PDA

View Full Version : The Worst Warhammer Armies



Vanagandr
02-07-2011, 23:19
what do you guys think the worst warhammer army is and why?? and don't say because their army book hasn't been updated because i don't believe that is a good enough excuse

Kai Itzah
02-07-2011, 23:22
Really confused as to what you're asking.

How else can a Warhammer army be judged than by its army book?

Or are you asking fluff-wise or something like that?

Rakton
02-07-2011, 23:24
armies of high costed models and very low model count(under 30) for 2000+ points like around 19 men for beastmen for 2k

Vanagandr
02-07-2011, 23:40
@ Kai. i am ask which army is the worst. i don't want,the reason to be because the army book is 6 years old (uts a common complaint in 40k, particularly with dark eldar until their new codex was released last year)

thesheriff
02-07-2011, 23:57
Well, you can't judge fluff. That's personal taste. For example, if I said; "I hate the high elf fluff and story line", loads of people would argue it (including me, again)

If i had to choose one though, It would have to be ogre kingdoms for me. For the following;

*Don't like the fluff - there a fat empire, or a stupid, but not funny OG.
*The models are horrible. Well, the plastic ones are. Static and uninteresting.
*The don't do the coolest phase in the game properly (magic)
*They are super restricted as to army selections (+1 bulls, 2 scrap launcher per gnoblars, Leadbelchers capped at 5). And that is mostly down to an old book.

Notice I said ogre kingdoms, NOT ogres. Ogres in chaos, empire or Tilia armies are cool IMO.

thesheriff

Also, I would like to point out that outdated army books are worse for fantasy
Imon, as things like common unit size and magic casting varies from edition to edition. All 40k players have to worry about is what colour am I repainting my power armour this month?

Fantasy also has had a more extreme edition change. 4th to 5th was just rule tweaks. 7th to 8th is a complete overlap in all aspects nearly. Terrain, magic, shooting, army composition AND tweak rules.

trotsky
03-07-2011, 00:07
Wierd and kind of aggressive way of wording in the OP. Who is trying to excuse anything? Are you talking about the rules? Because the rules are the books...

Vanagandr
03-07-2011, 00:15
maybe it would have been best if i simply asked what the lower tier armies are.

Nubl0
03-07-2011, 00:17
Wood elves

Ogre kingdoms

Everyone else can semi compete.

Kulgur
03-07-2011, 01:30
Wood elves

Ogre kingdoms

Everyone else can semi compete.

Dogs of War ravening hordes. The indy GT list is pretty good.

Zinch
03-07-2011, 01:56
Also, I would like to point out that outdated army books are worse for fantasy
Imon, as things like common unit size and magic casting varies from edition to edition. All 40k players have to worry about is what colour am I repainting my power armour this month?

Fantasy also has had a more extreme edition change. 4th to 5th was just rule tweaks. 7th to 8th is a complete overlap in all aspects nearly. Terrain, magic, shooting, army composition AND tweak rules.

I completely disagree.
I'm a Necron player and I can assure you that necrons in this 40k edition compite a lot worse than any whfb army right now.

sulla
03-07-2011, 02:53
DoW are the worst. No army book, mediocre units, overpriced regiments of reknown + the ability to combine tacky and nonsensical comboes like ruglud's orcs and dwarves in the same list. Also, at heart, the human side is just a stripped down empire army with worse equipment. Shame really, because if GW invested a little time in them, mercenary armies could be really cool IMO.

After them, WE because they are an army based on light shooting, fast cav and skirmishers, all of which were depowered a fair bit in this edition, combined with the combat rules which make it insanity to rely on elven combat characters lasting more than a phase or two vs rnf. No great weapon troops, no template war machines, means builds are going to be extremely limited.

eron12
03-07-2011, 04:01
Really confused as to what you're asking.

How else can a Warhammer army be judged than by its army book?

Or are you asking fluff-wise or something like that?


While the OP was a little confusing and abrasive, I think he meant that age alone was not sufficent as a reason. For example, Wood Elves aren't weak because their book is old, they are weak because skirmishers got weaker in 8th edition.

russellmoo
03-07-2011, 04:16
I think it is almost a full consensus that Dogs of war (where allowed, or run) are very low tiered, Wood elves are also on the bottom, Ogre Kingdoms are on the bottom. Even then these armies can still compete in 8th, but they are down to one or two competitive builds, with every other combo being quite weak.

