PDA

View Full Version : Having trouble getting excited about Forces of Order



NTJ2010
18-08-2011, 08:45
Does anyone one else have trouble currently getting excited about the Forces of Order?

After the Ogre revamp the Forces of Order will have the 5 oldest army books in the game (that are current armies) with Lizardmen being the odd man out.

Also, in terms of magic, while they do have good use of the main book lores (with Empire, High Elfs, and Sla...er Lizardmen) out of the 6 armies only 2 have their own lore (one completely lacks real magic) compared to the 9/9 for non Forces of Order having at least one racial/army lore. (I understand that side wants to keep magic pure and what not though).

*Shrug* I want to work on a new Forces of Order army (just because I like being on that "side" fluff wise and team game wise) but it's hard to get terribly excited when you got armies showing their age, lacking unique aspects like their own magic and what not, and just more of the same...(omitting Lizardmen again, the armies vary but only so much) compared to the other armies which the closest you have is DoC to WoC and TK to VC in my mind.

Just wanting to know if I'm the only one who feels like Forces of Order lack much to really get a spark in my eye or am I one of the thousands feeling this way.


(For Forces of Order I play Dwarfs and Wood Elfs, my Dwarfs I don't do much because I miss playing the magic game when I play them beyond the anvil, although I do enjoy them, and Wood Elfs it's too much work to even be decent until they get a new book I pray) The only redeeming thing I can find is having more lores to choose from (for 3 armies, ALL) and between High Elfs and Empire they can each kind of do it all as far as I'm concerned...now not everything equally...

Astrogothic
18-08-2011, 08:50
Sounds like you're ready to come over to the dark side man.

NTJ2010
18-08-2011, 08:58
Oh I have Orcs and Goblins and Warriors (both of which I use 95% of my games compared to the 5% I use Dwarfs or Wood Elfs) just wanting to get more into the other side just losing inspiration (The armies I've been looking at to work on this school year are Beastmen, VCs, or Lizardmen, each has positives and negatives just looking good for the evil side heh)

warplock
18-08-2011, 09:28
Get Lizardmen, they're the coolest Order army, and they're totally different to the others.

Oglog
18-08-2011, 09:30
Another way of looking at this is: In 4 or 5 years the "forces of order" will have the newest army books while the baddies will have old ones

pippin_nl
18-08-2011, 09:53
Actually I play Empire a lot and although the army changes the least between army books, it changes a lot every edition. Most of the rules on which your army depend are in the main rulebook (magic, war machines). The army plays differently if you choose a different lore for your wizard lord.

High Elves really need magic and really dislike templates. They also completely changed with 8th edition, do much more damage in combat, but have to take a few casualties now.

Brets have the best saves in the game and are the fastest army, life & beast magic (their lores) sucked last edition and are great choices now.

SunTzu
18-08-2011, 09:54
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?

For decades Warhammer has been a subtle and complex world where no faction has been entirely blameless; even the ones that were indisputably anti-Chaos were not at all in favour of each other, their attitudes towards each other ranging from neutral-but-would-happily-sacrifice-them-to-achieve-our-aims-if-we-had-to, to outright antipathy. Now they're arbitrarily lined up as "good guys versus bad guys".

Granted, it's always been easier to imagine a Dwarf/Empire alliance than, say, Orcs and High Elves - so the factions have always had an informal position on the moral compass that places them closer to or further away from the other factions. It just seems to have all been oversimplified to the point where, say, Lizardmen and Dwarfs are assumed to have the same ultimate goals, which is patently untrue.

Rosstifer
18-08-2011, 10:08
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?

For decades Warhammer has been a subtle and complex world where no faction has been entirely blameless; even the ones that were indisputably anti-Chaos were not at all in favour of each other, their attitudes towards each other ranging from neutral-but-would-happily-sacrifice-them-to-achieve-our-aims-if-we-had-to, to outright antipathy. Now they're arbitrarily lined up as "good guys versus bad guys".

Granted, it's always been easier to imagine a Dwarf/Empire alliance than, say, Orcs and High Elves - so the factions have always had an informal position on the moral compass that places them closer to or further away from the other factions. It just seems to have all been oversimplified to the point where, say, Lizardmen and Dwarfs are assumed to have the same ultimate goals, which is patently untrue.

Better than good and evil. There IS a difference.

Algovil
18-08-2011, 10:32
I agree that the Order oriented armies have not got much attention lately. Beastmen, Skaven, O&G, Tomb Kings and now Ogre Kingdoms. Now we have rumours about Dwarfs in 2012, and probably Bretonnia and Wood Elves sometime not that far away, it would not suprise me if they squeezed the Empire in as well, Since they have not had a book for quite some time, and they are a main army just like O&G. And yes, some armies show their age, and need more variety, but still, the Order oriented armies, have rules which represent this in some extent, not crazy stuff, but solid troops, solid warmachines, solid support. While Destruction can have more all or nothing stuff in general, I quite like that contrast. So I think it is more of a question of what you prefer as a gamer. But yes, hopefully we get some good updates with new armybook, I keep my finger crossed that Dwarfs retain some of their unique aspects, runes, no magic etc...

That is a totally other discussion, but IMO, there is no clear distinction between Order/Destruction or Good/Evil.

