PDA

View Full Version : In your opinion, what armies grow repetitive/dull/boring the quickest?



Jack of Blades
11-12-2010, 16:28
Preferably with some insight. Thank you :)
I'm speculating myself which is why I'd like your input. My most obvious contender is DoC. Sure it might be fun for some games and for variation if around your area there's like one guy who plays them, but really... you've got one unit per god for each slot, they all ignore part of the game (psychology and nearly shooting) and the internal balance isn't the most appealing either, further restricting the number of units you'd want to use, except for the sake of using them since you won't use them (ie. need not even be an interesting option).

Torpedo Vegas
11-12-2010, 17:21
For me it was Warriors of Chaos. I found it so boring. Charge, cast overpowered magic, charge, cast overpowered magic, ad nauseam. I really wanted to like WoC, but the army is too much of a one trick pony for me.

Jack of Blades
11-12-2010, 17:24
Yes, that kind of example is exactly what I meant, very good. Any views on other armies?

Korraz
11-12-2010, 17:33
To me, it was Ogres in 8th. Basically march up, stack Gut Magic, charge in T2 and hope for the best.

Torpedo Vegas
11-12-2010, 17:36
To me, it was Ogres in 8th. Basically murch up, stack Gut Magic, charge in T2 and hope for the best.

I actually think Ogres are great fun, as long as you don;t do the boring Ironguts spam. A couple units of Gnoblars, Leadbelchers and a Scraplauncher or two and you have the potential for an amusing game.

Toshiro
11-12-2010, 18:08
Dwarfs for me, just hang back and shoot all day long until perhaps the remnants of an army reaches to be hacked away by greatweapons.

Korraz
11-12-2010, 18:18
[/COLOR]I actually think Ogres are great fun, as long as you don;t do the boring Ironguts spam. A couple units of Gnoblars, Leadbelchers and a Scraplauncher or two and you have the potential for an amusing game.[/COLOR]

I do all this. Launchers, Gorgers, Belchers, Trappers, even Giants. A quite diverse army. And still, it just doesn't hook me. That's why I said "to me", it's all just opinions. There are guys out there that enjoy a pure dwarf-gunline or the invocation-****fest in 7th.

Torpedo Vegas
11-12-2010, 18:20
I do all this. Launchers, Gorgers, Belchers, Trappers, even Giants. A quite diverse army. And still, it just doesn't hook me. That's why I said "to me", it's all just opinions. There are guys out there that enjoy a pure dwarf-gunline or the invocation-****fest in 7th.
Fair enough. I want to try out an all Gnoblar army with only a token bull presence.

Morkash
11-12-2010, 18:20
Yes, I tend to agree on the Dwarves matter.
Ogres on the other hand stay interesting imo, because you have so many options to choose from for your characters...

Another army which gets boring quite fast are the Dark Elves imo. Sure, you can choose different units every now and than, but basically its always: Unkillable HB, Supreme Sorc, at least 30 RXB, 2 Hydras and a cauldron (often with BSB) or at least a few elements of those. The army is nice and all, but it just runs so smoothly that it bored me really fast.

Leogun_91
11-12-2010, 18:24
Some have answered dwarfs but they are really only boring as a gunline and then they are hardly worse then most other gunlines, a balanced list for dwarfs can be quite fun.

Darthvegeta800
11-12-2010, 18:52
Yes, I tend to agree on the Dwarves matter.
Ogres on the other hand stay interesting imo, because you have so many options to choose from for your characters...

Another army which gets boring quite fast are the Dark Elves imo. Sure, you can choose different units every now and than, but basically its always: Unkillable HB, Supreme Sorc, at least 30 RXB, 2 Hydras and a cauldron (often with BSB) or at least a few elements of those. The army is nice and all, but it just runs so smoothly that it bored me really fast.

I don't have a cauldron nor Hydras. I have only roughly 20 crossbowmen. And I field hordes of Cold One Knights. Dark Elves are cool and can be highly themed. One of the coolest armies in WH:F in my eyes.
Thematically and optionwise they're tons of fun. Just like Chaos. The problem isn't the army just the players who pick such minmaxed nonsense.

Jack of Blades
11-12-2010, 19:13
No word about 8th edition VC?

personally, the upcoming TK book looks a lot more interesting as a whole. But there is that annoying little twig hanging around there with a fresh fruit on it, namely forbidden lore... without forbidden lore I would admittedly not consider VC, that bloodline power just opens up so many interesting choices. Pretty much every list includes it and those that don't tend to revolve around invocation spam of some sort, while there are indeed combat builds who make the character section interesting like forbidden lore does, the army is still rather uninteresting I find. My personal pipedream would be the ability to pick your BRB lore and an army like the upcoming TK since it has lots of spooky things, exotic units and so on... the upcoming TK army seems to suffer less from ''fill out your army here'' than other books like Daemons, VC and WoC seem to do.

Don't want to step on anyone's toes with that text, it's just my impression that VC's characters and rare choices are good fun but the core and special sections aren't much to cheer about whereas other armies have interesting choices everywhere.

sulla
11-12-2010, 19:47
For me it was Warriors of Chaos. I found it so boring. Charge, cast overpowered magic, charge, cast overpowered magic, ad nauseam. I really wanted to like WoC, but the army is too much of a one trick pony for me.

That's my opinion after facing them too. Add in double hellcannons though. WoC in large blocks or high strength multi attack infantry with big magic and double templates. They reward straightforward, unsubtle play and the same list has the tools to face 99% of armies.

Torpedo Vegas
11-12-2010, 20:16
That's my opinion after facing them too. Add in double hellcannons though. WoC in large blocks or high strength multi attack infantry with big magic and double templates. They reward straightforward, unsubtle play and the same list has the tools to face 99% of armies.
The sad thing is that their book has so many cool choices, but Warriors are so good there isn't a reason to not have them en mass.