Other armies also do really well but only if run a certain way- such as VC, and Beastmen- these two outside of a few power builds tend to lose a lot as well-

Maoriboy007
03-07-2011, 06:07
Simply by the fact that they are outdated and unadaptable to 8th (unlike Dwarves) OK WE & DOW pretty easily take up the lowest tiers. Discounting outdated books O&G TK & BM are probably the lowest ( in that order). VC perform about as well as whatever spell lore they've chosen so a dishonorable mention for them as an actual army.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2011, 08:22
I completely disagree.
I'm a Necron player and I can assure you that necrons in this 40k edition compite a lot worse than any whfb army right now.

Sorry dude, as someone who plays wood elves in fantasy and Necrons in 40K I can honestly say Necrons are in a better place. Wood elves have something like 2-3 units that are competitive in their entire army, Tomb Kings were even worse before their new book.

I'm not convinced that ogres are really that bad, they got a lot of boosts from the 8th Ed changes, but wood elves don't have many legs left to stand on.

From the point of view of competitiveness Wood elves are definitely bottom of the ladder. That is mainly because their book is over a full edition old and they simply weren't designed to work with the 8th Edition rules.

yabbadabba
03-07-2011, 08:27
Its not the army, its the player.

Elyrioth
03-07-2011, 08:29
DoW obviously and WE are worst.
I despise Ogre Kingdoms, Ogres in other armies fine they should leave that, but they are an uninteresting army and never really should have had their own book there are better candidates, like Fimir, I always liked Fimir

Tresidentevil
03-07-2011, 10:07
Jesus people, don't pick apart the guys question! Answer it! I'd say the worst army is Dogs of War, a mixture of poor lore and lacking an army book.

Jolly Puggles
03-07-2011, 10:44
DoW obviously and WE are worst.
I despise Ogre Kingdoms, Ogres in other armies fine they should leave that, but they are an uninteresting army and never really should have had their own book there are better candidates, like Fimir, I always liked Fimir

Hear! Hear! Elyrioth, I like your thinking. Ogres should never have been made into a stand-alone army. Back in the day, they were always mercenaries and that's the way they should have stayed.

jesusjohn
03-07-2011, 12:34
Which ever army i'm playing with so i have an excuse for losing so badly! ;)

Chainaxe07
03-07-2011, 13:57
Well, fluffwise and modelwise i'd say ogre kingdoms 4 sure. C'mon, fat ogres?
Yeah, sure...
Ruleswise i think its VCs. They have (relatively speaking) frail generals that sport a big "army self destruct" button on them. Tomb kings face the same problem with the hierophant, but they can manage it better. Any self respeting TK list also has a high LD, inexpensive tomb king general: this much reduces the effects of crumbling.
So, its ogres and vamps, for different reasons.

Dungeon_Lawyer
03-07-2011, 14:26
Ruleswise i think its VCs. They have (relatively speaking) frail generals that sport a big "army self destruct" button on them. .
:eek:"frail generals"? wow. just wow.

The bearded one
03-07-2011, 14:31
Wood elves ruleswise, but that is intrinsically connected to their armybook because their playstyle revolves around small units of expensive and often frail (the elves) models and many are skirmishers in a game where large blocks of infantry are powerful.

warplock
03-07-2011, 14:33
VC generals are awesome! Granted, I can't quite remember how amazing they were back in 5th (I just remember them being ridiculously good) but they're still tougher and deadlier than pretty much anything out there barring a Chaos Lord / Doombull / Dragon.

bert n ernie
03-07-2011, 16:07
Its not the army, its the player.

Are you really going to say this without backing it up at all?

I know you have a very different play group from the average, but this is about army tiers. How can that be about the player?

yabbadabba
03-07-2011, 16:46
Are you really going to say this without backing it up at all?

I know you have a very different play group from the average, but this is about army tiers. How can that be about the player?

what do you guys think the worst warhammer army is and why?? and don't say because their army book hasn't been updated because i don't believe that is a good enough excuse
Don't see nothing about tiers, or even where, when or how in there. So are we talking for a beginner? A vet? A tournament? A campaign? I know people who regularly excel with some of the "worst" armies listed here. I have an aevrage mid tier army (Empire) yet I have one my first game in about 5 years a month ago. So until the criteria is set I can happily say its not the army, its the player because that is more of a definable quantity than a one sentence parameter.