Many armies and are driven by hatred or just a will to destroy (Kill,Maim,Burn), either everything or a certain archenemy, other are driven by a will to construct, build, develop, flourish. Deamons are pure evil, we can all agree on that ok. Other armies are either driven by (in generalization) hatred vs certain enemies (Dark Elves, Beastmen, and in some extent other armies as well), a will to survive (the Empire, Dwarfs, most armies of course), a lust to fight (O&G, mainly), food, money (Ogre Kingdoms), a higher goal to destroy all evil (High Elves, Lizardmen). Other armies still, are quite difficult to place: Tomb Kings (Will to destroy Nagash and the Vampires, all living? return of the golden age of Nehekhara?), Vampires (Destroy the Khemri Tomb Kings, but mostly selfish goals for individual vampires, they want to live forever), Bretonnia (the peasants are just trying to survive the day, the knights try to use their status as an excuse to live in wealth and power?), Wood elves (not sure, have not read much, live in solitude alone in the forest, without contact with other lesser races?), Skaven(Greed, power, selfish goals, they are animals :D).

For me the most interesting are WoC, tribal humans trying to survive in a harsh world, by whatever means. Not evil per se, but their human weakness causes them to worship power. Therefore they are used by the dark gods to do their bidding.

In general IMHO it can be said that all races are selfish, they see there way as the only way. Of course it is difficult to cooperate with other beings so different. Both High Elves and Lizardmen are driven to destroy all evil. But Lizardmen are genetically programmed by the Old ones, and are animals, they live in solitude. High Elves are too proud to cooperate with lesser (in their opinion) races. Some armies have a lot in common, (Dwarfs, Empire) and cooperate to some extent. Other have a lot in common, (Dark Elves, High Elves) and are sworn enemies. All in all, the Warhammer World is driven by different races with different history, culture and basically watching their way as the only way. With the Gods in the background, using their creations as puppets, and fighting for power and influence. Some Gods can be said to be of Order or of Destruction and the races which follow them can be separated in the same way to some extent.

Pyriel
18-08-2011, 11:13
want to play a force of order that can have variety?...

try High elves.
-their magic definitely doesnt suck.
-they have many Special choices that are good AND different(important, variety wise!) such as Dragon Princes of Kaledor, Swordmasters, Phoenix Guard and can generate different playstyles.

some ideas:
-infantry spam. Shadow Archmage with Book of Hoeth leading an army of spearmen and phoenix guard. 32 spearmen in 4 ranks of 8 can ALL attack... with Okkam's mindrazor, even such a weak-ish unit is damn scary. the army will also be durable as everything will either be horde-ish(spearmen) or have 4+ ward save.

-"dragon prince train". 15 dragon princes led by a BSB with Banner of the World Dragon will mess up any enemy's magic phase. they also have 2+ save, 2 attacks each with lances and always strike first, and are nigh immune to flaming attacks including lore of metal(important for heavy cavalry!). there is even room for an archmage in the list.

-deathstar swordsmen. 35-40 swordmasters buffed by Life Teclis giving them a toughness of 7 with irresistible force. if the enemy does kill some... cast regrowth and watch him cry cheese :o

there are other playstyles too. monsters(a less-WAAC list can include Dragons and use two low-level mages with powerful dispel items such as anulian crystal for magic defense), shooting (via Curse of Arrow Attraction, archers spam as core and 3 repeater bolt throwers-much cheaper than it sounds, can include powerful other elements too), devastating magic (one LvL 4 with book of hoeth and 2 LvL 2's, with lores Shadow, High and Life, respectively).

lots of things you can play. what you need in this edition is "good infantry and good magic" and High Elves have them in spades.

ihavetoomuchminis
18-08-2011, 11:19
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?

For decades Warhammer has been a subtle and complex world where no faction has been entirely blameless; even the ones that were indisputably anti-Chaos were not at all in favour of each other, their attitudes towards each other ranging from neutral-but-would-happily-sacrifice-them-to-achieve-our-aims-if-we-had-to, to outright antipathy. Now they're arbitrarily lined up as "good guys versus bad guys".

Granted, it's always been easier to imagine a Dwarf/Empire alliance than, say, Orcs and High Elves - so the factions have always had an informal position on the moral compass that places them closer to or further away from the other factions. It just seems to have all been oversimplified to the point where, say, Lizardmen and Dwarfs are assumed to have the same ultimate goals, which is patently untrue.

Lately i'm finding myself agreeing with you in many topics. And this is one of those. The Destruction/order thing doesn't belong to warhammer. WH is not LoTR.

Odin
18-08-2011, 11:28
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?

For decades Warhammer has been a subtle and complex world where no faction has been entirely blameless; even the ones that were indisputably anti-Chaos were not at all in favour of each other, their attitudes towards each other ranging from neutral-but-would-happily-sacrifice-them-to-achieve-our-aims-if-we-had-to, to outright antipathy. Now they're arbitrarily lined up as "good guys versus bad guys".

Granted, it's always been easier to imagine a Dwarf/Empire alliance than, say, Orcs and High Elves - so the factions have always had an informal position on the moral compass that places them closer to or further away from the other factions. It just seems to have all been oversimplified to the point where, say, Lizardmen and Dwarfs are assumed to have the same ultimate goals, which is patently untrue.

No, you are definitely not alone.

The "forces of order" thing is just what they've used to try and crowbar the warhammer world into computer games and global campaigns.

