PDA

View Full Version : dwarfs or wood elves



slirgy
21-06-2011, 15:54
i have a huge dilemma.

dwarves...or wood elves

i love the look of both models and can't decide between them, i am fairly new to WFB but i know that woodies are a hard starter army.

suggestions and reasons please

thanks

slirgy:chrome:

Fizzy
21-06-2011, 15:55
Wood elves are extremly cool and effective in battle if you get to know the race.
But dwarves are easier to play with at a start and not to hard to paint either.
But they tend to get boring while fixing with them for a long time according to me at least.

So I would say Wood elves :p

thesheriff
21-06-2011, 16:34
Its a tough call. Normally, i wouldnt recommend wood elves, as they are very hard to play with, and most of the cool units are usless. But, you say you like the models, and that tells me your more interested in the modeling and painting side than the gaming.
So on this rare occassion, i say woodies

thesheriff

The bearded one
21-06-2011, 17:17
Dwarfs :)

At the moment wood elves are not just difficult to play, they've been downright neutured by 8th edition because skirmish units will find it impossible to break ranked up units because they will be steadfast even if there are only 5 models left. The ranked units they do have are expensive (money-wise) because treekin are resin (though they are significantly cheaper than they used to be, because now that you get 3 in a box for about 25% less than when in metal) and eternal guard are (for the moment) metal, so a large unit is really expensive.

In contrast dwarfs got a huge boost and a significant part of the army can be built in plastic (in fact you can easily build a fully plastic dwarf army that is very effective). Where wood elves are fast, fragile and have low saves, dwarfs are slow but tough and almost universally have great saves. Wood elves fire lots of low strenght fire, dwarfs shoot (little or lots, depends on the armybuild) high strenght fire. The minimal dwarf missileweapons are strenght 4.

You chose probably the most contrasting armies in fantasy. I don't think any 2 armies are so opposed as these.

In the end I'd let this hang on how easy/difficult you want to make it for yourself. Wood elves can be fun (I haven't seen any in 8th anymore though) and they have a nice modelrange, but currently they are very, very hard to play. Dwarfs have a nice range as well and a lot of their warmachines got released in resin recently (the gyrocopter used to be a nightmare to assemble, it should be relatively easy in resin) Both armies are expensive pointswise so neither will be excessively large. Both can also be actually rather suprising in builds. Wood elves might be skirmishy, can be themed for forest spirits (dryad+treekin army) or can go with the blocks they have (big blocks of treekin, as treekin are probably one of the better things in their book right now). Dwarfs can obviously gunline, but in 8th can be really, really good offensively with big blocks of dour, grimfaced, axewielding dwarfs marching up and chopping everything they find to bitz. They also have a suprising number of ways to deploy creatively and move about. The anvil of doom can let units make an extra move, the gyrocopter is fast (and has a template weapon), miners can come up from the edge of the table, the strollaz' rune allows units to make a move before the first turn and 3 out of 4 core units can be upgraded to rangers, making them scouts and allowing them to deploy 12" away from the enemy.

Both are really different from eachother and in the end I'd say it would be nice to start with one of them and some day in the future do the other. For ease of use I'd advice dwarfs, as they are quite a forgiving army. With wood elves your chops might be busted a couple times, but your victories will taste all the sweeter when you get the hang of them.

slirgy
21-06-2011, 18:24
i think i will start with dwarfs as i love the models. and then afterwards when i am fairly competent i will try woodies and see the world from the other end of the spectrum

slirgy
21-06-2011, 18:26
btw bearded one I love your dwarf painting log

The bearded one
21-06-2011, 18:29
btw bearded one I love your dwarf painting log

:D


I'm also pretty happy with my lizardmen :)

slirgy
21-06-2011, 18:41
yeah! i love the saurus at he beginning, and the dude on the palanquin

slirgy
21-06-2011, 18:41
where can i see more of your dwarves??

The bearded one
21-06-2011, 18:51
My longest running painting log is on librarium-online, here:
http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/projects/175931-dawi-karaz-ankor-my-dwarf-army-hammerers-page-13-hammertime.html


And here is a link to a post where I have a boatload of army pictures :)
http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/projects/175931-dawi-karaz-ankor-my-dwarf-army-hammerers-page-13-hammertime-11.html#post1732647

WoodElfGeneral
21-06-2011, 19:11
Dwarfs :)
You chose probably the most contrasting armies in fantasy. I don't think any 2 armies are so opposed as these.