Now vanagandr comes later an asks about tiers, and again its kind of an arbitary question because again the player is paramount. A player with a poor understanding will only win through luck and luck is not a definable quantity. A highly skilled and confident player is likely achieve ahead of the curve in the majority of situations. So again we come down to the player and the context.

Sclep
03-07-2011, 16:51
Actually, I don't see why DoW are the worst. They have access to all 8 lores of magic through relatively cheap means. They should, by all rights, have access to the expansive BRB list of common magic items, which helps their otherwise bland characters. They have access to cannons, which now do D6 wounds. The halfling hot pot is now comparable to a stone thrower because it ignores armour saves at the cost of S9 in the centre of the template, and only costs ~50 points. Some troops suffer from being over priced by a point or two, other don't. They have access to stubborn, and in the case of pikes, access to some absolutely crazy fight in multiple ranks rules, which combined with the now numerous augments and hexes should be pretty scary.

I have never played with them, so I could be wrong, but theoretically, they don't seem too bad, as they can function as a normal army.

Edit: I don't want to say that they are the best, just that I'm not writing them off so easily.

I'd also say that 8th has leveled the playing field a great deal. There are now multiple ways to win.

lopezpie
03-07-2011, 16:55
For me personally it would be Dwarves... those are absolutely the most boring games in the world.. any time we get new players out here we smash the idea of them playing dwarves. yerp we are jerks...

We used to have a dwarf player who would concede when you finally hit his lines because his gunline didn't work....

I tried to give them a go and it just wasn't fun at all. I have done a good job so far in avoiding them in 8th but i really want to play them just to try.

Fluffwise... meh lol

DeathlessDraich
03-07-2011, 17:37
No tiers but more tears in 8th ed ! :D

Having now played with all armies in 8th ed, I can safely say that there are no weak armies.

For those who play WE and feel WE are the weakest, get in touch with Asrai Wraith - he's won or drawn against all armies he's faced in 8th ed using more or less the same list.

In 8th ed, one of the new factors which determine the winner, I would say is:
A dollop of luck



Its not the army, its the player.

Yes, certainly.


Well, fluffwise and modelwise i'd say ogre kingdoms 4 sure. C'mon, fat ogres?
Yeah, sure...
Ruleswise i think its VCs. They have (relatively speaking) frail generals that sport a big "army self destruct" button on them. Tomb kings face the same problem with the hierophant, but they can manage it better. Any self respeting TK list also has a high LD, inexpensive tomb king general: this much reduces the effects of crumbling.
So, its ogres and vamps, for different reasons.

That's a strange choice. From what I've seen, the VC general is more likely to survive than the Hierophant.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2011, 18:04
Its not the army, its the player.

Comparing army power always assumes players of equal skill, but regrettably all armies are not equal.

Its not that wood elves can't compete, they can, but competitive wood elf list are always composed of blocks of 6-8 treekin, a L4 life mage and as many archers as you can fit in. If you want to live dangerously and try something a bit different then a treeman is about as far as you can go without totally losing the competitive edge. The problem is that at least 75% of the units in the wood elf book are junk in 8th Edition, which leads to huge lack of variety in competitive lists and very boring games.

kafrique
03-07-2011, 18:50
DoW obviously and WE are worst.
I despise Ogre Kingdoms, Ogres in other armies fine they should leave that, but they are an uninteresting army and never really should have had their own book there are better candidates, like Fimir, I always liked Fimir


Hear! Hear! Elyrioth, I like your thinking. Ogres should never have been made into a stand-alone army. Back in the day, they were always mercenaries and that's the way they should have stayed.

Personally I think High Elves and Dwarfs are extremely uninteresting. This doesn't make them bad armies though. Nor does "it didn't exist in 4th ed."

warplock
03-07-2011, 19:00
Personally I think High Elves and Dwarfs are extremely uninteresting. This doesn't make them bad armies though. Nor does "it didn't exist in 4th ed."

High Elves uninteresting? I can see why people would think that of Dwarfs - low movement so not much maneuvering (yes they do have a few tricks to play with in this respect, but still...), very powerful artillery (gunlines are not much fun for the opposing player), no magic. But High Elves have it all - powerful heavy cavalry and relatively cheap cavalry too, flyers, dragons, good magic, good light and heavy (ish) infantry, decent shooting, good combat lords, chariots - low toughness all round so care is needed too. To my mind one of the most satisfying armies to use if used well. But to each their own!