Von Wibble
18-08-2011, 11:37
To be fair, ogres and tomb kings are both neutral so can count either way.

warplock
18-08-2011, 11:54
I don't think there's too much wrong with the Order vs Destruction labels. It's not as if they're saying all Order armies have the same goals, and all Destruction armies have the same goals. It's just that each army (except for the neutral ones) can be characterised as tending towards one ideal or the other. Empire will build towns and cities, develop technology, and create a (somewhat) safe environment for its citizens. Beastmen want to rip everything down, destroy society, and live in squalor. Dwarfs generally want to abide by their ancient customs, hoard their wealth, and have a rich artisan tradition. Orcs and Goblins want to take over everything, fight all the time, and kill for fun. The Forces of Destruction are more or less 'united' in their embracement of Chaos - Skaven use Warpstone and summon Daemons, WoC worship the Chaos Gods, Vampire Counts are sustained by dark magic enhanced by Warpstone etc. Forces of Order want, where they can, to eradicate Chaos, or at least avoid it. The races themselves may still have widely differing goals, though.

SunTzu
18-08-2011, 12:13
Since you mention it, let's pick up on one example you give - Vampires are one obvious odd-one-out, aren't they? They also want to build an empire, or even just take over 'the' Empire, not destroy it. In fact not so long ago you could take living and Undead troops in the same Vampire Counts army, representing an army from Sylvania which is itself an Empire province. Yet they're a Force of Destruction because... they're Undead...? But so are Tomb Kings which are neutral. So Vampires are "bad guys" even though some of them, Lahmians and to some extent Von Carsteins (oh, sorry! Bloodlines don't exist any more!), actively work towards strengthening the "good guys". One of many examples of over-simplification IMO.

Sure... if I'm playing a 2v2 game with my mates, and one of them brings along a VC army, we're more likely to pair him up with my WoC than our other mates' Empire and High Elves - fair enough. But that's an informal (and unspoken!) agreement between ourselves as players, to nod in the gesture of the fluff while really suspending it for the purposes of being able to play a game, than any kind of categorisation solidified in the rules and explicit fluff.

Gorbad Ironclaw
18-08-2011, 15:54
I don't think there's too much wrong with the Order vs Destruction labels.

But is there anything good about them? It implies relationships between various nations/races/faiths that are at best simplified and at worst straight up wrong.

The example with Vampires are a good one, but none of the races really like each other that much, and the "Destruction" side will often be directly hostile to each other as the default position. If a Dark Elf raiding party meets a chaos warband they won't join forces and go and attack the local High Elf and Dwarf village. They are going to attack each other.
A better way to categorize relationships in Warhammer would be do you (typically) attack X army on sight or not. In most cases the answer would be yes.

NTJ2010
18-08-2011, 16:35
On the topic of labels since that's where this conversation has gone...

I particularly don't mind the Forces of Order, Forces of Destruction, Neutral labels, it a way to group armies simply.
As for Vampire Counts (since someone mentioned them), I agree they do have aspects that could argue for Forces of Order since they want to start an Empire, but the same argument could be made for Skaven since they have an under "empire". Also I believe the idea is to create labels that help figure out who can ally with who without a giant chart and simplicity (I can picture Empire and High Elfs allying, and Beastmen and a Strigoi (sp) or Von Carstein VC army allying, but I cannot picture Empire and VC without alternate fluff being included). Then they added the Skaven and Dark Elfs are not really trustworthy no matter who you are and gave some rules for that which are fun (I've allied with Skaven before and it's interesting).

The point I'm trying to make I don't think the groupings are necessary, but the alternative would be a large chart like Apocolypse which a. would still be very similar (Maybe Wood Elfs and dwarfs wouldn't ally as much and such), b. When you get charts like takes that much more work to remember who I can ally with (I know who exactly my Orcs and Goblins can ally with with in Fantasy at Trusted level, Desperate and whatever the middle one is called; on the other hand my Chaos Daemons I have some ideas who they can ally with in apocalypse but otherwise it's a little fuzzy when it comes to armies like Dark Eldar and Orks...)

Side note: I understand the chart in 40k is nearly as important since they don't have rules for fleeing through allied units and using the generals leadership and what not, compared to Fantasy allies where what kind of ally you are with someone is driven by fluff but actually affects the game.


Sorry for the long post.

SunTzu
18-08-2011, 17:09
When you get charts like takes that much more work to remember who I can ally with (I know who exactly my Orcs and Goblins can ally with with in Fantasy at Trusted level, Desperate and whatever the middle one is called

Well, since you need to look in the book to remember what the difference levels of alliance are called - and I don't know about you, but I also don't remember what they let you do, eg. can I use my ally's BSB in a Trusted alliance?, so I have to look in the book for that as well - is it really such a hardship to look in the book for a chart to see what the alliance level is?

To spell it out, is there much difference between:

"My Wood Elves and my friend's High Elves are both Forces of Order, so we have a Trusted alliance, which means, erm... hang on let me check the book..."

And:

"Let me check the book: right, this chart says my Wood Elves and my friend's High Elves have a Trusted alliance, which means, erm... hang on let me skip a page..."

Such a chart would also give much finer control. As it stands, Dwarfs (who like cutting down trees to burn them as fuel for their forges, and have a grudge against Elves) and Wood Elves (who like hugging trees and singing songs about fluffy bunny rabbits) are both Forces of Order, therefore form a Trusted alliance. I mean, it's not the end of the world, but doesn't that seem something of an overstatement? Untrusted would be much more appropriate surely?