Boomstikk
11-12-2010, 20:29
My first army was the Warriors of Chaos. Really, really cool lore, some very good looking units, the Army Book was well written imo and overall the army looked great on the tabletop.

After my first 10 games I noticed a pattern. My tactics came down to "run forward as fast as you possibly can and assault anything that may look like it's alive" coupled with a few spells here and there. I thought maybe it was me, that I was doing something silly. Until I learned that .. yeah, that's the way WoC are usually played. It's an awesome army, but the limited options make it very, very predictable and tends to get boring fast.

I'm making an Empire army now which plays totally different. Also considering High Elves and Vampire Counts for my next "good" and "evil" projects, all of them should play very differently.

Prince Sairion
11-12-2010, 20:36
Vampire counts - In 7th or 8th, just very dull to play, I hate that I feel compelled to take a unit or two of gravy guard, helm of commandment and forbidden lore just to make the army worth taking.

dimetri1
11-12-2010, 20:46
For me it was Tomb Kings. I jumped in with both feet and bought about 5000 pts. I became extremely bored and sold them about six months later. I am even bored when I play against them.

Jack of Blades
11-12-2010, 20:50
Vampire counts - In 7th or 8th, just very dull to play, I hate that I feel compelled to take a unit or two of gravy guard, helm of commandment and forbidden lore just to make the army worth taking.

Thanks for your view on VC. I feared as much, anyone else have something about them? if I eventually get enough money to start an army, VC is currently an option. But just looking at the army book I can already feel the dullness, there are no cool units you can take. It's just interesting character choices (what ones aren't) and the rares, then an army that feels like a grey wall with a red dot on it (characters + rares). Really, controlled access to what BRB spells you know is pretty much the tree on which the other branches of interest in VC are built on for me and that's a bit sad.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
11-12-2010, 21:07
I find that the most dedicated armies are the least interesting e.g. WoC and dwarves. And those with poor internal balance. To a lesser degree the ItP armies come to mind, as you lose the tactical option of bait and flee. The 'unbreakables' are also troublesome, as they become a bit too dependable. Yet again, I really like my VC for their variety in units and cool models, so this is a big mitigating factor :)

logan054
11-12-2010, 21:32
For me it was Warriors of Chaos. I found it so boring. Charge, cast overpowered magic, charge, cast overpowered magic, ad nauseam. I really wanted to like WoC, but the army is too much of a one trick pony for me.

The only thing that keeps me playing my WoC is pure stubbornness and the fact I really like the models, compared to last book while the rules are better I feel the army lost a lot of its character. The marks just feel like upgrades rather than rules that help represent the fluff represented in the book, like many people have said the army is really just move forward followed by "hulk smash", thankfully the army does have things like chaos hounds and marauder horsemen which actually make the army a whole lot more rewarding to use.

Jack of Blades
11-12-2010, 21:56
The only thing that keeps me playing my WoC is pure stubbornness and the fact I really like the models, compared to last book while the rules are better I feel the army lost a lot of its character. The marks just feel like upgrades rather than rules that help represent the fluff represented in the book, like many people have said the army is really just move forward followed by "hulk smash", thankfully the army does have things like chaos hounds and marauder horsemen which actually make the army a whole lot more rewarding to use.

Yes, there seems to be an observation amongst the community that the game is moving toward more streamlined, generalised stuff across all army books and those cool little things are done away with instead of simply made to work properly where they may not have. All in the name of what's concluded to make more money, I suppose.

MasterSparks
11-12-2010, 21:59
No word about 8th edition VC?


VC in 7th edition were barrels of fun to play with plenty of differing options on how to build and run your army lists. They all ended up doing pretty much the same thing - punching peoples' faces in close combat - but the way the different components worked while doing their thing could be fundamentally dissimilar. I ran all kinds of lists with varying degrees of success over a couple of years, and I never used the same force twice. There was always something new to try out, both in and of itself and in conjunction with other pieces.

I really don't have much experience with VC in the 8th edition, having played only about half a dozen games with them (and it's doubtful if there'll be any more..), but the army roster does feel more limited when it comes to useful stuff than it used to do..

Edit: oh right, as for the actual topic of the thread, I think that WoC and mono-Khorne DoC are the two least satisfying factions to play. Reasons have already been outlined elsewhere in the thread. I was actually quite interested in starting an army of either of the two mentioned, but the seriously single-minded approach to a dedicated close combat army chased me away from the idea pretty quick. It just felt pointless, and playing even just two games back-to-back made for a boring afternoon.

Rikkjourd
11-12-2010, 22:39
I'd say dwarf gunline, no others are even close.

His turn: skip moves, shoot the most expensive targets (and usually kill them with lazor guided artillery), skip magic, skip combat unless some disorganized survivors made it across the field to get locked in combat with his geared up BSB/lord block.

My turn: move straight forward with everything, get magic phase locked down unless I have power scroll or some other cheese, shoot but probably not kill anything important due to tough/numerous dwarfs, maybe fight combat against geared up lord/BSB block that probably kills me.

The variations are very slight. Sometimes there is one less WM but the others have more runes and a few extra thunderers. Sometimes there are a few less thunderers and there are some miners instead.

However, a balanced dwarf army would be fun to face. I actually did once, but it turns out the guy cheated like 50 times in that game and I lost horribly because of that... I hadn't read the dwarf book very well.

logan054
11-12-2010, 22:45
Yes, there seems to be an observation amongst the community that the game is moving toward more streamlined, generalised stuff across all army books and those cool little things are done away with instead of simply made to work properly where they may not have. All in the name of what's concluded to make more money, I suppose.

Yeah it is a massive shame really, t was all the little rules that added character to the army, now the army is just a big wave of warriors with a few other trinkets for fun. Its things like EotG which could have been really cool characterful rules which just falls flat on its face.

Doommasters
11-12-2010, 23:48
7th edition Wood Elves has been my favorite army so far, they required you to think. I have just given up WoC as point and Shoot is just boring. Playing daemons at the moment and they are pretty fun provided you take a mixed list, but no were near as fun as the WE.