BorderKing
03-07-2011, 19:02
DoW are the worst. No army book, mediocre units, overpriced regiments of reknown + the ability to combine tacky and nonsensical comboes like ruglud's orcs and dwarves in the same list. Also, at heart, the human side is just a stripped down empire army with worse equipment. Shame really, because if GW invested a little time in them, mercenary armies could be really cool IMO.


+1 totally agree.

Chainaxe07
03-07-2011, 20:13
VC generals are awesome! Granted, I can't quite remember how amazing they were back in 5th (I just remember them being ridiculously good) but they're still tougher and deadlier than pretty much anything out there barring a Chaos Lord / Doombull / Dragon.

Well, i agree chaos lords and doombulls can outfigth and outlast a vamp by a long shot, just let me add a few more exemples: dwarf lords, saurus lords, all greater demons and ogre tyrants. That's already a pretty large selection, but many more ( like Black orc warlords) are, probably, about the same power level. Of course we are simply comparing characters, but, imh experience, heroes seldom tear each other apart, they usually die by other means. There are zillions more things ( war engines, ranked up units, big critters, spells etc etc) that can take out something with a count profile far too easily, and rather fast too.
That's not very bad per se (the loss of the general alone is rarely a disaster), but, when you pair it with the vc special rules, well, the mix's just mean.

bert n ernie
03-07-2011, 20:14
Don't see nothing about tiers, or even where, when or how in there. So are we talking for a beginner? A vet? A tournament? A campaign? I know people who regularly excel with some of the "worst" armies listed here. I have an aevrage mid tier army (Empire) yet I have one my first game in about 5 years a month ago. So until the criteria is set I can happily say its not the army, its the player because that is more of a definable quantity than a one sentence parameter.

Now vanagandr comes later an asks about tiers, and again its kind of an arbitary question because again the player is paramount. A player with a poor understanding will only win through luck and luck is not a definable quantity. A highly skilled and confident player is likely achieve ahead of the curve in the majority of situations. So again we come down to the player and the context.

Sorry mate, I read the thread slightly out of order, so assumed that Tiers were mentioned earlier.

I think that the player can certainly have a large effect, but I think that it isn't the only effect and roughly equally matched players can be granted advantages based on the army they are using.

On the other hand I've known a Deamon player (in his 20s) who has lost the majority of his games.

superczhunk
03-07-2011, 20:36
I'd say a tie between:

*Beastmen - mainly for the fact that most points costs are too high and I've never met a Beastmen player that said he got his points worth out of most things in the book. I tried them out at a tournament for fun and EVERY opponent said "are you sure that's 2,500 points...or are you missing something?"

*Wood Elves - they need a new play style/revamp to bring them in line with everything else, especially with the new edition's faster movement system. Terrain doesn't slow you down and I've seen a lot of 2nd turn charges...which greatly reduces the killing capacity of missile troops.

*Ogre Kingdoms - yes they are lot better with damage output, but they lack any kind of armor saves/protection. For how they are now, they should be the most brutal hand to hand units, but that goes to WoC and DoC.

Orktavius
03-07-2011, 20:37
As an ogre player I am making a certain hand gesture towards a few posters....see if you can guess which one it is :-/

Dwarves are fine now assuming you don't try and run the classic 7th gunline...that will get trashed. I find that now that charges are 2d6 + M Dwarves can be quite effective as a CC army as well.

That being said, I think due to the limited number of builds and relatively few useful units in their books that Ogres and WE are at the bottom. DoW I don't even consider an army anymore.

edit: Ogres did get a boost with 8th, but we were also left with just a few usable units in the process.

warplock
03-07-2011, 20:41
Well, i agree chaos lords and doombulls can outfigth and outlast a vamp by a long shot, just let me add a few more exemples: dwarf lords, saurus lords, all greater demons and ogre tyrants. That's already a pretty large selection, but many more ( like Black orc warlords) are, probably, about the same power level. Of course we are simply comparing characters, but, imh experience, heroes seldom tear each other apart, they usually die by other means. There are zillions more things ( war engines, ranked up units, big critters, spells etc etc) that can take out something with a count profile far too easily, and rather fast too.
That's not very bad per se (the loss of the general alone is rarely a disaster), but, when you pair it with the vc special rules, well, the mix's just mean.

