PDA

View Full Version : Which army has the best generals?



Feefait
18-07-2012, 01:17
So there is a fair amount of discussion on army power levels, broken units and overpowered army books. I think a fair amount of the criticism that gets leveled at army books and over powered armies is that these armies may naturally collect some of the better generals. It may just be a chicken and egg thing, but I am curious to know what everyone else thinks as far as which armies have the best generals.

So thinking on your local games, your history with warhammer, what you read on here or see in the world at large - which armies have the best generals?

Bring_Back_Chaos_Dwarfs?
18-07-2012, 01:28
Dark elves perhaps? Dread lord with the pendant of kaelith

Ultimate Life Form
18-07-2012, 01:30
Well, Lizardmen have the Slann - and he's a Ld9 cold-blooded menace, not to mention the undisputed master of magic and possible suspect of being the only BSB General in the game who can also safely park in the back row of his Temple Guard. Can't get any more awesome than that if you ask me.

Durpp
18-07-2012, 01:34
In my experience, Daemons, Warriors of Chaos and Vampire Counts have had some very powerful lords. All three armies are capable of creating meat-cleaving monsters (sometimes literally) or spell-slinging seers, and in some cases both!

I would put Ogres up here, but I have seen a tyrant get his glutinous behind handed to himself on a silver platter too many times, they just get outclassed by the other armies generals. Doombulls are also up there with heavy hitters, but are passed up in my opinion.

Ultimate Life Form
18-07-2012, 01:38
I would put Ogres up here, but I have seen a tyrant get his glutinous behind handed to himself on a silver platter too many times

Oh yeah, I still remember cutting him down effortlessly with my Blade of Realities. Good times... :shifty:

brother_maynard
18-07-2012, 02:23
So there is a fair amount of discussion on army power levels, broken units and overpowered army books. I think a fair amount of the criticism that gets leveled at army books and over powered armies is that these armies may naturally collect some of the better generals

i would tend to agree with you on this point, the best players in the area play vampires, daemons, ogres, skaven, and lizards, so there is a definite gravitation of better players toward the power books around here (NE US).

Ultimate Life Form
18-07-2012, 02:44
i would tend to agree with you on this point, the best players in the area play vampires, daemons, ogres, skaven, and lizards, so there is a definite gravitation of better players toward the power books around here (NE US).

Well, I have been playing most of these armies forever (aka before they were good). Does this make me one of the better players? :D

Why
18-07-2012, 03:10
Do you mean model general or player general. The difference is very important.

Model wise lizardmen slann.

Player wise any one who uses a weak army and wins often is usually a better general than someone who uses a stronger army and wins almost all the time.

Feefait
18-07-2012, 03:11
Yea let me clarify. I want to know which army has the best players (generals) not general unit. Sorry, my bad on that. Which players are the cream of the crop?

Urgat
18-07-2012, 03:19
Goblins, obviously. Anybody else are just happy campers who can't do anything w/o good statlines all over their armybooks. Peh!

Doommasters
18-07-2012, 03:24
Wood Elf Generals ;)

EDIT: Wrote that whole post then realised you meant the player not the army books................

Best is a very subjective term indeed.

However I am going to have to say Vampire Counts have the 'best' generals and here is why. Vampire Lords do what a number of other combat lords fail to acheive and that is the ability to have a signifcant contribution during the close combat phase. A SGK or Vampire Lord can easily kill 10 rank and file models a turn which has a huge impact on CR, they also provide leadership 10 and just give you that feeling that you made the right decison by brining one along. Vampire Lords can also be customised to combat monsters, power mages or a mix of both you can also bring along a necromancer lord for cheap that can act as your general while also fitting in a SGK.

Another ineresting example is Lizardmen of whom I actually don't think have very good generals due to poor internal balance. The Slann has great ld, is one the best casters on the game and can be the bsb......wow that is fantastic and you can't get any better than that. However you then have the Old Blood who is no slouch in combat but brings nothing special to the table when compared with the Slann. Yes can give him a riden monster to make him a killing machine but even then he simply is not as impactful as the Slann nor can you realistically fit both in an army.