Commissar Vaughn
18-08-2011, 17:14
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?

You are not alone, but I think its all that remains of the retconned Storm of Chaos...hopefully it'll die off completely soon.

WH factions arent exactly chummy : their relationships reminds me of something I read...someones Sig IIRC: "The enemy of my enemy dies next" . Seems more fitting...

Hochdorf
18-08-2011, 17:44
One thing I find interesting is that humans in WFB are like real life societies in that they have a huge variation in morality within a given civilization. In the Empire, for example, you get all kinds of people, from saints to the vilest sinners. However, other races aren't nearly as nuanced. There's a certain bland sameness to them. All HEs are good. All DEs are bad. We know that HEs can turn bad because that's where DEs came from, but you never hear about an evil HE in Ulthuan now... Why not? Has there not been a single HE who has been a bit of a bad apple since the Sundering? Flip side, all Orcs are pretty much the same. There are no good ones.

I think it all goes back to LotR. There were good an evil human factions (and good and evil humans within factions), but ALL Orcs were evil and ALL Elves were good.

eron12
18-08-2011, 17:53
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?


You are not alone. While I don't think we are going to end up with Alliance vs. Horde the game seems to be moving that way some.

SunTzu
18-08-2011, 17:55
There's something to that, though I think "all" HEs are good is not quite accurate. And certainly, in times past, it was much less clear-cut - I remember one story with Sam Warble the Halfling, who was investigating a High Elf who kidnapped human girls with excellent singing voices - not the action of someone "purely good" no matter how you look at it.

But overall I think you have a point. The DEs arose (in part) from the pleasure cults and the worship of the darker gods in the Elven pantheon... you get human cults to Slaanesh in the Empire, but no longer ever get pleasure cults in Ulthuan. One has to wonder why.

For "bad/evil/destructive" forces it's a bit easier to understand. You don't get friendly Orcs just like you don't get friendly sharks, it's just not in their nature. As for Dark Elves, well, being brought up in a culture where cruelty is commonplace will inevitably colour your perception of the world - I don't suppose there were many Romans inclined towards campaigning for human rights and freeing slaves, even if they weren't all bloodthirsty psycopathic sadistic maniacs, so Dark Elves being similar seems OK to me.

Philosophically interesting though... :) And it's clear why, as well; elves and other non-human fantasy races are already alien to the human mind to a greater or lesser degree... there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple.

eron12
18-08-2011, 18:01
But overall I think you have a point. The DEs arose (in part) from the pleasure cults and the worship of the darker gods in the Elven pantheon... you get human cults to Slaanesh in the Empire, but no longer ever get pleasure cults in Ulthuan. One has to wonder why.

Because Swordmasters hunt them down in the middle of the night and end them with an overdose of cold steel.

eron12
18-08-2011, 18:04
I think it all goes back to LotR. There were good an evil human factions (and good and evil humans within factions), but ALL Orcs were evil and ALL Elves were good.

This is far from the truth. Tolkien always wrestled with the all orcs are evil aspect,* but there are certianly plenty of evil elves in his works.


* I think the best he ended up with is that while all the orcs we see are evil, that doesn't mean all orcs are evil.

Hochdorf
18-08-2011, 18:11
SunTzu: All good points. Ultimately, I do think it's about simplicity. It also changes with editions. When Bretonnians first got their army book, for example, they were overwhelmingly good. A bunch of do-gooder knight-in-shining armour types ridng around rescuing damsels and smiting evil. Now the society is much more interesting and much more like an actual medieval society because they've (re-)introduced the elements of oppression and social injustice. There's more focus on the lot of the poor old peasants... Whereas in the mid-90s it was all just OMG GRAIL KNIGHTS AWESOME!

Definitely the more alien races get treated with less variety and nuance than the humans. Do lizardmen even have personalities? They all seem the same. Which is why I find them very uninteresting in terms of background. They can basically be summed up by the formula: Aztecs+dinosaurs. The thing I love most about the WFB is the Empire... All the variations between the provinces, the weird characters lurking in the shadows, the different political and religious factions, the moral ambiguity, the dynamic between them being the defenders of human kind but also rather oppressive and intoleran (to say the least!). Every elector count is an interesting character. Every soldier has a background. Whereas I can't think of a single Lizardman character (few that there are) who has ever interested me in the slightest.

I will give them credit for the Skaven though. They are a very interesting race with a lot of character (and a lot of very interesting characters). Thanquol is the man (rat?).

eron12: I disagree. I don't think there's any hint in the LotR that there are non-evil Orcs out there. Every Orc in the book is a caricature of brutish evil. It's true Elves have more variation if you get into the background of the Silmarillion. But they are portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light in the LotR. (Less so in the Hobbit of course... Which is why I find the Mirkwood Elves more interesting.)

eron12
18-08-2011, 18:37
eron12: I disagree. I don't think there's any hint in the LotR that there are non-evil Orcs out there. Every Orc in the book is a caricature of brutish evil.

First off, trying to seperate LotR out of Tolkien's work is like looking at one Warhammer novel and ignoring the rest of the setting. I agree there are no non-evil orcs presented in the LotR. However, that doesn't mean it is logical to presume that every orc must be evil, and Tolkien understood that. Furthermore I wouldn't say every orc is a caricature of brutish evil. The two orc captains at the end of the Two Towers, while clearly not good, are not simply overrepresentations of brutes.