Yeah I guess you're right. I think they could do with an extra wound (don't Tomb Kings / Princes have an extra wound) and maybe WS 8 or higher I. It's true, I guess T5 2+ 4++ isn't that tough when going up against true combat lords, but I think their unrivaled access to healing pushes them out of the league of Black Orcs and Sauruses. I was thinking more of their offensive capabilities considering they have an extra 100 points to spend.

Lukasz_VT
03-07-2011, 20:59
I love Ogres fluff. I love fat Ogres and most of the model range (not you, yhettis). I'm very glad they have their own book and will get an update soon. What makes them "bad" is the lack of tactical flexibility (only very few units are worth it) and so they can be very "point and click". To each their own I guess.

Maoriboy007
03-07-2011, 21:47
Yeah I guess you're right. I think they could do with an extra wound (don't Tomb Kings / Princes have an extra wound) and maybe WS 8 or higher I. It's true, I guess T5 2+ 4++ isn't that tough when going up against true combat lords, but I think their unrivaled access to healing pushes them out of the league of Black Orcs and Sauruses. I was thinking more of their offensive capabilities considering they have an extra 100 points to spend.Personally I'd be happy if they got rid of the outdated crumbling general rule so I could play combat characters again. I'm not sure if I would say unrivalled access to healing , the life lore is fairly awesome in that respect.
In fact I would be happy if the downgraded vampires to a combat version without magic and a weaker combat wizard type so I could play 2 lords in a standard size (2500) game like everyone else.
While I would disagree that VC characters are weak (yeah an exagerration I agree) I can kind of see where hes coming from. Anything other than a bunker wizard is generally doing your opponant a favour considering the "kill the character FTW" button on his head, and then you are only playing in the magic phase , which is fairly unappealing to me.

WoodElfGeneral
04-07-2011, 05:08
As far as army concept, i hate skaven. Their whole idea is unappealing to me and they are so dirt cheap. Hard to play WE against them IMO which is another reason i dont like them.

Lizardmen are also kinda weird for me concept wise but whatever.

As far as playing, WE and Brets are my bottom rung. I don't count DoW and i think ogres got boosted with the new edition, whereas the skirmish, avoidance, shooty play style of wood elves is obsolete and calvary took a sort of backseat which stinks for calvary based bretonia.

I would say that 8 foot tall fat guys with huge clubs make out pretty well in the new combat phase, with longer charge and new stomp rule, definately a booster.

I don't know much about VC but I've heard they got brought way down as well.

And beastmen got royally screwed up, and its gonna be a while before they get a new book.

So there are actually a lot of armies competeing for bottom rung but i have to say WE and Brets are my top picks.

-WoodElfGeneral

kafrique
04-07-2011, 05:20
High Elves uninteresting? I can see why people would think that of Dwarfs - low movement so not much maneuvering (yes they do have a few tricks to play with in this respect, but still...), very powerful artillery (gunlines are not much fun for the opposing player), no magic. But High Elves have it all - powerful heavy cavalry and relatively cheap cavalry too, flyers, dragons, good magic, good light and heavy (ish) infantry, decent shooting, good combat lords, chariots - low toughness all round so care is needed too. To my mind one of the most satisfying armies to use if used well. But to each their own!

Gameplaywise, I think HE and Dwarfs (once the never-taken half of the Dwarf book are updated and the Book of ***** go away, anyway) are fine. But the posters I quoted were definitely referring to background. And in that aspect, those two armies are as generic as they come. They're, in my mind, just less interesting versions of Tolkien stuff. They just look dull on the table and in art, no matter how beautifully done. They aren't fun to read about. I'm hoping they expand more on the Dwarfs' crazy engineering and the HE's bastardy imperialism so they turn into real, unique races. Eldar manage to not be generic.

Gameplaywise, I'm going to say WoC. They're very powerful, yes, but currently they just don't play interestingly at all. They can blow you apart by magic, or they can charge across the board and hack down almost anything with just their basic core troops. And then throw in a monstrously powerful war machine for giggles. They totally lack any of the flavor that used to make them so cool, IMHO. It's just a game of "can you outmanouever them before they beat you down?", and the most interesting thing that happens is waiting to see if the Hellcanon does something crazy.

Raffazza
04-07-2011, 17:12
Interesting replies...

Not personally sure. Going by UK tournament scene, would say Ogres are probably the worse out there. Couple of people have started getting regular top 10 places with both Brettonians and Wood Elves at major GTs.
Biggest shock was Dwarves doing really well recently. The effective Beastman build (magic spam) is also effective and doing well.