When you play WE you feel like every move you make matters and because none of the units are one model wreaking balls, you need all your units to function as a team to win. This creates a really unique experience that i have yet to find playing another army. It is just unfortunate that WE in 8th edition really only have one build, which takes away from what made them great fun.

One thing that a do think makes a difference is that people tend to want to play what is the most powerful (not always but people lean in this direction), what i have found is that if you are willing to increase the variety in your army it makes it more fun, as you have more to think about. Yes it maybe not as powerful overall, but for me variety and the challenge is what makes the game fun.

dominic_star
12-12-2010, 00:26
I got quickly bored with Bretonnians. Charge stuff, hope it breaks. At least in 8th we can shoot effectively and men at arms are more needed, giving me the excuse to buy some Perry miniatures. In fact every edition has made me buy more models to field a standard sized army. In Herohammer 5th edition, the Brets got loads of character allowance so it was a cheap army. 6th made us by more knights, missed 7th, 8th pushed me to men at arms and I even painted a spellcaster because I actually get to do something fun with it. Yet still the most fun thing is at least half the people I play have never plays against Brets.

scruffyryan
12-12-2010, 00:32
After about 3 editions im starting to get bored with my lizardmen. Its simply that the unit choices are almost no-brainers in 8th ed. Step up makes saurus way better than skinks or even skinxgor units. Temple guard are billions of times better than cold one cavalry. The slaan is the only non gimmick lord at the points values you can take him at, given that the oldblood has the same leadership as a normal saurus. Salamanders perform head and shoulders above razordons. A mere 40 points difference between the stegadons makes a world of difference in their performance on the battlefield. The difference in abilities of the units for each role is so blatant and the gulf is so far to bridge that outside of going out of your way to make less competitive lists there aren't a whole lot of choices to be made when building an army.

Csey
12-12-2010, 00:46
Warriors of Chaos and Dwarves for me, certainly. So predictable.

tr1pod
12-12-2010, 09:16
I agree with WoC. Great army for the first few fights and then you realise there is only 1 tactic. March-March-Charge-Fight-(repeat).

I love my Wood Elves.

Bodysnatcher
12-12-2010, 09:53
Dwarf Gunlines. Your opponent can effectively let you move his army for him and it would make no difference.

Leogun_91
12-12-2010, 09:57
I'd say dwarf gunline, no others are even close.Any other gunline? I mean they work on the same principle no matter who has the gun/bow/other shooty item.

WarmbloodedLizard
12-12-2010, 10:02
I think it is certain army types that are boring to play under 8th.

1. Shooting has always been boring. So Dwarfs will always be one of the more boring armies.

2. With good CC infantry, good tactics don't get rewarded enough and bad tactics don't get punished enough. Charging is not too imporant, either.That way the game will always be marching up and smashing into each other, rolling lots of dice. The one with better troops/better rolls/more buffs wins.

block-infantry CC lists lost a lot of their fun this way. (WoC, Lizardmen, Ogres, etc.)
there are still armies that are still interesting to play in CC (WE, TK, maybe Brets), but that is mainly because their style has been nerfed and you are forced to bring use good tactics to win.

of course some armies have different play styles that don't get boring as fast. (LM, DE, etc.)

I'm sure that if flanking would be more important and possible with smaller support units, CC armies would become much more fun again.

I really hope there will be some kind of errata a year in or so. re-roll everything with BSB, unbreakable steadfast (on the highest LD model in the unit/inspiring presence!) and needing 2 ranks to break rank-bonus is just too much. 1-2 of those things have to change. I suggest that steadfast reverts to using the Leadership of the models that actually have the special rule OR -1 LD for being flanked/rear charged (per side, so up to -3). The second would also make fear more useful.

Odominus
12-12-2010, 10:16
Maybe WoC is now a good selection for beginners? Point and move? Then after they move onto more complex armies.

Dark Aly
12-12-2010, 10:17
WoC and gunlines are the most boring for me. I used to love my chaos horde army before the split- but now it just doesn't feel right I don't like the mixed marks, uninspired unit selection and they lack the 'je ne sais quais' to make make them more exciting.

(apologies to any French people if my spelling is rubbish- I can't spell in English either)

In 4th I used to run a dwarf gunline and it got boring very quickly but never lost. I now use a much more balanced dwarf army and it is infinatly more enjoyable. I also started an empire army in 6th and thankfully i've never been tempted to bring a gunline due to prvious experience with my dwarves.

I've recently started O&Gs and must say that I have yet to be bored by them at all and theres always somthing to tweek or try and so many different types of force I doubt i'll ever stop playing them :)

Bodysnatcher
12-12-2010, 10:29
Any other gunline? I mean they work on the same principle no matter who has the gun/bow/other shooty item.

Dwarf shooting is just a little too reliable - artillery dice re-rolls out the wazoo usually.

DigbyWeapon
12-12-2010, 11:50
Wood elves for me. They are my first love but honestly, they grow so boring, probably due to the fact they have almost no particularly effective CC bar tree man.

BigbyWolf
12-12-2010, 12:31
Personally I think it's not necessarily the army, but the list. My Tzeentch WoC is a semi-gunline (I.E virtually every unit has a ranged attack, be it magical or missile) and my VC army has no magic at all, and I still enjoy every game I play with them, as they usually throw up something different. Although with some armies it's harder to get variation into a list, but if you work at it, you can do it.

WarmbloodedLizard
12-12-2010, 12:36
my VC army has no magic at all

right, because that's possible^^

tr1pod
12-12-2010, 12:50
Wood elves for me. They are my first love but honestly, they grow so boring, probably due to the fact they have almost no particularly effective CC bar tree man.

Dryads are great in combat, as are Tree Kin. Also, stick a Noble with some nice gear in a unit of Wild Riders.