It's true Elves have more variation if you get into the background of the Silmarillion. But they are portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light in the LotR. (Less so in the Hobbit of course... Which is why I find the Mirkwood Elves more interesting.)

Well some of the Hobbit's ambiguity is referenced in the LotR. Also Galadriel is very upfront about her potential to turn evil. And if you want to stretch things, since orcs originated as elves, they can serve as evil elves and elves can serve as good orcs.

Hochdorf
18-08-2011, 19:39
Except that there are no non-evil Orcs anywhere in the "setting". LotR is not unique in that sense.

There are slight variations among the Elves, but these are VERY slight compared to humans. There are human armies fighting for and against Sauron. There are no Elves fighting for him. There are morally ambiguous and highly conflicted human characters such as Boromir and Denethor. There are really no equivalents amongst the Elven characters. The bearers of the nine human rings are corrupted by Sauron. Not so the keepers of the three Elven rings. Even in the narrow context of the royal court of Rohan there are both good and evil humans at work. There's no Elven Worm-Tongue in Loth Lorien or Rivendell.

There's nothing even close to the complexity, moral variety, and ambiguity of the LotR's human characters to be found among its Elves, Orcs, or Dwarves for that matter.

But I agree about the two Orcs at the end of Two Towers. They were always two of my favourite characters in the book... still evil though!

eron12
18-08-2011, 19:57
There are slight variations among the Elves, but these are VERY slight compared to humans. There are human armies fighting for and against Sauron. There are no Elves fighting for him.

It is true that elves don't fight for Sauron, but they have worked with him in the past.



There are morally ambiguous and highly conflicted human characters such as Boromir and Denethor. There are really no equivalents amongst the Elven characters.

Feanor, Celegorm, Curufin, Eol, are at least as morally ambiguous and conflicted as Boromir and Denethor. Maeglin lacks the ambiguity and just embraces the evil.


The bearers of the nine human rings are corrupted by Sauron. Not so the keepers of the three Elven rings.

That's because the bearers refused to use the rings, or even wear them, while Sauron had his ring. Otherwise they would have fallen just like the humans.


Even in the narrow context of the royal court of Rohan there are both good and evil humans at work. There's no Elven Worm-Tongue in Loth Lorien or Rivendell.

That is true. I won't disagree that there are more good elves than good humans. But, not all elves are good.


There's nothing even close to the complexity, moral variety, and ambiguity of the LotR's human characters to be found among its Elves, Orcs, or Dwarves for that matter.

I would agree within the confines of LotRs, however there are far more human charactes than of other races.


But I agree about the two Orcs at the end of Two Towers. They were always two of my favourite characters in the book... still evil though!

Oh I agree about the evil, but they were acutal characters, not just caracatures.

Voss
18-08-2011, 20:58
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?


Nope. Its a convenienet shorthand for the short attention span theatre, but it doesn't add anything to the game.
There aren't so many armies that these clunky groupings are at all necessary.

The Low King
18-08-2011, 21:09
correct me if im wrong here but didnt the original 'high' elves arrive in middle earth having sworn an oath of greed, ignored their gods, murdered many of their own kin and stolen their ships? then when they finally recovered the Silmirils (spelling?) again murdering their own kin before commiting suicide after the jewls burnt them due to their evil deeds?

I also believe there are references to elves serving both Sauron and his master (cant remember his name) both of whome were supposedly 'good' godlike beings (i believe).

The dwarfs and elves were also both guilty of massacering eachother over the Silmirils.

I guess it depends on what you define as evil. We recognise the human traits of weakness and betrayal in the human characters yet the lords of other races equally display their greed, arrogance and corruptable nature. Many of the 'evil' men in LOTR serve Sauron out of fear and hatred of the arrogance of the 'good' men....

NTJ2010
18-08-2011, 22:10
Well, since you need to look in the book to remember what the difference levels of alliance are called - and I don't know about you, but I also don't remember what they let you do, eg. can I use my ally's BSB in a Trusted alliance?, so I have to look in the book for that as well - is it really such a hardship to look in the book for a chart to see what the alliance level is?

To spell it out, is there much difference between:

"My Wood Elves and my friend's High Elves are both Forces of Order, so we have a Trusted alliance, which means, erm... hang on let me check the book..."

And:

"Let me check the book: right, this chart says my Wood Elves and my friend's High Elves have a Trusted alliance, which means, erm... hang on let me skip a page..."

Such a chart would also give much finer control. As it stands, Dwarfs (who like cutting down trees to burn them as fuel for their forges, and have a grudge against Elves) and Wood Elves (who like hugging trees and singing songs about fluffy bunny rabbits) are both Forces of Order, therefore form a Trusted alliance. I mean, it's not the end of the world, but doesn't that seem something of an overstatement? Untrusted would be much more appropriate surely?

Okay fair enough on that (I'll admit when we play team games we usually just leave the book open on the page, the easy part is with the lowest alliance almost nothing is shared, simply enough, and for trusted almost everything is...but not an exact science)

So I'll admit a chart probably would be better (I guess you could use the one from Legendary Battles...that success of a project...)