SO what makes the best generals IMO

1) Need to have internal balance between all general options in the same book. They don't have to do the same thing but their potential impact on the game should be of equal size for what you pay.
2) If you can't have option one being able to take both in a 2500 pt game is another way to do it (think SGK and Necromancer Lord or vampire lord caster/combat killer)
3) Efficient for their points, the General is often the most personal character/unit in the game and thuse often brings the most joy. You put a huge amount of time into thinking about their equipment and abilities so in theory they should be once of the more cost efficient units on the battlefield (Marketing Hat is on). This is one of the reasons why the Deamon Prince in theory is a great general but on paper is rubbish and never gets used.
4) Good generals should influence the units around them especially combat generals, we don't see much of this in Warhammer but the greatest generals can inspire their troops to achieve amazing feats.
5) Have a clear purpose and fill a gap within the army. SGK = Kill most things in close combat and provides much needed killing power for low stat units, Brettonian Lord = Reliable HKB to take down large monsters etc. They don't have to only have one purpose but having a real purpose is important.

Overall I think GW has performed poorly in terms of how they manage and develop characters but it is no easy task either. Ogres really don't need the Tyrant now as the SM is just so good.........this is where some serious thinking needs to happen and so far VC provides a good model for armies that have expensive high end characters. It gets a little easier for armies whos charcters don't pack as bigger punch because they generally have more points to play around with......taking a lvl4 and combat lord still leaves you with points to spare etc.

Snake1311
18-07-2012, 07:40
Overall I think GW has performed poorly in terms of how they manage and develop characters but it is no easy task either. Ogres really don't need the Tyrant now as the SM is just so good.........this is where some serious thinking needs to happen and so far VC provides a good model for armies that have expensive high end characters. It gets a little easier for armies whos charcters don't pack as bigger punch because they generally have more points to play around with......taking a lvl4 and combat lord still leaves you with points to spare etc.

The arguement "Army X doesn't need combat lord Y" is because they derped on the banner of discipline and refuse to FAQ it properly. Otherwise, considering how ogres are vulnerable to panic as is, we will see how they fare with everything capped at Ld 8. Its actually got nothing to do with army book internal balance.

Doommasters
18-07-2012, 08:13
The arguement "Army X doesn't need combat lord Y" is because they derped on the banner of discipline and refuse to FAQ it properly. Otherwise, considering how ogres are vulnerable to panic as is, we will see how they fare with everything capped at Ld 8. Its actually got nothing to do with army book internal balance.

Fair point but the book was written with the banner being in existence;maybe the reason there is no faq is because GW think it is working as intended? If the banner was not available a Tyrant would have a bigger benefit you are right, in saying that there is still plenty of opportunity for innovation in terms of combat generals influence on the battlefield. I just happen to think they got the balance spot on with VC and the different combinations available for your general.

As I have pointed out it is not all about having X over Y but sometimes it is required when X and Y cost a large amount of points. Nothing wrong with X and Y or XX or YY. There just needs to be a balance internally for the points you pay for each option........why should a chaos sorcerer be far more competitive for the points than a combat lord in 90% of the time, if you can only have one I want them to be of equal value to me just in different ways (not an un-reasonable request?). Just like you shouldn't feel penalized for taking an Old Blood over a Slann.....not power gaming but the disparity between the two is very large and everyone bar the blind can see that (Old Blood is still fluffy and fun to play with just poorly balanced versus the other main general option).

Snake1311
18-07-2012, 09:19
Well, I don't have insight into GW's internal processes, but I sincerely doubt anyone thinks the discipline banner is working as intended :) if nothing else, if that was the intention for its benefits, it would cost a lot more.

I think VC aren't a particularly good example of lord design to build on, because they don't account for about half the reason standard armies have for taking a lord - namely, the Ld boost - which is a primary consideration. The secondary considerations of taking a lord over a hero are combat potential (driven by synnergies between the extra allowance and stat boosts) and options which the hero has no access to (e.g. a dragon mount).

In VC's case, the ld consideration is non-existant, and the extra options are negligable; point 2 however is very prominent. This can't really be used as a matrix for other books, because VC have always had a different relationship between troops and characters than the standard.

