PDA

View Full Version : Most boring army to play against?



gorblud
09-08-2012, 18:43
Hey

I read a thread on a Dwarf forum where someone asked if Dwarves were the most boring army to play against, and people started discussing why/why not.

So I'm making this thread to see which army seems to be the most boring army to play against, out of every available army :)

State your army and tell us why you think it is boring to play against?

I have to say I dislike dwarves most, because most of the big and scary things I bring get shot down on turn 1 or 2 by cannons, units get smashed to pieces by grudge throwers, magic is being dispelled, and one unit gets their movement halved by the anvil of doom! When I finally get to the other side, there are big blocks of tough and often steadfast/stubborn infantry.

As a vampire counts player who needs at least one wizard and the general within 12" of a unit to be able to march it's just horrible. 2 to 3 or even 4 turns of being shot down and having almost every spell dispelled, then fighting bigger and stronger units in close combat is just great!

Gradek
09-08-2012, 18:53
For me, it's the mirror match (regardless of what army I am playing). I just don't find it all that fun to play against the same army (for both fluff and gaming reasons).

Dark Aly
09-08-2012, 18:55
Most boring IMHO =/= the hardest to beat. I agree with dwarfs (although they are one of my oldest armies) but because thay miss out on so much of the game. Dwarf armies only consist of infantry and warmachines and that is all; no cavalry, warbeasts, monsters or monstrous cavalry. Therefore what the dwarfs do have has to be fairly good at what is does- so their infantry and warmachines are solid and hit hard which appears to be your issue with them.

Next we have manouverability. Dwarfs don't have this. With no M value greater than 3" (not counting Gyros) dwarfs are often better off not moving (scenario permitting) and giving their machines longer to soften up their opponent, this makes for a rather dull but sound tactic.

Magic- again none. Another phase of the game dwarfs miss out entirely and we can almost make our opponent miss out on it too- not much fun to be had here either.

All in all Dwarfs because they miss too much of the game.

Dark Aly
09-08-2012, 18:56
For me, it's the mirror match (regardless of what army I am playing). I just don't find it all that fun to play against the same army (for both fluff and gaming reasons).

O&Gs mirror and empire mirror matches are great fun.

sorry for double post

Lorcryst
09-08-2012, 18:58
I'm a Night Goblin, Nurgle-DoC and Mixed-WoC player, and Dwarves are my bane too ... even more so when the deployment rules of the scenario allows them to castle at the far end of the board, leaving me with the wondefull prospect of marching under fire for 4 turns.

BUT !

I don't think that Dwarves are the real problem, dwarven gunlines are the biggest pain ... a "Strollaz" dwarf army that comes to you and gets stuck in close combat against my hordes in turn two is a lot more fun !

Hicks
09-08-2012, 19:06
For me it's DE. Everything they have is rock solid, so you really have to watch out for everything in the army. Also, it seems that as soon a I fail a dispell, one of my units just disapears :(

One of my army is Dwarfs and I can't even begin to tell you how I hate the frikkin assassin that pops my warmachines as if they were balloons.

Rakariel
09-08-2012, 19:12
If i think about it i cant really say that there ever was an army that was not fun to play against. Me and my opponents have a healthy mix of armies and we mostly choose very fluffy lists, so am often battling very strange combinations of troops. Always great fun :)

DaemonReign
09-08-2012, 19:22
Yeah they're all equally fun to face off against as far as I am concerned. I don't even mind the Dwarf gunlines - but sadly my Dwarf opponant does so I rarely get the chance to play against them. haha

gorblud
09-08-2012, 19:28
Of course there are different sorts of lists, and fighting dwarves once in a while could certainly be fun. However, my friend whom I play the most is playing dwarves, which means I can never really try any monsters, chariots or lone characters, they just die without doing anything.

Once in a while we play a really small tourney where we are 4 friends, then I can bring some things I usually don't. Hoping I don't have to face the dwarves so I can try out some stuff that would normally die on turn 1 or 2.

Vipoid
09-08-2012, 19:31
For me, it's the mirror match (regardless of what army I am playing). I just don't find it all that fun to play against the same army (for both fluff and gaming reasons).

I generally agree here. The only exception would be if someone was using the same army, but a drastically different build. Still prefer to play against different armies though.

Aside from that, I think it depends on both the build and the frequency of use. Even a list that was interesting to play can quickly become dull if it's the only one you see.

I will say that Dwarves can be one of the least interesting armies to play against. A gunline army might be an interesting change the first time you play against it, but after a few games, the novelty quickly wears off. Furthermore, they can be kitted to have very strong dispelling, so that you're lucky to get even a single spell off.