KayTor
12-12-2010, 14:56
The Chaos guys. It's just 'charge forward and roll dice'.

PurpleSun
12-12-2010, 14:56
I agree with WoC. Great army for the first few fights and then you realise there is only 1 tactic. March-March-Charge-Fight-(repeat).


An all Tzeentch WoC list has enough variety to keep it interesting. If you run some warriors, marauders, horsemen, chosen, couple hellcannons, warshrine, a couple wizards and a BSB or combat lord, it has a lot to offer.

I run mono-Tzeentch WoC and I have actually had a game or two where I just sit back and shoot with the cannons for a couple turns before marching forward.

The mono-Khorne list, on the other hand, is boring as *&$#.

logan054
12-12-2010, 15:00
I like the sound of that Tzeentch army until you mentioned two hellcannons :(

Haravikk
12-12-2010, 15:07
I think it's all dependent on who's controlling the army, as there is a lot that Warriors of Chaos can do with what might seem a limit set of units at first glance, especially under 8th where big infantry battles are more important than ever.

Dwarfs are only a boring sit back and shoot army if that's what you do with them, they're just as easily a capable combat army, or a mixture of shooting and combat.

Deon
12-12-2010, 15:50
Shooting has always been boring. So Dwarfs will always be one of the more boring armies.

.

yes dwarf gun lines are boring, but so is any gunline
but why do people always think it is the only way to play dwafs,
i play dwarfs, non gun line, yes i have some shooting units,
but you can make fun lists with dwarfs, just use some imagination
and not only the shooting units, i mean this as a positive note,
not breaking down anybody :)

WarmbloodedLizard
12-12-2010, 16:36
yes dwarf gun lines are boring, but so is any gunline
but why do people always think it is the only way to play dwafs,
i play dwarfs, non gun line, yes i have some shooting units,
but you can make fun lists with dwarfs, just use some imagination
and not only the shooting units, i mean this as a positive note,
not breaking down anybody :)

with CC becoming more boring/less interesing, dwarfs have a hard time to come up with an interesting list.

logan054
12-12-2010, 16:52
I think it's all dependent on who's controlling the army, as there is a lot that Warriors of Chaos can do with what might seem a limit set of units at first glance, especially under 8th where big infantry battles are more important than ever.

Yes move forward and kill you, problem with WoC id they took away a lot of units that made the army fun to use and didn't bother to replace them, they have no skirmishing unit (Forskanen would have been a great unit for this), no flying unit, you just have block of units. The only tactical units left are hounds and marauder horsemen.

I actually loved using Chaos furies before they got given to daemons, march blocking, wamachine hunters, hell it was a great unit to punish people for leaving wizards out in the open (which I see alot more when playing WoC).

A chaos knight, a chaos warrior, a marauder, a troll or even a ogre and no more fun to use than the next, the risk of trolls has been reduced with the BSB rules so again are just another walk forward and bash unit.

Deon
12-12-2010, 16:52
with CC becoming more boring/less interesing, dwarfs have a hard time to come up with an interesting list.

yeah i know that they are limited to a couple of builds,
but using gyrocopters, miners, the anvil, and try mixing it a littel bit
you can still have fun lists, and not just another gun line

BigbyWolf
12-12-2010, 17:01
right, because that's possible^^

:rolleyes:

Army led by Konrad Von Carstein.

'Nuff said.

Morkash
12-12-2010, 17:30
Hmm, maybe my pox-ridden mind narrowed my sight on WoC...I find them interesting, because I field a horribly restricted Mono Nurgle army.
Overall, when you play 'em as those tourney vermins do...with mixing marks, 5 minutes rolling on EotG charts and generally being nasty then yes, definately WoC are boring as well.
On the Dwarven matter: Sure, other gunlines (well, there are Empire and O&G, maybe DoC with enough flamers) exist, but as already mentioned, the Dwarven gunline is just to reliable. That's what it makes boring, as well as making the usual Dark Elves and WoC lists boring. The random element is too little, so you feel like being trapped in Deja Vus...

Chainaxe07
12-12-2010, 17:32
Any other gunline? I mean they work on the same principle no matter who has the gun/bow/other shooty item.

Hello,
well yes, all gunlines are boring, like rainy day boring, but dwarves take it to state of the art boring (for their opponents). I know as i do it myself :skull:, and yes, its not boring when you're the one with the beard.
Yet, as whoever has ben to the receiving end of a dwarf gunline could tell you, you have it much worse than, say, empire gunlines. This is basically due to the innate good characteristics of basic dwarves (decent ws, high T and LD), and the relatively low cost that ensures you get plenty. When (ok, if) you manage to get through an empire gunline, more often than not, all you have to do is mopping up weak units. Forget that with dwarves: quarrellers and handgunners are a match for all except the most elite enemy units by themselves, not to mention big clansmen (or worse) units and the most powerful characters in the game (not just "X-men" powerful, more like "i'll kill all of your army, then the chaos gods, then all other gods then i'll move into 40k and annihilate the tyranid race, the necrons and all marines and ig by myself" powerful). Dwarf slayers can tie indefinitely the most horrendous units, and the miners can pop up pretty much everywhere and ruin your day at leisure. Also dont forget most fliers, usually half decent warmachine hunters, really struggle to beat dwarf crewmen into hth, and there ya go, that's the picture. Do i have to mention they have the best anti magic protection? This being said i love dwarves (i do play them), just i understnd their frustrated oppenent's point of view. The army i enjoy less to play and play against is VC, since there is absolutely no way a vamp general will still be alive at turn 3, and the game ends there and then. Too easy.
Now, when i really want to win i pull ot the beardies, but my regular army, as of late, has been dark elves. They're pretty decent to use and fight against. That's my two cents, cheers!

WarmbloodedLizard
12-12-2010, 19:02
:rolleyes:

Army led by Konrad Von Carstein.