Chainaxe07
04-07-2011, 19:43
Interesting replies...
Biggest shock was Dwarves doing really well recently.

Hi, well, in my experience Dwarves have always been the best (id est: most forgiving to play) army in warhammer, since 1985.
Recent incarnations (say from 4th edition onwards) only enstabilished this trend.
They are though, well armoured, skilled, disciplined and have access to the most outrageous warmachines (runed cannons that never misfire etc etc), the best magic items for characters bar none, an umbreakable unit type and another that can burst from under your opponent's soles.
Heck, i know, i still use to play them from time to time: they simply rock.
Of course they HAVE to go gunline, as this solves their only real handicap (short legs): you dont need to worry about getting to the enemy, he has...or he can just sit there and die, annihilated by cannonbolts, lead shots and arrows. Once (if) they reach you they'll find your stout little fellows (even core troops) far outmatch anything he can throw at you, except chaos troops, black orcs and difficoult to rout big gribblies. Not an easy prospect, no sir.
So, my question is: how can anyone be surprised of dwarves doing well? They are made to.

Commissar Vaughn
04-07-2011, 20:00
I was going to say DOW....untill I realised they were my most successful 8th ed army...

thesheriff
04-07-2011, 21:58
I completely disagree.
I'm a Necron player and I can assure you that necrons in this 40k edition compite a lot worse than any whfb army right now.

You are not worse that wood elves or ogres imo.

Lets put it this way, ive seen competative builds of necorns consistantly win in my local store.

The same gamer used competative ogres and wood elves.

he loses considerably more games.

You have your opinion, and i respectufully disagree with you.

The bearded one
05-07-2011, 01:35
You are not worse that wood elves or ogres imo.

Lets put it this way, ive seen competative builds of necorns consistantly win in my local store.

The same gamer used competative ogres and wood elves.

he loses considerably more games.

What did that competative ogre/wood elf player play with (rough outline of his army) and against? Is this player a better 40K player than fantasy player? Are his opponents in 40K or fantasy better? (after all, if he manages to beat very new players in 40K that's not so strange. If he loses to strong gamers in fantasy, also not so strange)

etc. etc. but personally I'd say low tier armies in 8th can compete reasonably well, at least compared to how low tier armies performed in 7th (-> totally dead in the water).

Balerion
05-07-2011, 07:37
I play both Wood Elves and Necrons, and I'd say they both outdo each other in suck factor, but in different ways.

Necrons are more competitive with the right built, but they are unbelievably boring to play.

Wood Elves have a lower power ceiling, but still have a variety of fun options that can be used.

Deathmaster Snikch
05-07-2011, 08:18
I don't get why everyone thinks Ogre Kingdoms are so bad, they got a lot of boosts from 8th ed, they have a new army book on the way and besides I have had several close run games against the few ogre kingdoms players I know. I think Wood elves are the worst (although I have seen them used effectively).

someone2040
05-07-2011, 08:18
Actually, I don't see why DoW are the worst. They have access to all 8 lores of magic through relatively cheap means. They should, by all rights, have access to the expansive BRB list of common magic items, which helps their otherwise bland characters. They have access to cannons, which now do D6 wounds. The halfling hot pot is now comparable to a stone thrower because it ignores armour saves at the cost of S9 in the centre of the template, and only costs ~50 points. Some troops suffer from being over priced by a point or two, other don't. They have access to stubborn, and in the case of pikes, access to some absolutely crazy fight in multiple ranks rules, which combined with the now numerous augments and hexes should be pretty scary.

I have never played with them, so I could be wrong, but theoretically, they don't seem too bad, as they can function as a normal army.

Edit: I don't want to say that they are the best, just that I'm not writing them off so easily.

I'd also say that 8th has leveled the playing field a great deal. There are now multiple ways to win.
The problem Dogs of War face is how to fill in their core, as well as the fact their special choices are just other armies core choices.
Now, the second one isn't such a bad point. I mean, the core units we nab from other armies are in general already pretty good (Marauders with mark of khorne on a smaller base size, hells yeah. Dwarves with great weapons, another hells yeah).
However, the first point is a big problem. Pikes are garbage given how much they cost, and having to fill up 25% of your core with Xbows, Duellists and Cavalry aint fun.