Wood Elves Would be opposite to Warriors of chaos which have almost no shooting except the hellcannon and are a pure combat/offensive magic army unlike the very shooty wood elves who are not that great at combat and are defensive magic users.

That aside, take dwarves. I love my wood elves, i really do, but they are very hard to play with, especially for any beginner, in 8th edition where large, stubborn infantry blocks dominate. our skirmishers and fast cav can't work as well as they did, and until our new book that's how it will have to be. Sorry this is a downer:(

The bearded one
21-06-2011, 19:39
Wood Elves Would be opposite to Warriors of chaos which have almost no shooting except the hellcannon and are a pure combat/offensive magic army unlike the very shooty wood elves who are not that great at combat and are defensive magic users.

However both actually have magic :) Both have cavalry, both have T3 fast cavalry, flyers, monsters, monstrous infantry, infantry/cavalry troops with multiple attacks (all chaos warriors, wardancers, dryads, wildriders) and so on and so on. The only thing dwarfs and wood elves have in common are that they both have a high average weaponskill and both are shooty, except wood elves are ballistic skill shooters and dwarfs mostly non-ballistic skill shooters (cannons, grudge throwers, organ guns, flame cannons)

minionboy
21-06-2011, 20:45
If you go with dwarfs, might I suggest: http://www.avatars-of-war.com/eng/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=63

With all the big monsters coming around, a unit of Slayers is looking better and better. Add in a Daemon/Dragon Slayer with the flaming rune, and you're pretty set. Tear down the monsters regen on the higher initiative of the lord, then chop it down with the rest. Depends on your local meta though to determine if there are enough monsters to be worthwhile.

Plus they just look killer.

The bearded one
21-06-2011, 21:58
Slayers are actually considerably "meh" against their intended target (monsters) and better as a tarpit than monsterslayers.


The avatars of war slayers are awesome though.

Daniel36
22-06-2011, 07:28
As a starter to Warhammer, Dwarfs are your best bet. I myself own a Wood Elf army, so I am not biased towards Dwarfs in any other way than to say that you want your first few battles to be learning experiences, and that's far more possible with Dwarfs than with Wood Elves. Not only are they hard to play, but a lot of units have very special rules that deviate quite a bit from the standard units (skirmish, flyers), and that is less the case with Dwarfs. At least, that's how I feel.

Plus, if you're lucky to find an old, cheap Skull Pass starter set, you get quite a few Dwarfs for little money.

And stunties are just fun to paint.

Balerion
22-06-2011, 10:06
Its all about your intelligence, ability to plan, tactical acumen, and knowledge of your army and others, and most importantly a deep knowledge of the overarching ruleset.

And if both generals have equal amounts of that, then which army has the advantage?

Yeah, I thought so.

Spiney Norman
22-06-2011, 10:27
It depends on what motivates your choice.

If price is a concern I would go with wood elves, they are higher pts cost per model and the cost of their best units just went DOWN (unbelievable as it sounds treekin actually cost less as a result of the move to finecast).

Wood elves are not as "hard to play" as people seem to think, they just have a very narrow list of builds that work and some of their units got hit hard with the rules change. A kitted out wizard lord is a must, Glade Guard are still good, dryads are good, glade riders are still one of the best light cavalry units in the game (only Dark Riders are better IMO), treekin are all but essential and treekin/eagles are still staples. On the other hand if you want to play wood elves because you are crazy about wardancers or wildriders I'd forget about them if you want to win games.

On the other hand if price is not an issue and you want an army that will give you a gentler learning curve while you are getting to grips with the game dwarfs would be the best one to pick. Be warned though, there are few armies as dull to play as dwarfs IMHO, mainly because they ignore an entire phase of the game (magic) which I find to be the most fun, and random phase of 8th Edition. That said they can take a lot of damage and have arguably the most powerful shoot phase of any army in the game, but you might find that simply mowing down the enemy with handgunners and warmachines gets old after a couple of games.