'Nuff said.

special characters... I never consider them when I assess an army. I loathe them. I'm glad people rarely ever play with them around here. they just shouldn't be considered part of the regular army choices and should be ask-opponent-first.

outbreak
12-12-2010, 20:08
From my gaming group the WoC complains their one dimensional and boring once you learn to play them. Out of my armies that i've played in 8th i'd say ogres feel abit boring now. I loved their hit and run and baiting style in 7th and even won a roughly even amount of games with them but now they feel abit like all i'm doing is splitting the enemy force and hitting with a couple units and hope i roll high. Not many other options to try in the list either (i don't run a death star either)

Csey
12-12-2010, 21:52
Dryads are great in combat, as are Tree Kin. Also, stick a Noble with some nice gear in a unit of Wild Riders.

Agreed. Best little army in town. Small units of sneaky Wardancers are a treat in the right hands, too. :angel:

BigbyWolf
12-12-2010, 22:31
I never consider them when I assess an army. I loathe them. I'm glad people rarely ever play with them around here.

Your prerogative.


they just shouldn't be considered part of the regular army choices

But they are.


and should be ask-opponent-first.

But they're not.

Which means the army I field is entirely possible.

But lets not let this thread devolve into the slanging-match typical of most threads regarding whether SCs should be allowed, That's not what we're here for. ;)


Out of my armies that i've played in 8th i'd say ogres feel abit boring now. I loved their hit and run and baiting style in 7th and even won a roughly even amount of games with them but now they feel abit like all i'm doing is splitting the enemy force and hitting with a couple units and hope i roll high. Not many other options to try in the list either (i don't run a death star either)

Ogres are one of those funny armies for 8th edition. The Step-up rule originally seemed very good from their point of view in particular, finally making it worthwhile having a second rank- but the Horde rule severely weakens them and steadfast makes MSU (which was probably their most effective tactic in 7th) nigh-on useless. Getting the right balance with them in 8th is going to be tricky, but not impossible.

Rikkjourd
12-12-2010, 22:44
Any other gunline? I mean they work on the same principle no matter who has the gun/bow/other shooty item.

Yeah, some principles are the same but many things differ. For example. Many Dwarf armies seems to feature dual cannons. First it is 1/6 to misfire. Then they may reroll, so 1/36. Then it is 1/3 for it to explode, any other result is just a loss of one shot since they all have rune of reloading... So the risk to explode is 1/108 which gives a chance of about 90% that none of your TWO cannons will explode during the ENTIRE game. That is way too reliable for almost guaranteed monster kills during turn 1 or 2...

Another example is the stone throwers. They almost always have +2 strength AND reroll scatter dice. There are two hits on the scatter dice, which gives us a probability of about 56% (incl reroll) for the dwarf player to place a S5 template anywhere he wants, and 31% chance that both will make it. This becomes about 26% after taking away misfires. Add to that the chance of getting beneficial scatters or a measly 2" range, and I estimate you have like 50% chance of causing serious damage with both lobbaz.

Or how about the minigun that autohits despite everyone else getting their autohitting stuff nerfed? And getting a reroll if you are unhappy with the amount of hits?

Seems I got agitated and started ranting =) I better stop now

kingofthesquats
12-12-2010, 22:47
I think WoC are getting a little bit of a hard time. I've never used the same army list twice and I've found that if you're willing to mix things up the book does allow for variation. I'll concede that it's an easy book to make a 'point and click' list from, but I've also found that disks/marauder horsemen/steeds of slaanesh and chaos hounds have given me the opportunity to play with more thoughtful tactics than purely charge-n-smash (although it is a WoC generals prerogative to show the opposition general the meaning of heavy infantry!).

Anyway, I'm not looking for an argument but I think a book is what you make and there is some leeway for differently flavoured lists in WoC.

tr1pod
12-12-2010, 23:25
WoC are a great second army I think. After a few games with my Wood Elves, being a bit sneaky and shooty, I often really fancy a battle with my WoC just so I can rush and smack things up.

Within 2 turns though I am usually wishing I was playing my WE again. By the time they have got into combat I usually have half my army put back in the box from shooting and magic.

rodmillard
12-12-2010, 23:51
Wow.

Given that my two main armies in 8th are dwarves and VC, I am really feeling the love here ;)

To be fair, however, I have started leaving a lot of my dwarf stuff at home, because its getting boring to play with - I dread to think how my opponents feel about it! My current dwarf build is black-powder-free (just 2 bolt throwers and a grudge thrower as artillery, and a single unit of quarellers with great weapons), and I'm finding it a lot more fun.

My VCs still have the "shiny new factor" for me (I started them when 8th came out), but I have to agree that forbidden lore is a must have, if only for versatility. I don't have enough models yet to mix up my lists the way I do with teh dwarves, but the variety is certainly there in the book (even if you don't often see it on the table).

The most boring armies I find to play against are WOC and Brettonians (although my aversion to Bretts may just be that they're my partner's army, so I play against them A LOT).

DigbyWeapon
13-12-2010, 10:46
Dryads are great in combat, as are Tree Kin. Also, stick a Noble with some nice gear in a unit of Wild Riders.

You're right there, but most people don't play them that way if you know what I mean.

Roark
13-12-2010, 12:42
I agree with kingofthesquats. The problem with WoC, in my mind, is not necessarily the army list (although it certainly is void of shooting units) but rather the players who take to the table with template lists, spamming Warriors or GW Khorne Marauders and whatnot. With a (relatively) cheap disk guy, a chariot or two, some dogs, and a mixture of Monstrous units, the usual human blocks can be complemented in a variety of ways.

Third Eye changes the game in an interesting way, and Mutant Regeneration is just plain fun. Ditto the Hellcannon, which is certainly not a sure bet (although I would never take 2 in less than 4000pts).

People who want to play well-rounded games with WoC just need to take... err... well-rounded lists: multiple threats with varying strengths and abilities.

Instead of going for the usual 3+ ward on my Sorceror Lord (IF I take one), I now just pack the cheapo Necrotic Phylactery, plonk him in a unit, and put the points towards another unit.