I would daresay that DoW can still make a semi-competitive build in 8th. But at the end of the day, the parts that make an interesting Dogs of War list (Pikemen, Paymaster, Bodyguard, RoR) are downsides to the list that you try your best to work around to make the list competitive. Which is really sad, as Dogs of War could be a really interested and most varied army if their stuff wasn't 2 editions out of date.

The fact that Dogs of War got a boost on some things, doesn't make up for the fact that the charactful units in the list are still crap (And you can't take min core so easily anymore either).

Deathmaster Snikch
05-07-2011, 08:22
For me personally it would be Dwarves... those are absolutely the most boring games in the world.. any time we get new players out here we smash the idea of them playing dwarves. yerp we are jerks...

We used to have a dwarf player who would concede when you finally hit his lines because his gunline didn't work....

I tried to give them a go and it just wasn't fun at all. I have done a good job so far in avoiding them in 8th but i really want to play them just to try.

Fluffwise... meh lol
:mad: How can you say these things I have dwarfs and find them extremely efective and have one many battles with them, this particular dwarf player you were talking about sounds like a real jerk though.

Raffazza
05-07-2011, 08:34
Hi, well, in my experience Dwarves have always been the best (id est: most forgiving to play) army in warhammer, since 1985.
Recent incarnations (say from 4th edition onwards) only enstabilished this trend.
They are though, well armoured, skilled, disciplined and have access to the most outrageous warmachines (runed cannons that never misfire etc etc), the best magic items for characters bar none, an umbreakable unit type and another that can burst from under your opponent's soles.
Heck, i know, i still use to play them from time to time: they simply rock.
Of course they HAVE to go gunline, as this solves their only real handicap (short legs): you dont need to worry about getting to the enemy, he has...or he can just sit there and die, annihilated by cannonbolts, lead shots and arrows. Once (if) they reach you they'll find your stout little fellows (even core troops) far outmatch anything he can throw at you, except chaos troops, black orcs and difficoult to rout big gribblies. Not an easy prospect, no sir.
So, my question is: how can anyone be surprised of dwarves doing well? They are made to.


Hiya. Don't get me wrong, I like them. They were my first warhammer love.
Not sure where you're based, however in the UK tournament scene a dwarf army doing very well is rare enough that everyone talks about it.
With 8th edition most armies will get to you, even if in the two/three turns of shooting you cause havoc. After that they are expensive single attack models with little armour (the heavily armoured dwarf is a misconception in the age of great weapons).
Now, of course they can win. In fact there isn't an official army in 8th that I have not seen do well at some point or other. Issue with dwarves, like a lot of the older books really, is that they are very match-up dependant.

However I have noticed that internationally they do really well, so must be a local thing.

Chainaxe07
05-07-2011, 09:36
However I have noticed that internationally they do really well, so must be a local thing.

Hi,
i live between la Suisse (i think you English prefer the german "Switzerland") and Italy, but used to work (and live) in Manchester between 2004 and 2009.
Lovely clubs and shops you have there in the UK, though, one personal point:your gamers are far too young!!!!
Just kidding, of course, to each his own.
I agree, however, that some armies, oddly enough, apparently work better (or worse) in some countries. In Italy, for exemple, the VC have been known to perform terribly bad, up to the point of striking collective imagination as a real crap army. In my home country (Suisse) they are considered a mediocre army, at least a cut below most other contemporary releases, as far as row power and effectiveness go. Oddly enough, in the Uk, they used to be pretty popular, especially right after their 7th army book was released (early 2008, unless i am mistaken). So much that some players even complained about them being too powerful. It always striked me as a singular thing, as they never did so well in local (i mean UK) shops i used to visit, roughly losing as many games as they won, yet they were perceived as really strong.

Raffazza
05-07-2011, 09:47
Lol, indeed they are! (Too young that is - unless we are getting old? ;-) Hmmm).

I wonder if anyone has ever looked into it in detail - I noticed it especially with the popularity of Australian podcasts at the end of 7th.
VC is a classic example - especially in 8th edition. In the UK at a large lightly comped event you regularly see them win. A look on the internet forums shows us that in a lot of places they are considered weak (or terrible).
The reverse in the UK (or I guess more accurately in England) is High Elves and Dwarves - sometimes a player will pull off some results and finish respectably, but in general they are considered mid-table armies at best, whereas the consensus in many places seems to rate them very highly.