The bearded one
22-06-2011, 10:54
(unbelievable as it sounds treekin actually cost less as a result of the move to finecast).

Indeed, I have proclaimed this miracle all over the internet :D Ushabti became cheaper too and I suspect many monstrous infantry packed in boxes of 3 will become cheaper (I hope kroxigors, because I still need 3 of those ;) )

In general dwarfs have a pretty simple playing style, but they do have tricks in their magic box that can really suprise an enemy. For example I once wrote an "in your face" list, which came down to 2 blocks of 40 longbeard rangers (with the special character you can put down an extra block of rangers) and 2-3 hordes of miners, with an anvil somewhere hidden on the field so he can move those miners on to the field quiker.

Balerion
22-06-2011, 10:58
Glade Riders are horrible. Advising a new player to invest in them is tantamount to recommending they stuff their money down a sewer grate.

What exactly do you do with GR in 8th? They can't march block, they'll lose fights against war machine crews/archer blocks, they'll give up massive CR if you try to flank with them, they make poor bait against an enemy who knows the deal, they don't have the firepower to be a credible nuisance, and they are expensive to field.

Haravikk
22-06-2011, 11:11
It shouldn't be that long until Wood Elves are updated, so if you're happy to focus on building up the army and painting it in the mean time then you can do that. Their current rules aren't completely awful, but to stay competitive you need to field some rather odd forces; even if you focus on what you want rather than what's competitive though, then Wood Elves are still capable of pulling out wins, it's just difficult that's all. The army as a whole plays unlike most other armies, which makes a hard one to start with, but the models are very nice and its a characterful army.

Dwarfs are a great army; while a lot of people think they're dead simple, or even boring, there is actually a wealth of viable tactics for someone willing to experiment rather than just slapping down great weapon hordes and war machines like a dullard. 8th has improved their army quite a bit in many ways, which is good.


I can't really recommend one army over the other as personally I love the style of both armies; the hardy dwarfs with their trusty axes and fearsome war machines, and the agile Wood Elves with their vicious forest spirits.

The only way to decide is by thinking how you would most enjoy playing; if you like solid blocks of troops, war machines, and hard as nails heroes, then Dwarfs are for you. Meanwhile if you prefer an overall very fast army that works well with vicious combined charges and outmanoeuvring your enemy, then Wood Elves are an ideal choice.

Lars Porsenna
22-06-2011, 14:42
How about both? :)

I have a dwarf army, and have dabbled in wood elfs for a few years. As an army, Dwarfs will be "easier" to learn and thus get wins. The model range is pretty broad, and as long as you don't go too specialist with them, can produce a good mostly plastic army. Wood Elfs, on the otherhand, have an awesome aesthetic with some of the best models in the the range IMHO. Even their core troops (Glade Guard) are fantastic kits in and of themselves, plenty of extras to detail terrain (I have several decorative terrain elements I use to add to forests and the like, using bits from the plastic kits -- fern leafs, roots, and the owls -- to "Wood Elf-ify" my terrain).

Personally I'd do dwarfs as a "fast burn" army to get you into the game now, and Wood Elfs as a slow burn/painting project. Then when the army book drops, you'll be able to go with these almost right away...

Damon.

russellmoo
22-06-2011, 17:00
Dwarfs:)

Wait for a new army book before collecting wood elves-

If people quit buying Wood elf stuff- it might help spur GW to get a new, and much needed wood elves book out-

Think about- the armies that have seen books so far in 8th- O&G (which no one was buying much of in 7th because it was difficult to win with them), Tomb Kings (also an army that no one was buying), and now Ogre kingdoms- also an army that very few people were playing-

GW is not as dumb as people think- they stand to sell a lot more models, by reinvigorating armies that suck, or that no one plays, than redoing armies that people still buy the models-

slirgy
23-06-2011, 17:24
like the huge dark eldar update, i love all those new models

The bearded one
24-06-2011, 21:34
Trollolol much?
Well i would like to know how often have you witnessed or played a game where both generals are PERFECTLY EQUAL in competency?
to quote yourself "Yeah, I thought so."
Wood Elves are ABLE to compete was the point i was making, against all the others who were spouting the "omgwtfbbq-theyareweak"
Of course there are different levels of army book.
Now back to your cave.