Baraqiel
09-08-2012, 19:37
Dwarf gunline is just so dull to play against.

Rakariel
09-08-2012, 19:40
I know what you mean gorblud, one of my friends who i play against alot mostly chooses empire. Even if he comes with a fluffy list i can be certain there will be atleast 1 cannon in there. Am still going with a list that feels fun at that moment even if there are monsters etc. in it and they could get shot easily. I have lost often cause of this, but not always. If you can pull a win off even tho you clearly have a disadvantage, its all the sweeter ;)

Lord Squidar
09-08-2012, 19:42
Dwarfs are definately no.1 boring army to play against, I still love them though, my first and best army.

Otherwise, 2 other boring armies for me, both that are a result of people not using their armies properly. 1. are high elf players who get obsessed with shooting and sit back and shoot at you with piddly little arrows and high magic spells. Seriously you have swordmasters and white lions, go crush some skulls in close combat please, you are GOOD AT IT!

2. Vampire counts players who put their vamp in a throw away skellie unit in the back and raise stuff. You realise that vamps are insane in combat AND can still cast spells. Give him a magic weapon or skills and he is the most sick thing in two aspects of the game.

macejase
09-08-2012, 19:55
I think all armies can be fun to play against, some are a lot more challenging to beat than others (also depending a lot on what you are using) but that doesn't make them boring as such. I for one would happily play against any army I would be more put off by the player, for example I would find the game boring if they were determined to win and not just have a fun game. However I do have several least favourite armies based purely on their concept, fluff, model ranges etc (Dwarfs and Bretonnia, and to some extent Beasts of Chaos), for the most part this just means I would never play these armies myself but I would happily play against them, I guess it could get boring after some time if that was all I had to play against though... Hope that answers your question somewhat.

Djekar
09-08-2012, 20:24
Dwarves, hands down. Aside from all the stuff that people have said - they are extra annoying for being the only army still using the free dispel dice mechanic. They need it, that's true - but woe betide the person who doesn't have ways of generating extra dice vs. the dwarves - it's not the dwarf fault, but it's a pretty outdated mechanic that encourages the concept of winning in the list building phase.

Gaius Marius
09-08-2012, 20:32
One trick pony armies. For the opponent, the game comes down to negating the one trick... or not. 80 high elves in a folding Tower, with 2 Eagles (5 characters). Giant Mega unit of Undead Grave guard and 4-5 characters in it, plus 2 little throw away units. An all Troll Chaos Warriors list... worked great unless you brought along a flaming banner. Dwarf gunline that doesn't move all game. And so on. Doesn't mater what the 'trick' is specifically, but the fact that an army relies on this one trick or 'tactic' is simply dull. I have faced all of the above examples, and the first time was a problem to be solved, but in subsequent encounters would be simple re-fighting of the original battle, or be problem already solved.
Good question.

calnen
09-08-2012, 20:40
If no-one's said it yet, Teclis.

Otherwise, Dwarves. Which is a shame, as they're my favourite army. But they badly need a redo (and either a movement or a magic phase).

Maoriboy007
09-08-2012, 20:43
Chosenstar twin warshrine gateway list, sucks the life out of the game like nothing else. Dwarves can be pretty bad though, playing TKs against them was especially painful.

Confessor_Atol
09-08-2012, 20:50
Shooty dwafs or the vampire summon spam. I have a dwarf army built around scouting and infiltration with help of miners and the anvil. I try not to lump myself in with the static dwarf lists.

Sexiest_hero
09-08-2012, 20:54
Warshrine armies, followed by dwarfs. We have have 3 dwarf players here, and soon as you get to the guns, the concede, and ask for a rematch, over and over and over.

Drasanil
09-08-2012, 21:07
Warshrine armies, followed by dwarfs. We have have 3 dwarf players here, and soon as you get to the guns, the concede, and ask for a rematch, over and over and over.

You have three pretend dwarf players. Real dwarf players wouldn't concede a match.... so un-dwarfy.

My vote goes to dwarf gunlines, dull sameness over and over again. Although I dislike SoA and consequently High Elves the most, that army wide rule just irks me.

Doommasters
09-08-2012, 21:54
Teclis High Elves


Either you kill Teclis in the first few turns or you lose.


Chosen star can be annoying especially if people play it over and over again but atleast you can re-direct it and kill the other units first.