My 2500pt army list has just about every unit type there is in the game, and it never equates to being boring.

Tae
13-12-2010, 13:09
Dryads are great in combat, as are Tree Kin. Also, stick a Noble with some nice gear in a unit of Wild Riders.

Apart from the fact that if you do manage to win a round of combat (which against anything with T4, a decent armour save and/or a high number of attacks isn't likely to begin with) your enemy is almost always going to be steadfast.

logan054
13-12-2010, 15:04
I agree with kingofthesquats. The problem with WoC, in my mind, is not necessarily the army list (although it certainly is void of shooting units) but rather the players who take to the table with template lists, spamming Warriors or GW Khorne Marauders and whatnot. With a (relatively) cheap disk guy, a chariot or two, some dogs, and a mixture of Monstrous units, the usual human blocks can be complemented in a variety of ways.

Couldn't disagree more, I use warriors, knights, trolls, marauder horsemen, hounds, lone lvl2 wizards, heroes on juggers, shaggoths, hellcannons, warshrines. Problem is so many models have I 5 + so charging isn't that important, you can literally walk forward and it dosn't matter if you charge which removes some of tactics. When you hounds and marauder horsemen die You don't really have anything left but the move forward and kill stuff left.

sssk
13-12-2010, 15:45
I find that the most dedicated armies are the least interesting e.g. WoC and dwarves.

Sorry to go back to the first page to quote stuff, but I think this is some proper insight from Lord of Divine Slaughter.

I never noticed it before, but I got bored of dwarfs, got bored of deamons (largely because it was stupidly easy to win in 7th), and am now thorougly enthralled by Goblins.

The real beauty of this is, when I start to get bored of gobbos, I can move on to orcs! Still the same army, but a completely different method of play.

I think an important factor in interest to me is having a reasonable presence in each phase (moving, shooting, magic, combat), and having good fun models.

brynolf
13-12-2010, 15:51
Dwarfs were really boring in 7th, but now they are actually quite fun. I guess a total gunline would be pretty dull, but I have never seen one since 7th (and not really all that much in 7th either, mind).

Bodysnatcher
13-12-2010, 19:58
Apart from the fact that if you do manage to win a round of combat (which against anything with T4, a decent armour save and/or a high number of attacks isn't likely to begin with) your enemy is almost always going to be steadfast.

Force them to fight you in a wood. You get steadfast, they lose it.

Bgmique
13-12-2010, 20:29
No specific race is boring out of hand, unless painting tons of the same miniature over and over again (VC when you had to have your 2k army painted plus another 1k of stuff you might raise)

Gunlines
Charge Forward / Win armies
Anything that only works one specific way really.

My Marauders of Chaos force with chaos ogre support has yet to get boring for me. My color scheme is blue and red so doing a MoT or MoK force is always an option, or both (red standard or blue standard denotes mark). I rarely use any Warriors, Chosen, and the only SC i use with any kind of regularity iw Wulfrik (fits with marauders and I dont always use sea fang). In fact, if there were marauder heroes and shamans, I wouldnt have a single set of chaos armor in the whole army......thats a lie, the ogres have them I guess, but not always.


Build your own customization into your force. If your army is boring, you made it that way.

Doomseer
13-12-2010, 22:57
Lizardmen for me! I really enjoyed them in 7th edition and had a lot of fun games. 8th edition killed them for me as it split the army book down the middle as units became either a no-brainer or total pants!

The Slann/Temple Guard/Saurus/Chameleon/Salamander army required very little skill to use and was no fun to play as or against!

Roark
14-12-2010, 01:16
When you hounds and marauder horsemen die You don't really have anything left but the move forward and kill stuff left.

I'm curious then... which way do other armies' units move when they want to get into a fight? ;)

I personally like running a little disk guy with 2 missiles all over the place. Also, half the time my hounds are almost totally ignored (usually by the more experienced players I face) and I've done a lot of fun and annoying things with their WS4. Knights are also fast and manouevrable enough (with a muso and a bit of planning) to get into some cheeky positions. They certainly can't frontal charge all the time like they did in 7th edition. So I don't think they qualify anymore as "move forward and kill stuff".

Anyway, that's just my experience. I certainly don't make "template" lists if I can avoid it.

UberBeast
14-12-2010, 01:46
DoC are a terribly boring army simply because they don't really have enough in the army book to justify having their own army. Maybe with another dozen units they would be fun to play, but they just don't stand well on thier own without the other chaos units.

Ogres are another army that try some peoples attention span. In my local area, people are always starting ogres because they think it will be fun to have something unique only to end up getting bored with them and going back to their old armies.

Seville
14-12-2010, 09:00
I'm curious then... which way do other armies' units move when they want to get into a fight? ;)

I personally like running a little disk guy with 2 missiles all over the place. Also, half the time my hounds are almost totally ignored (usually by the more experienced players I face) and I've done a lot of fun and annoying things with their WS4. Knights are also fast and manouevrable enough (with a muso and a bit of planning) to get into some cheeky positions. They certainly can't frontal charge all the time like they did in 7th edition. So I don't think they qualify anymore as "move forward and kill stuff".

Anyway, that's just my experience. I certainly don't make "template" lists if I can avoid it.

No, WoC aren't at all a boring army to play. You'll notice that everyone parroting this Warseer meme (and that is all it is) either don't actually play the game much, or admit to using a list consisting of warriors and more warriors.

Of all the books out there, WoC is probably the most internally balanced, with lots of fun, perfectly viable units worth taking in any fight. There are very few no-brainer choices, particularly in this edition, so, people with even a modicum of imagination can make varied, interesting, and viable lists that are far more than "move forward" and kill stuff (although, I would say every army has an element of "move forward and kill stuff" in this edition and posit that people are simply envious that WoC happen to do it better).