No, he is right. If the generals are equal, or roughly equal, than the wood elves are generally at a disadvantage. Whatever that "generals are never equal". So lets say the wood elf general is better, he's still at a disadvantage with wood elves whereas he'd could just curbstomp his opponent with some other army, but because using an army that is generally at a disadvantage due to the way 8th edition works he balances it out: In short, he has to be a better general in order to balance it out, which means that the wood elf armybook is at a disadvantage.

You say it yourself "there are different levels of army book". Under 8th edition the wood elf book is at a lower level than others due to the way skirmishers are handicapped. You can win with them, you can build a competitive list, but your options are limited and it's harder to win with them than most other books. That's the very point Balerion made. If both generals are equal (it might not happen in reality, but this is hypothetical), the wood elves are generally at a disadvantage. This isn't a judgement of "lololol, they're weaaaaaaaaaaaak", but ascertaining that they are at a disadvantage. You certainly can not say they're stronger than many other books (they might be stronger than brets or ogres, but not by much, and it's doubtful they're stronger than almost any of the other books). I won't say they are terrible, but it is clear they are disadvantaged: thus if the generals are equal the non-wood elf general has the advantage.

wall of text.

slirgy
25-06-2011, 14:45
woah!! i'm lost
so what you're saying is that the wood elf has limited choice and the highborn(woodie generals) are better??

The bearded one
25-06-2011, 14:49
woah!! i'm lost
so what you're saying is that the wood elf has limited choice and the highborn(woodie generals) are better??

err... huh?

I am not referring to the lord choice, I am referring to the player who is playing wood elves (the wood elf general). If that player is a good player, in other words a good general, then he balances out a bit his disadvantage of playing wood elves against a stronger armybook.

Wood elves don't have limited choices, they have limited viable choices, which is a big difference. At first glance treekin are worth their cost, but after that I'm pretty much stumped. Gladeguard spam I guess, and keep pumping arrows and harrassing your enemy untill you go nuts.

slirgy
25-06-2011, 15:42
oh i see i suppose if they make woodies a more combat heavy or tougher army in 8th than i don't see why they aren't a potentially game winning army up there with all the heavy weights. I love the models for both armies and really only started fantasy for dwarf conversions or the wood elf highborn with great weapon.

I really think my enthusiasm for wood elves has been rekindled by the fact that storm of magic makes them a quite tough army magic wise able to put up quite a defense around objectives and i love the painting opportunities. my only problem is that i don't like the forest dragon and will probably convert the new dark elf dragon but green stuff the holes in the wings and suchlike, i also have one wood elf model, the lord on the horse( lovingly painted to represent my very own steed(in real life))

most long winded post ever (for me at least)

Liber
26-06-2011, 07:30
But dwarves are easier to play with at a start and not to hard to paint either.



Dwarfs (not dwarves :) are not easy to paint. not at all.

the most basic unit, a dwarf warrior: flesh, big beard, cloth, chain mail, plate armour, leather...all on a tiny dwarf sized package.

take a wood elf (or an empire guy etc), shrink him down, and give him a beard. it only makes it harder to paint.

i've got a buddy doing WoC, now those guys are easy to paint...metallics and black everywhere :P

same with lizardmen. dry brush heaven.

Now, Slirgy i have one piece of advice: if you do choose to play dwarfs

*BUY THE BATTALION BOX*.

i could have saved myself like 30 bucks if i had. every unit in it you are pretty much gauranteed to have in your army.

i think they have it on Amazon.com for like $80 or something. GL!

The bearded one
26-06-2011, 15:34
What i tire of is the 'omgzzz dont choose them they're weak and are so hard to play with and so difficult to win with trollolol' that plagues every thread where the OP asks about starting Wood Elves.

I would in fact say that it is harder to win with them, simply to inform the player, not necessarily say "don't take 'em!" as that person might enjoy the challenge, but warn them nonetheless. For example my first 40K army is Tau, who are having a rough time in pretty much every battle. On the other hand it is doubtful someone new to fantasy will enjoy his starting period if he repeatedly gets beaten to a pulp. It is hard enough for a new player to win games against more experienced players, let alone with an army that is more difficult in general.