CrystalSphere
18-08-2011, 22:51
It is only marginally better than forces of creation vs forces of disorder :p

NTJ2010
18-08-2011, 23:40
They could have possibly done something with views on magic (except dwarfs) as the 8 lores, Athel Loren and High magic are generally considered to be more "pure" than Dark Magic, Ruin, Vampires...and it still might leave Ogres and Tomb Kings in the middle (I know general aspects of their fluff but not enough to know how "pure" their magic is)

AlphariusOmegon20
19-08-2011, 00:19
High Elves really need magic and really dislike templates. They also completely changed with 8th edition, do much more damage in combat, but have to take a few casualties now.



no, they really don't, considering they have ASF for every unit INCLUDING great weapons, which goes against the basic rules of ASF and GW.

High Elves: the new "7th Ed. Daemons" army of 8th Ed. :mad:

NTJ2010
19-08-2011, 01:17
no, they really don't, considering they have ASF for every unit INCLUDING great weapons, which goes against the basic rules of ASF and GW.

High Elves: the new "7th Ed. Daemons" army of 8th Ed. :mad:

I wouldn't say that at all. I'm fairly tolerant of armies having their "hay day" or whatever when they are on top for a few months (the standard army not just a small 1-2 combo that cheesey players use) but Daemons, even reasonable lists, were overpowered last edition.
High Elfs I feel are upper middle. They aren't broke at all (as far as I'm concerned) but not bad.

The ASF is nice but last edition I'd say it was better (I'd rather kill enough guys to not get hit back than to just kill a few more guys who will be replaced). Plus that ASF is "included" in their point cost.

eron12
19-08-2011, 03:29
no, they really don't, considering they have ASF for every unit INCLUDING great weapons, which goes against the basic rules of ASF and GW.

High Elves: the new "7th Ed. Daemons" army of 8th Ed. :mad:

With step up striking first means far less. HEs will hit first, and then they will take heavy damage back.

Feefait
19-08-2011, 13:18
Am I alone in distate for the phrases "forces of order" and "forces of destruction"?

For decades Warhammer has been a subtle and complex world where no faction has been entirely blameless; even the ones that were indisputably anti-Chaos were not at all in favour of each other, their attitudes towards each other ranging from neutral-but-would-happily-sacrifice-them-to-achieve-our-aims-if-we-had-to, to outright antipathy. Now they're arbitrarily lined up as "good guys versus bad guys".

Granted, it's always been easier to imagine a Dwarf/Empire alliance than, say, Orcs and High Elves - so the factions have always had an informal position on the moral compass that places them closer to or further away from the other factions. It just seems to have all been oversimplified to the point where, say, Lizardmen and Dwarfs are assumed to have the same ultimate goals, which is patently untrue.

Umm, I disagree with this totally. Warhammer has always been clear about it's evil. Granted, very little of the world is totally good - and they seem to want to blur that even more lately because being evil is so durn cool...still Chaos was and is bad. Dark elves, skaven, undead have all also been for the destruction and domination of all that is good.

I would like to see them to better at staggering releases between the good and bad armies. It seems to be very heavily weighing things down. from a sales perspective the bad guys may look cooler and sell more, but what this means is, like has been pointed out, in a year or two we will see all good armies coming out. Financially it would seem best to switch it up too.

kafrique
19-08-2011, 14:13
no, they really don't, considering they have ASF for every unit INCLUDING great weapons, which goes against the basic rules of ASF and GW.

High Elves: the new "7th Ed. Daemons" army of 8th Ed. :mad:


T3, 5+ save guys that are as expensive as chaos warriors, as good as 7th ed daemons? I think you might not be so great at this game, mate.

As for the current discussion, the rulebook even says that the categories are simplified and that neither side necessarily likes the other factions in its grouping. I honestly think Good and Evil would be better labels than Order and Destruction, I wouldn't categorize DE or the von Carsteins as necessarily pro-destruction. I know, I know, Warhammer is a "shades of grey" universe, but fact is the world is divided into two sets of factions: ones who are generally content living alongside eachother as long as they get their way (fe, dwarfs and elves don't like eachother at all, but as long as dwarfs stay in their holds, elves stay on their island and in their forest, they're content coexisting.), and a set of factions who are hellbent on eradicating the others. (fe, Dark Elves actively want to conquer and enslave the rest of the races, Orcs won't stop fighting until everyone is dead, VC intend to conquer the planet for themselves.) It's been this way since the beginning. Warhammer is better than a lot of settings at making both sides relatable and sympathetic, but still, at the end of the day the bad stuff the Empire or the High Elves do, whatever it is, can never match the absolute barbarity which pervades the entire civilizations of factions like DE or Chaos. Dark Elves, in particular, are almost caricatures of evil. They worship the God of Murder, for christ's sake. They slaughter babies and civilians as a matter of course. It's impossible to participate in Dark Elf society and *not* be considered evil, unless you're going to argue that murder and slavery are not evil but simply different points of view.