With OK for contrast, the leadership consideration goes down the toilet due to the banner, the extra combat potential is kinda meh since hero-level characters are already better than most lords AND the caster can take armour and play the tank role, and there are no combat lord specific extra options to speak of.
So, whats killing ogre tyrants is a) the ld banner, and b) Slaughtermasters having armour access.

Derp a) will probably never get fixed, because GW are stubborn like that. It doesn't mean however, that every armybook combat lord should be written in mind with that one stupid magic item.
Derp b) is book specific and can be avoided in the future.

Darkminion
18-07-2012, 10:18
With OK for contrast, the leadership consideration goes down the toilet due to the banner, the extra combat potential is kinda meh since hero-level characters are already better than most lords AND the caster can take armour and play the tank role, and there are no combat lord specific extra options to speak of.
So, whats killing ogre tyrants is a) the ld banner, and b) Slaughtermasters having armour access.

Not really in my opinion. Allthough I agree on the LD banner part, overall Ogre players do not really care for the armour option for the Slaughtermaster. What makes a Slaughtermaster a better General and makes Tyrants eat dust on the shelf are:

Good enough LD (with banner)
Tough enough in combat (T5, 5 wounds, Fencers blades, etc)
Can heal himself (with gutmagic)
Is also a lvl 4 caster (for magical offense and more importantly defense)(if you take a Tyrant there is not much room left pointswise)
Can have an arcane item (Big deal with expensive characters)

D...

Snake1311
18-07-2012, 10:32
Wasn't there some combo of T6 + rerolls to wound which Ogre Lords could take via names and armour?
If it was only open to the Tyrant, people might go for him :P
Obviously much small consideration than the leardship though.

Doommasters
18-07-2012, 10:41
Well, I don't have insight into GW's internal processes, but I sincerely doubt anyone thinks the discipline banner is working as intended :) if nothing else, if that was the intention for its benefits, it would cost a lot more.

I think VC aren't a particularly good example of lord design to build on, because they don't account for about half the reason standard armies have for taking a lord - namely, the Ld boost - which is a primary consideration. The secondary considerations of taking a lord over a hero are combat potential (driven by synnergies between the extra allowance and stat boosts) and options which the hero has no access to (e.g. a dragon mount).

In VC's case, the ld consideration is non-existant, and the extra options are negligable; point 2 however is very prominent. This can't really be used as a matrix for other books, because VC have always had a different relationship between troops and characters than the standard.

With OK for contrast, the leadership consideration goes down the toilet due to the banner, the extra combat potential is kinda meh since hero-level characters are already better than most lords AND the caster can take armour and play the tank role, and there are no combat lord specific extra options to speak of.
So, whats killing ogre tyrants is a) the ld banner, and b) Slaughtermasters having armour access.

Derp a) will probably never get fixed, because GW are stubborn like that. It doesn't mean however, that every armybook combat lord should be written in mind with that one stupid magic item.
Derp b) is book specific and can be avoided in the future.


I think you are missing my point here I am not saying gw should model every army off VC. What I am saying is they have done a good job in balancing out the options and making many viable general builds......no one option is miles better than the other and each has different benefits. Saying you should slap the VC model on every army is stupid but it is an example where GW have done a great job with variety and internal balance.

Darkminion
18-07-2012, 10:47
Wasn't there some combo of T6 + rerolls to wound which Ogre Lords could take via names and armour?
If it was only open to the Tyrant, people might go for him :P
Obviously much small consideration than the leardship though.

No, they wouldn't. Because even without the glittering scales option open to the slaughtermaster he is tough enough. Although offcourse a Tyrant is tougher and more killy in combat then a slaughtermaster, the Ogre army does not lack in the department of being able to kill stuff in combat. It is however very vurnerable to enemy magic and the Slaughtermaster fullfils more roles in one go.

As I said he his tough and killy enough. Lets say Fencers blades, Greedy fist and a dispell scroll. Here we have a T5, W5, St5, A5 with WS10 wizard, who with each spell he casts can heal a wound back. He also takes care of magic defense for the army. Sounds like a better general then some guy who can only smash faces in, in an army full of stuff that can smash faces in...

D...

Rosstifer
18-07-2012, 11:00
I think a Tyrant is viable. Really gives you a boost in the Ogre vs Ogre matchup as he butchers Mournfang and makes your Gutstar better than theirs. The best Ogre General in the world currently uses one I think? If it's still Dave Grant.