Fascinating really.

yabbadabba
05-07-2011, 10:35
A slight warning here - don't read too much into tournament rankings in isolation. The best idea of ability comes from playing within your own groups, as this is the area where you are likely to have the most contact time and the most fun. If you only ever play tournaments then of course their rankings do matter, but only as a good guide as opposed to a definitive guide.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-07-2011, 10:47
Completely OT but the "german [term] Switzerland"? :confused: Is that like the French Svizzera? ;)

Sclep
05-07-2011, 10:50
The problem Dogs of War face is how to fill in their core...

Good points. I looked at the cost of making a nice sized unit of pikes; you won't have any problems filling your core there (:wtf: so expensive!)! It simply is not worth it for WS3, S3, T3, which will simply die to too many things (units worth half the price, templates, spells...)

I guess your right, on the whole.

Chainaxe07
05-07-2011, 10:54
Completely OT but the "german [term] Switzerland"? :confused: Is that like the French Svizzera? ;)

No, Svizzera is the Italian word for la Suisse, actually.

AmaroK
05-07-2011, 11:52
I'd say a tie between:

*Beastmen - mainly for the fact that most points costs are too high and I've never met a Beastmen player that said he got his points worth out of most things in the book. I tried them out at a tournament for fun and EVERY opponent said "are you sure that's 2,500 points...or are you missing something?"

*Wood Elves - they need a new play style/revamp to bring them in line with everything else, especially with the new edition's faster movement system. Terrain doesn't slow you down and I've seen a lot of 2nd turn charges...which greatly reduces the killing capacity of missile troops.

*Ogre Kingdoms - yes they are lot better with damage output, but they lack any kind of armor saves/protection. For how they are now, they should be the most brutal hand to hand units, but that goes to WoC and DoC.

Been playing beastmen for a while now, I have to disagree with that statement, at least partially. If you see the new 8th edition books, you can notice that most of the the troops arenīt that overpriced (maybe a little bit) besides the rares. In an edition with longer lasting fights because of steadfast here and there, and boosting coming from magic, the primal fury skill is golden and only when you see it in action you realize how good it is.

What beastmen are lacking is a good own lore and a rearrangement of the rare section. But besides of this, I think the book is in the trend of the new 8th edition army books in power level terms.

yabbadabba
05-07-2011, 12:19
Good points. I looked at the cost of making a nice sized unit of pikes; you won't have any problems filling your core there (:wtf: so expensive!)! It simply is not worth it for WS3, S3, T3, which will simply die to too many things (units worth half the price, templates, spells...)

I guess your right, on the whole. Agreed. This is why DoW are really, really out of date for 8e. Still the whole "WS3, S3, T3," doesn't hurt my empire too much, but there again my basic footslogger is 5pts :D

Lord Solar Plexus
05-07-2011, 14:02
No, Svizzera is the Italian word for la Suisse, actually.

I know that, I was jesting because you wrote that "Switzerland" was German. ;)

Chainaxe07
05-07-2011, 17:46
I know that, I was jesting because you wrote that "Switzerland" was German. ;)

Well, the word derives from the German indeed, from "Schweiz" more precisely.
Could have said Svizra, but so much for linguistic minorities ;)
Back on topic, and just to confirm what Raffazza has been sayin': high elves are indeed considered a hard army to fight against 'round here, especially with the new and improved asf.

T10
05-07-2011, 17:57
what do you guys think the worst warhammer army is and why?? and don't say because their army book hasn't been updated because i don't believe that is a good enough excuse

Ooh! Another traffic-generation thread!

The worst army? The "All Night Goblin army (that happens to be led by an common Goblin Warboss)"...

popisdead
05-07-2011, 18:47
what do you guys think the worst warhammer army is and why?? and don't say because their army book hasn't been updated because i don't believe that is a good enough excuse

1) Dwarf gunlines. The players are boring and have no tactical acumen.

2) Any army played by a poor sport. Otherwise any army should have fun way or theme to play even if not the strongest.

OldMaster
05-07-2011, 19:19
Listen, OP, Vanagandr
You want to play a less competitive army? Play Wood Elves or Ogre Kingdoms.
You want to play a more competitive army? Play Skaven, Deamons or perhaps Warriors (bias talking here).
You want to play the army that fits you best? Go to Amsterdam, get a joint of two, then go the the Games Workshop there and buy the first batallion that asks you to.