In any case, back on topic, which army is most boring? Hmmm... well, I like fighting all armies, but I'd say gunline Dwarfs would have to win the most boring award. A gunline Dwarf army really only participates in a single phase of the game.

sssk
14-12-2010, 09:12
Of all the books out there, WoC is probably the most internally balanced, with lots of fun, perfectly viable units worth taking in any fight.

An interesting point here. Where does the equilibrium lay with regard to internal balance (all the units being equally viable) and external balance (the "race" as a whole being equally matched with other "races").

Obviously the answer will come back that in a perfect world, you need both (so that you can have varied armies within each "race", which are evenly balanced with each other race). However, what is everyone finding to be the underlying reason for an army growing repetitive/dull/boring?

I think for me it's more to do with external (between "race") balance, as there's little fun to be had in getting smashed every game, or smashing the opponent ever game. There has to be a challenge

logan054
14-12-2010, 09:50
I'm curious then... which way do other armies' units move when they want to get into a fight? ;)

Several armies do not move forward and shoot, its called a gunline ;) but seriously I tend to find after a couple of turns all the fun units are killed and all you are left with is chaos warriors and chaos knights. I think the problem here is that Chaos warriors have becomes so buffed that they to easy to use these days.

Chainaxe07
14-12-2010, 14:46
Hello all,
i dont think WoC are a boring army too, i'm always on the verge of starting a Slaanesh army (got almost all of the caracters already converted, in some cases extensively resculpted). I have to admit, though, that everytime i think of a list its always full of warriors (maybe with shields, maybe with halbers, even with 2hw, but at least 3 or 4 warrior units come up anyway) with chaos knight and marauder horsemen/hounds support. Some choosen, a slaaneshi giant (a bodybuilding, good looking giant!) and there ya go. Effective, even characterful, but not exactly...diverse. What makes them attractive, to me, is how you can customize your force, as long as you consider look and background. My Slanneshi warband (when i'll actually get around to finishing it) will be painted in pastles and gold, led by a giant demonic chaos lord (he/she towers over minotaurs) and will feature all "good looking models", indeed this force will actively persecute all those they find not good looking enough (nurgle beasties, ugly mutants, skaven, beastmen, halflings, dwarves , goblins, ogres etc etc). All chaos warriors/knights/choosen will be androginous and daemonette like (will take me forever to convert...), while marauder horsemen will probably be assembled straight from the box. Would probably need a large foot marauder unit, but i really dont like the squat look and badly sculpted torsoes and arms, some friend of mine pulled out decent foot marauders by using gor torsoes and arms, should give it a try.
As all models would need to be "attractive" i'm not considering spawns (they'd be killed on sight) and forsaken, also no hellcannons as they have short, stumpy crew...really not stylish!!!

PurpleSun
14-12-2010, 16:56
Force them to fight you in a wood. You get steadfast, they lose it.

That is simply not going to happen. If I have a unit of 20 dryads sitting in the woods, nobody ever comes in after them. They simply sit back and shoot/spell them to death.

Bodysnatcher
14-12-2010, 18:57
That is simply not going to happen. If I have a unit of 20 dryads sitting in the woods, nobody ever comes in after them. They simply sit back and shoot/spell them to death.

WE do have very good anti magic. Plus people will want to get use out of their combat units rather than have them sat, slowly being whittled away by your hopefully more numerous and effective bowfire.

Razakel
14-12-2010, 19:52
Mixed Dwarf armies have held my interest for close on five years (not long by the standards of many gamers here ^^).

I have played Gunline armies, both Empire and Dwarf, and also tried a heavy shooty Wood Elf army. But any kind of Gunline is boring, boring stuff, and I only ever played it against someone I knew was going to pull some nasty cheesy rubbish on me.

Someone mentioned it earlier, I get tired of armies that have excessive weight placed on a single aspect of the game.

Shooting: Dwarfs, Empire, WE, with an outsider possibility of DE and HE.
Combat: WoC, DoC, maybe OK.
Magic: HE, Lizardmen, VC (although to be fair VC often use magic to create units that actually have to do some fighting, instead of Teclis coming along and obliterating everything in sight).

Warhammer for me is a multi-tiered game, I enjoy each phase, and one army that gets through one phase in 30 minutes and all the others in 5 is not an enjoyable army.

P.S, for those of you who are nitpickers, the above list is obviously not comprehensive or entirely accurate, its just a lot of sweeping generalisations.

VoodooJanus
14-12-2010, 19:54
The most boring armies that I have played are Lizardmen, WoC, and any sort of gunline (which really ends up being empire and dwarves, though both are interesting outside of the guns.) Personally, I don't find Demons, VC in this edition, or Wood Elves boring. To put a positive spin on things, I think that the Beastmen are the most interesting army in 8th.

The gunlines and the WoC's boring natures have been largely expounded upon, but I feel I should justify my choice of Lizardmen. Now, don't get me wrong, these guys have a great potential to be one of the most fun and varied armies out there. Unfortunately, not many people take armies of skinks and the Saurus are pretty much Warriors from the WoC book with less I and the ability to take spears. The prowess of the saurus, combined with the ridiculous power of the Slaan make for pretty boring gameplay, especially when the Lizardmen player brings the lore of life. I'm not sure how near-invincible blocks of regenerating dinosaurs is fun, but to each their own. It sucks, because the LM have an awesome theme (always loved their meso-america look) and have the potential to be a really tactically complex army. If only the Saurus were slightly less powerful in combat and the skinks a little better at range, the army might function differently.

Essentially, I have a problem with armies that function in a fairly blunt fashion (charge, smash, repeat. Or shoot shoot shoot.) If the army requires no finesse to win with (outside of the list-building) then it generally gets pretty boring for me. That's not to say all CC oriented armies with high armor saves are this way however. Bretonnians for instance, still require a degree of finesse because while they are all quite well armored, their model count is generally quite low, with average T and S to boot.