Also, i am in favour of encouraging players to take up armies which are going to challenge them personally, as it gives greater rewards over the long term.

Instead of the standard "Don't choose Wood Elves because X army are easier to win/play with!"

In fact I said as much in my first post in the thread:


With wood elves your chops might be busted a couple times, but your victories will taste all the sweeter when you get the hang of them.

slirgy
26-06-2011, 16:28
Are wild riders any good??, i read a wood elf, high elf comparison thing and i heard they are one of the best light cavalry in the game, Are they

RanaldLoec
26-06-2011, 21:37
Are wild riders any good??, i read a wood elf, high elf comparison thing and i heard they are one of the best light cavalry in the game, Are they

They hit hard at strength 5 on a charge, but light cavalry hate any combat longer than a turn.

There pricey too for the models and in points I love the idea behind the unit but only as flankers on an engaged unit to prevent combat reforms.

mdauben
26-06-2011, 22:10
IMO, under the current rules and army books:


Dwarfs are boring but competative
Woodies are cool but uncompetative
I've got a sizable WE army that I started collecting back when their first army book came out, but they are currently sitting on the shelf awaiting a new army book as they just aren't that good right now, and most of the coolest units are either overpriced or crippled under 8th ed rules. :(

slirgy
27-06-2011, 05:49
They hit hard at strength 5 on a charge, but light cavalry hate any combat longer than a turn.

There pricey too for the models and in points I love the idea behind the unit but only as flankers on an engaged unit to prevent combat reforms.

so they are quite good but you reckon they should be cheaper in 8th and maybe tougher these are the one wood elf models i don't actually like, heres to hope they make new finecast of them when the codex comes out

Balerion
27-06-2011, 08:10
What i tire of is the 'omgzzz dont choose them they're weak and are so hard to play with and so difficult to win with trollolol' that plagues every thread where the OP asks about starting Wood Elves.
Except that there isn't really a lot of that. And absolutely nothing like that in this thread at the point in which you initially responded. What there is a lot of, on the other hand, is balanced, fair, but ultimately negative responses to the current state of the WE armybook, because that is a reflection of the reality. It sometimes seems like people get so tired of reading the same opinion, no matter how coherent or correct it may be, that they swing wildly in the other direction like a warpstone pendulum when Morrslieb is ascendant.



Also, i am in favour of encouraging players to take up armies which are going to challenge them personally, as it gives greater rewards over the long term.
It's shockingly presumptuous of someone to flatly declare what will or won't give another individual a feeling of reward. There are people out there who like to enter invincibility codes and roll through their videogames, or play checkers instead of chess, or only read Black Library novels instead of literary fiction. Your experience is not everybody else's experience, your taste is not their taste, your requirements for a good time are not everybody else's requirements for a good time. Which brings me to my next point,


Instead of the standard "Don't choose Wood Elves because X army are easier to win/play with!"
In threads like this rookie players ask for information from more experienced veterans, and to give them some sort of didactic advice based on your own moral assessments of what constitutes a good wargamer is doing them a disservice. Give them the facts, and let them decide what's important to them in picking an army.

And it's a fact that 8th edition Wood Elves are harder to play and win with than most other 8th edition armies, including, to a substantial degree, Dwarfs. Whether or not winning/ease of play is an important thing to consider in picking an army is up to the OP, not you.

b4z
27-06-2011, 09:23
dwarves...or wood elves

suggestions and reasons please

suggestion: dwarves

reason: you can win

;) ;)

The bearded one
27-06-2011, 13:01
Dwarfs are boring but competative
Woodies are cool but uncompetative



That's how I feel :) Wood elves can be competitive, but are restricted to a severely limited build to be so, one which includes a lot of treekin (sigh, there go my dreams of a purely forest spirit army some day.. because dryads are skirmishers..and I kinda like gladeguard)

slirgy
27-06-2011, 16:27
also, is immune to psychology a bonus or a draw back because i heard many of the wood elf units have this rule, just want opinions on this.


I also plan to convert a wood elf lord riding the new forge world carmine dragon, bit pricey though and i wouldnt know how to go about it

(i have a vague idea though)