It's the same as in 40k, really, but in 40k it's easier to explain due to the fewer factions. Yes, the Imperium and Tau are horrific regimes that makes Nazi Germany look well-adjusted. Yes, the Eldar are callous murderers who will destroy other races to save one Craftworld. But compared to the other guys, who range in evilness from "we kill for fun" to "we intend to destroy all life, everywhere", they actually look like a pretty good option.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 18:25
@kafrique: play with ETC rules and what you say is true, about high elves being toughness 3 5+ save.

play with everything allowed and Teclis and his Book of Hoeth will guide

a horde of swordmasters with toughness 7
(h*ly crap...)

in your ranks, and their dozens of str 5 attacks with rerolls will wipe out your army.

to realise what such a thing can do... a friend once bilt a deathstar unit of 40 chosen plus characters(about 1400 pts). we played 10 proxy battles. in 7 of them, the chosen were killed in the first turn. in 1, they were killed later. only 2 did they win.

kill some, and he grows them back(wtf...) and there's no dispelling the thing. not the +4 toughness, not the regrowth, not even the occasional dwellers below, nothing. in fact, no casting spells either, for teclis, with the lame excuse of being 7th-ed-designed, has 4 all-powerful arcane items(wtf...), two of which majorly hurt your magic phase.

if he plays without teclis, he can get book of hoeth and some small mages as bases for annulian crystal and sigil of assurian, to again mess up your whole magic phase and grant toughness-7 and regrowth on the swordmasters horde with irresistible force.

to realise how obscenely powerful and broken this combo is: the teclis+swordmasters comboer is my best friend, and i never pay with him anymore, nor do any of the rest of the gaming group.
luckily, thats not allowed in most tournaments(who would allow it?...) and a no-go in many gaming groups.

kafrique
19-08-2011, 18:58
Yes, HE have one broken character and one broken item. (Though the book without Teclis is at least quite fightable, since it means you can't take any other items, like ward saves, on your no armor T3 character.)

Now compare that to 7th ed daemons, where almost every character was overpowered and you had to actively try to make a fair, non-broken army. A Daemon army in 7th could be built by a random number generator and still wipe the floor with 3/4 of the armies.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 19:16
@kafrique:
yes, you cant buy wards, only 4+regen on his unit and/or make him toughness 7, and/or use one of your "dispel-oriented arcane item platform" minor mages as shadow to switch positions. its not easy to kill such a character. but i see that you're right in that when fighting daemons, you knew you were in huge trouble. when fighting elves, you ask "is the guy a douche WAAC guy? or a TRULY competitive guy(=wants to win immensely, but wants to win by his choices, not single broken combo)? if the latter, you are not screwed, while with daemons it was sure.

eron12
19-08-2011, 20:11
a horde of swordmasters with toughness 7
(h*ly crap...)

in your ranks, and their dozens of str 5 attacks with rerolls will wipe out your army.

to realise what such a thing can do... a friend once bilt a deathstar unit of 40 chosen plus characters(about 1400 pts). we played 10 proxy battles. in 7 of them, the chosen were killed in the first turn. in 1, they were killed later. only 2 did they win.

Do you mean killed is in defeated, or killed as in to a man?A horde of Swordmasters should only get 41 attacks. That is truely amazing luck for 41 attacks to result in 40 kills.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 20:30
defeated by resolution/hunting-down. an no, 41 str 5 attacks by toughness-7 soldiers is no mystery why they win ;)

the fact they can get magical items banner of swiftness and amulet of light in the unit realy hurts too . they are nasty, but when they are toughness 7 and movement 6... and cant be stopped by ethereals...

Von Wibble
19-08-2011, 20:46
no, they really don't, considering they have ASF for every unit INCLUDING great weapons, which goes against the basic rules of ASF and GW.

High Elves: the new "7th Ed. Daemons" army of 8th Ed. :mad:

Not true at all. High elves get to strike first and kill some models, then the enemy kills nearly as many of you back thanks to stepping up and your T3. He then holds due to steadfast, and in a couople of rounds time you run out of men due to having smaller units with those high points costs.

ASF only has an effect if you like MSU tactics, and small units of ogres, minotaurs and the like. It is not that good against impact hits and large units.

With low to mid magic, high elves are one of the weakest armies in the game. With magic they are middle tier (assuming no special characters and book of hoeth not used). With book of hoeth or teclis they are upper middle.

As an aside, no army is as overpowered as daemons were last edition, the closest things imo would be skaven and lizardmen.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 20:51
...with book of hoeth/teclis they are top-tier. dont kid yourself, "book of hoeth and flesh to stone/regrowth on offense-oriented supposedly glass cannon specials" is a broken combo.

and ASF does have a huge effect because taking 20-25% magic and 40%-50% in specials means 2 units of 30+ special infantry models, and HE specials are all very good. i AGREE on low-magic and no-book assessment though (either low tiered with low magic or mid-tiered with no-book good magic)

Jack of Blades
19-08-2011, 23:23
Swordmasters are probably the worst infantry unit that HE can horde. Drop like flies, two attacks are useless in supporting ranks, cost a lot more than Spearmen and just like Spearmen are at their peak when buffed. I see no reason why you'd horde SMs instead of Spearmen, especially as the latter also fills out your Core requirement :)

Yes a horde of SMs will butcher your unit if you frontally charge it but that's not all there is to the horde. Especially not if you've got plenty of mooks to take the blows and still strike back at his expensive, frail bodies - then you don't even need to flank charge him.