Doommasters
18-07-2012, 11:11
No, they wouldn't. Because even without the glittering scales option open to the slaughtermaster he is tough enough. Although offcourse a Tyrant is tougher and more killy in combat then a slaughtermaster, the Ogre army does not lack in the department of being able to kill stuff in combat. It is however very vurnerable to enemy magic and the Slaughtermaster fullfils more roles in one go.

As I said he his tough and killy enough. Lets say Fencers blades, Greedy fist and a dispell scroll. Here we have a T5, W5, St5, A5 with WS10 wizard, who with each spell he casts can heal a wound back. He also takes care of magic defense for the army. Sounds like a better general then some guy who can only smash faces in, in an army full of stuff that can smash faces in...

D...

Agree it is simply poor design from gw and we can see it across a number or army books; OK, Lizardmen, and Woc to name a few. Chaos Lords are not bad per say they are just no where near as cost effective as sorcerers in most match ups. Same as they Tyrant it isn't like they are a bad choice, the SM is just a far better option most of the time.

Nymie_the_Pooh
18-07-2012, 11:14
Yea let me clarify. I want to know which army has the best players (generals) not general unit. Sorry, my bad on that. Which players are the cream of the crop?
There is no real way to answer this.

This argument used to come up in 40K quite a bit in regards to Eldar as they required coordination between units so there was a steeper learning curve. The thing is that the best players of other armies were also playing that way when talking about players utilizing the best tactics. Eldar almost forced you to think like a competitive tournament player from the get go so if you wanted to learn advanced strategies as quickly as possible when starting then they were a great choice for that as those same tactics applied to other armies. I imagine Wood Elves would provide that now in some ways, but their strategies are vastly different from every other army in the current edition that I feel you can't take your Wood Elf tactics and apply them to Greenskins or Chaos or pretty much any other army. When they came out a lot of their power was tied up with manipulating what was then considered some basic core rules that have changes drastically over a couple of editions. Even if using army books from then in the current edition they would face some of the same challenges they do now that weren't there in sixth.

The best players are the best players sometimes in spite of what army they are playing. Some of them their way of playing meshes really well with a particular army, but speaking in generalities the army does not make the player.

Doommasters
18-07-2012, 11:19
I think a Tyrant is viable. Really gives you a boost in the Ogre vs Ogre matchup as he butchers Mournfang and makes your Gutstar better than theirs. The best Ogre General in the world currently uses one I think? If it's still Dave Grant.

I don't think anyone is saying the Tyrant is not viable, they are a very strong combat character just like and Old Blood or Chaos lord. It would seem however through popular opinion and tournament results that the SM, Slann and Sorcerer are far more cost effective most of the time.

Darkminion
18-07-2012, 14:03
I don't think anyone is saying the Tyrant is not viable, they are a very strong combat character just like and Old Blood or Chaos lord. It would seem however through popular opinion and tournament results that the SM, Slann and Sorcerer are far more cost effective most of the time.

Indeed. In no way will you ever hear me say a Tyrant is a bad General for your army. He is one of the top combat lords around. However, in order to field him you are almost forced to spend way more points on characters then a player fielding a Slaughtermaster, since you still need to buy magicusers and the very important BsB. The few players who use Tyrants also field 2 Firebellies because they are aware that they are weaker then the almost mandatory lvl 4 in most armies and thus they need the 2 arcane slots (dispell scroll / Hellheart) to make up for this.

So yes, a Tyrant is viable...but in most cases a Slaughtermaster is just the better choice...

D...

brother_maynard
18-07-2012, 19:09
Well, I have been playing most of these armies forever (aka before they were good). Does this make me one of the better players? :D no of course not. the OP said he noticed that in his local area, the better players tend to play better books.

i looked at all of the top ten GT finishers in my group, and a vast majority of them play powerful books.

