because they require planning ahead too due to their heavy reliance in magic, and their troops are very expensive meaning that it is a small, non-elite army, meaning very unforgiving. and the last one would have to be ogres, mainly because they are very similar to WE that they need to have good movment tactics to win, they dont have the rules that WE do, but on the other hand their units are not that squishy and they have good magic too.