I disagree with Daemons because their rules interact differently with step up, the new combat order rules and supporting attacks. Daemons, in 7th, were always a charge-dependent army, killing off the front rank of the enemy's infantry and then breaking them through fear. That's not how it works anymore, however, so Daemon players have to effectively combine charges in order to minimize return casualties. T3 with a 5+ save, ward or otherwise doesn't save you as often as you'd like. The same is true of VC: with the loss of the autobreak mechanic in fear, the VC general has to play far more carefully than before.

I love my Wood Elves! They have a few glaring weaknesses that are easily exploitable, but they can still function (although as a shadow of their former self...) with some seriously careful planning and an observant general. Yes, they lost a lot of their capability with the new terrain rules, skirmisher rules, step up... okay, their current incarnation is pretty much the opposite of what the architects of 8th wanted for the direction of Fantasy, but it makes those few wins that much more satisfying.

Dark Aly
14-12-2010, 20:27
That is simply not going to happen. If I have a unit of 20 dryads sitting in the woods, nobody ever comes in after them. They simply sit back and shoot/spell them to death.

I thought WE had a spell that can move woods? I haven't played against WE's since 6th but it seems to me that this could be very useful with the correct thematic quantity of woods (for athel loren)

Korraz
14-12-2010, 22:42
Not unto enemy units. Sadly. If you could move the wood on them, it would be so much better.

tr1pod
14-12-2010, 23:35
It is surprising that WoC seem to be the dullest, which is strange as they appear to have the most options available for customizing an army. I think it's just whatever you do or take involves you marching in and hitting things.

It would have been nice to see some more shooty stuff in the army. Especially as they aren't THAT good in combat, for the points. High Elf Swordmasters tear them a new one.

Jack of Blades
15-12-2010, 00:14
It would have been nice to see some more shooty stuff in the army. Especially as they aren't THAT good in combat, for the points. High Elf Swordmasters tear them a new one.

I believe this is the main sticking point. There just isn't enough crazy, unpredictable, intuitive (I don't know if that was the word I'm seeking... I can't think of it, something about being up to how you use it, your skill at using it and so on) or exciting things in WoC like there is in Skaven and such. Pretty much everything just smashes other things a new one, but in various (ranked, slogging, predictable, simple) formats. These formats are however nearly all predictable, regular, standard. I think that's the issue, WoC is like a carpet without any cool symbols on it, or only a quite bland one.

That's what WoC feels like to me at least.

Bgmique
15-12-2010, 02:44
It is surprising that WoC seem to be the dullest, which is strange as they appear to have the most options available for customizing an army. I think it's just whatever you do or take involves you marching in and hitting things.

Unfortunately many WoC players look at the warrior profile and go wow, plus COOL! They are vary appealing rules wise and model wise. Everyone who wants to do dismounted brettonian knights and likes the idea of implacabale units of skilled warriors advancing with supreme confidence falls for the warrior armies. To be honest, I started playing WoC because I wanted to do an army where everyone had at least a 4+ save and could take on any other core choice in combat. I had dreams filled with large blocks of warriors being blessed by warshrines while chariots and knights encircled the foe and smashed them to bits! (7ed). In fact, that was my army. 100% khorne with a lord and BSB both on Juggers. I got tired of how they played. And when I did, I went back to playing TK while I adjusted my WoC.

This gave me and my opponents a break (it helped apparently being the only TK player in Illinois). When I finally dusted of my what I call Marauders of Chaos, It was a breath of fresh air for me, and a change for everyone else. It feels alot more like the old Chaos amalgamation and being that my only models with a 4+ save are my characters and ogres plays significantly different.

Now I have the option to play that old hat khorne army or my new MoC, or something in between. Part of the boring army issue is that people find what works, and then stick with it. Too afraid of losing to attempt change as minor as including a unit they've never used before. The other issue is "well, all my warriors are painted green....they have to be Nurgle or my OCD will cause me to go insane!"

Just because you win constantly doesn't mean you're having fun. Which is why I only played a few games of 100% khorne plus a single lvl 4 MoT Sorcerer. The novelty wares off.

Biff Gunhed
17-12-2010, 01:32
I think that Wood Elves are not as boring as they seem. Counting against them is the limited number of competitive builds and the reliance on shooting. However, the fact that they rely a lot on terrain, which is different every game, makes them a bit more interesting to me. You don't necessarily know what to expect each game, unlike gunline armies or stompy armies.

logan054
17-12-2010, 13:26
Unfortunately many WoC players look at the warrior profile and go wow, plus COOL! They are vary appealing rules wise and model wise. Everyone who wants to do dismounted brettonian knights and likes the idea of implacabale units of skilled warriors advancing with supreme confidence falls for the warrior armies. To be honest, I started playing WoC because I wanted to do an army where everyone had at least a 4+ save and could take on any other core choice in combat. I had dreams filled with large blocks of warriors being blessed by warshrines while chariots and knights encircled the foe and smashed them to bits! (7ed). In fact, that was my army. 100% khorne with a lord and BSB both on Juggers. I got tired of how they played. And when I did, I went back to playing TK while I adjusted my WoC.

Listen here you, that might have been the case when I was like 12 and it was 4th ed but that certainly is not the case now nor since 6th ed! I actually liked the idea of all chaos warrior armour because it looked cool and until now was a lot harder to win with than your usual army of chaos knights and marauders. My pure reason for a pure khorne army was during 4th and 5th ed I really started to hate how magic worked, infact a lot of my 5th ed games me and my friends didn't usually use magic because it was so broken and I dare say a lot of the older chaos players are he same.


Just because you win constantly doesn't mean you're having fun. Which is why I only played a few games of 100% khorne plus a single lvl 4 MoT Sorcerer. The novelty wares off.

I couldn't agree more actually, I have been winning a lot recently and I have not been enjoying it, I do believe it is more down to my opponenets as of late more than anything else. I still think however WoC is one of the armies which is far to easy to make dull and repetitive sadly.