Zeroth
18-07-2012, 22:13
Most generals not playing; Dwarfs, Chaos Dwarfs, Daemons and Lizardmen. Because playing these armies does not require an enormous amount of tactical insight. Being a Daemon player myself I can sign it. Reason of putting dwarfs in there is that they don't have that many viable options and the ones that are, is either stand still or move forward. I was tempted to put Skaven and Dark Elves there too, but they aren't necessarily that straight forward.

brother_maynard
18-07-2012, 23:37
oh yeah, you're right. i forgot that those armies had some mystical skill-sapping power that reduces any talented player who starts them to a dribbling wreck :p

mostlyharmless
18-07-2012, 23:51
Anyone who played 6th ed Dark Elves and managed to win with them. That book was horrendously underpowered and overcosted for what you paid for. Even after the major errata, it was terrible, but if you managed to get a draw or even win with it, that made you an exceptional player.

-Totenkopf-
19-07-2012, 00:54
first, lizardmen are hardly a srtaight forward army to play.. there are many competitive lists and you actually need to understand not only the army, but several phases of the game to play them really well..

Now as far as generals go, fluffwise, I'd say TK have the best.. Their presence is absolutely necessary for the army to even exist and both mage and combat lords exist solely to boost the survivability and combat ability of the troops under their command..

Doommasters
19-07-2012, 01:31
No idea what army produces the best general but I will say that playing WE over the last 12 months has taught me a significant amount more about the game than I ever did with other armies. Not saying I am the best general or WE generals are better than others just that when the odds are stacked against you and one move is the difference between a win and crushing defeat you think a littel harder.

I would say if you want to become the best general you can pick a mid to low tier army as your wins will be much more rewarding and your loses will teach you more. The best generals will be the people who have played all the armies and know all the little tricks, strengths and weaknesses.....knowing your enemy is half the battle.

Trains_Get_Robbed
19-07-2012, 03:16
I would say High Elves, T.K and W.E. All these armies have a reoccurring low T or built in army deficiency -in regards to the T.K; movement- even with some items like the BoH, or characters like Khalidia, it's often not enough to make the list auto pilot, instead bringing different difficulties to the game at hand. If your opponent builds a decent list, and is a reasonable general, it will actually take analysis, target prioritizing, planning (from list on out), as well as luck to win -one mistake can lead to defeat, even if that mistake is you sucking our mage into the warp on a two die cast.

Ogres, WoC, L.M, Dwarfs are all auto pilot armies that are partial in part due to not participating in all phases of the game (save for Skaven) -Demons, Skaven and Dark Elves on the boarderline, as all have stupidity -cheap stupidity- but can still some expensive toys and can suffer if played poorly.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
19-07-2012, 04:39
I would say that armies that can gather the most long-lasting player attention periods are the ones that generate the best generals. Through extensive use, single army generals get extremely familiar with their army and collection and can flex it like an extension of their mind.

However, the term "best general" is harder to begin to try to define when contemplating which army a "good general" would choose. Is it the army that has the best inherent power potential for the least effort? Or is it the army that presents a balance of challenges and rewards in its relation to the local meta?

I would say that, as gaming is a mental exercise rather than an actual professional experience, the latter of the two would possess the symptoms of a better general. This is because challenges force players to think outside of the box; whereas a continual stream of "wins" with a cookie cutter internet win list produces a general who is good at following other people's advice and ideas but has little experience in creating an executable plan.

The OT's question gets even harder to answer upon the understanding that different armies at all learning curve trajectories are able to teach their players different things about the game. In my own experience, playing Dwarfs in 6th edition made me better at planning my deployment, whereas playing Orcs and Goblins has turned me into a fluid player able to hatch new plans as the battlefield and animosity-scape evolve.

I imagine that the Wood Elf generals that are sticking to their guns right now are going to completely outclass their local scene for a couple months after their army book gets updated to 8th ed power levels. However, I wonder how well they would wield an army of hordestar blocks?

Ximinipot
19-07-2012, 07:13
Ogres, WoC, L.M, Dwarfs are all auto pilot armies that are partial in part due to not participating in all phases of the game (save for Skaven) -Demons, Skaven and Dark Elves on the boarderline, as all have stupidity -cheap stupidity- but can still some expensive toys and can suffer if played poorly.

First off I don't agree any army is an auto pilot army. The game is ever changing with each turn and if you don't change your tactics with it, you're probably not going to win.
Also I'm curious to what phase of the game Lizardmen don't participate in.