Pyriel
19-08-2011, 23:52
why do ppl insist that the Uber variant(Life teclis with horde swordmasters) is fragile?... the swordmasters have toughness 7 and regrowth. perma.undispellable.not with dispel dice. not with dispel scroll.toughness 7 with regrowth. strike back all you want; you're not killing nearly anything , hence you will flee.

we have all agreed that the "without Life teclis" version is mid-low tier and plays/should play differently, why we spam white lions/phoenix guard/other choices instead. stop repeating it.


all that said. what about spearelves? what makes you think that , buffed with ANYTHING other than okkam's mindrazor(which, without BoH/teclis, will always be getting dispelled), they will kill anything? these guys suck. 30-50 attacks at...str 3?... wow... OK, that should kill 5-10 models... now what do i do when the other guy kills 20-25 of them when he strikes back?hope for a double 1 on my morale test?

eron12
20-08-2011, 01:38
why do ppl insist that the Uber variant(Life teclis with horde swordmasters) is fragile?... the swordmasters have toughness 7 and regrowth. perma.undispellable.not with dispel dice. not with dispel scroll.toughness 7 with regrowth. strike back all you want; you're not killing nearly anything , hence you will flee.

we have all agreed that the "without Life teclis" version is mid-low tier and plays/should play differently, why we spam white lions/phoenix guard/other choices instead. stop repeating it.


all that said. what about spearelves? what makes you think that , buffed with ANYTHING other than okkam's mindrazor(which, without BoH/teclis, will always be getting dispelled), they will kill anything? these guys suck. 30-50 attacks at...str 3?... wow... OK, that should kill 5-10 models... now what do i do when the other guy kills 20-25 of them when he strikes back?hope for a double 1 on my morale test?


You're a person of extremes, aren't you? If Tecis is taken every spell will always go off an you will seemingly always have enough powerdice to get the spells you need off. But if you don't him it you will never get Okkam's Mindrazor off.

I think the game has a litle mroe flexibilty than you give it credit for. Warhammer isn't constantly one thing or the other.

Pyriel
20-08-2011, 01:48
well, granted in a teclis list one has the normal 2d6 plus 2d3 dice, i'll say he can gather lots.
and teclis will always cast 1-2 spells per turn- throne of vines, (and only recast it if you dispel it) and flesh to stone. maybe, maybe 1-2 times per game a dwellers below. 2d6+2d3(teclis+sorcery banner) are enough dice for that, granted IF on doubles.

so yes, EVERY one of these so few spells will always go off. the guy introducing me to HE is the same guy nobody plays with for that reason, and the reason why i try to nearly never take teclis or book of hoeth.

and okkam's mindrazor was an example as the only way to make spearmen kill anything, assuming an average enemy toughness 4 and save.

good chance i am saying this because i play nearly exclusively vs Chaos Warriors, Brettonians and Vampire Counts, of course, since fantasy is only months old in the playgroup and lizardmen player just started, and o skaven/orcs player etc. but for me it always seemed like 50 spermen could never kill more than 15-20 guys the whole game, and were superbly lucky if they managed that.

Gliderrider
20-08-2011, 02:03
Firstly, Id like to give the OP my thoughts on Wood elves being ambivolent, think ents in LOTR, Fook with the Forest and your getting a can of hurt coming down on you, leave the forest alone, and we'll leave you alone.

Anyway, that aside I play HE with Life & High magic, seems a pretty sweet combination. I dont feel they are sufering being an older book than Orks or Skaven, its down to ballance. OK, always strikes first, with most specials having great weapons, and/or 2 attacks is pretty sweet, but next time I play I might come up against a player using something I cant hurt, for example etherial.

At the moment some armies suffer for not being as new as others, so learn to play around the weekness, in a year or so you will have a brand new army book, and the players that are nerfing you now will complain that you are coverered in cheese and that you are un beatable with their "Old" book.

Pyriel
20-08-2011, 02:07
dont worry about etherial. get amulet of light on swordmasters/white lions so that their attacks count as magical. presto.

NTJ2010
20-08-2011, 06:03
Here's the problem with the Glass cannons+Lore of Life+Book of Hoeth/Teclis...

With the book of Hoeth by itself you don't have the ability (like +D3 PD like Teclis has) to reliably add more dice so if you spend a lot of dice on Throne of Vines then you don't have much for anything else (and you can't get doubles all the time without throwing a lot of dice). Meaning you'll only get a few dice for spells and again without doubles those spells will be shot down fast.
With Teclis you mitigate most of those problems with the +D3 dice and what not, but you gain a T6 main caster who will be in one of 3 spots.
1. In the unit you are trying to keep buffed and fighting, in which case every attack they have will target him, even if he's T6. That's a great way to get him killed since he's a model with a bulls eye so big on his head there isn't a face to be seen.
2. In a seperate bunker unit then, even behind the main lines, they will send their fliers or whatever fast units they have back there to get him if they can and most likely then he won't have a ton of defenses like flesh to stone and with T2 even wimpy models can get him down without a ton of effort.
3. By himself....yeah he will get targeted by whatever the opponent has that can hurt him (cannons, basic missile fire, eagles, bats...you get it). This won't happen unless the terrain really sets up nice ways to hide him (or the opponent has nothing that can hurt him out there).

I'm not saying that strategy is bad, heck is a darn fine strategy, one of the better ones; I'm just saying that it's one of those things that can be countered without tailoring a list. Last edition daemons, if you have two average players playing standard (non ard boyz) armies one playing daemons one playing pretty much anything else, everyone knows who to bet on.

I'll admit Teclis is good but he's far from an I win button.