Dwarf Gunlines not so much as I play WE and have far to many small targets for their war machines to do enough damage before I can gun them down.

gorblud
10-08-2012, 11:38
I know what you mean gorblud, one of my friends who i play against alot mostly chooses empire. Even if he comes with a fluffy list i can be certain there will be atleast 1 cannon in there. Am still going with a list that feels fun at that moment even if there are monsters etc. in it and they could get shot easily. I have lost often cause of this, but not always. If you can pull a win off even tho you clearly have a disadvantage, its all the sweeter ;)


Yeah, I too bring monsters of course, but they don't last very long and almost never makes it into combat :)

Snake1311
10-08-2012, 14:10
Warshrine armies, followed by dwarfs. We have have 3 dwarf players here, and soon as you get to the guns, the concede, and ask for a rematch, over and over and over.

+1 to fake dwarfs, in a lot of match-ups you should assume your warmachines dead or neutralized for the second half of the game, which is then focused around combat...

Antipathy
10-08-2012, 14:16
Tomb Kings. No matter which build they play, I know that aside from exceptionally poor rolling, my armies excel against them in all aspects.

BigbyWolf
10-08-2012, 14:44
Teclis. Dwarf Gunlines.

They're the only ones I'm really not a fan of.

Phazael
10-08-2012, 15:08
Teclis is not as boring as Dwarves. Dwarves cannot be made exciting. Its like facing tomb kings without a magic phase... and nothing but infantry...

Not even a contest.

mbh1127
10-08-2012, 15:47
dwarfs are the number one boring army to play against for me.

They are in disparate need of some new units

Juicy21
10-08-2012, 18:35
Teclis is not as boring as Dwarves Dwarves cannot be made exciting. Its like facing tomb kings without a magic phase... and nothing but infantry...
Teclis cannot be made exciting aswel! if i face a player with teclis i get this odd feeling withs tells me this game isnt fun/waste of my time/i pref to play some one els...

but i have to agree with either mirror matches.. uff bretonnia vs bretonnia uber boring dance mcqueen..... ( orcs vs orcs is kinda funny tho:P)

Vipoid
10-08-2012, 19:08
I concur with those saying Teclis is boring to face.

"These? Oh, they're just my dispel dice. Don't worry - they're just for show - I just like looking at piles of them the whole game."

Blkc57
10-08-2012, 20:07
I really only have an issue with Daemons armies that focus too heavily on using leadership manipulation plus Siren's Song. I always feel when fighting such armies that I have really no say in the game and don't even get to play my own army as my opponent gets to determine my movement and charges.

Cragum
10-08-2012, 23:47
DWARVES...

I hate playing against them because its one of those games where you spend an age moving your troops defensivly up the field to keep safe from all the gunfire and then when it gets to their turn the movement phase usually see's a unit move backwards and a couple maybe reform. Oh and of course the many warmachines turn to aim at your poor units sweating their life away running across field.

I want an army that has to move itself into the right position to what you have done and vice versa, not an army who sits and waits. Tomb kings are a bad army as well because you find them waiting for their special troops doing the damage while most sits back and magic whips you along with two screaming skull catapults...

Can you tell I hate warmachines :D

Kahadras
10-08-2012, 23:57
The most boring games I've had is against the shooting centric Dark Elf lists out there. Crossbowmen + Dark Riders + Shades + Repeater Bolt Throwers combined with a magic focused character set up is so much fun to play against. Basicaly you spend the first two or three of turns geting shot off the table and then desperatly trying to claw some points back with the few reaiming units you have left. Fun times.

Kahadras

Jadawin
11-08-2012, 00:07
This thread is v interesting, I quite agree that facing gunlines can be a little boring, but would some say also challenging with certain armies? Particularly footslogging WOC, also the emphasis is that shooting is the prime factor behind making these games boring? To me this is curious as a few weeks ago I put a poll on general and shooting came out as the LEAST important of all the phases in determining the outcome of a game.....odd. http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?347227-Where-is-Warhammer-Won-and-Lost

Lord Inquisitor
11-08-2012, 00:09
dwarfs are the number one boring army to play against for me.

They are in disparate need of some new units

bear cavalry!!

Jadawin
11-08-2012, 00:22
Beer cavalry?

nurgle5
11-08-2012, 01:15
I'm surprised dwarf gunlines are getting such a heavy mention here. I would've thought in the age of deathstar units with their endless steadfast ranks and all their BSB re-rerolls, the shooting phase would hardly dent such armies :p. Any army is only as boring as the player using them: hate the player not the army! Our local dwarf player is a whirling ball of unpredictable madness, he has even pulled off turn 1 charges as his longbeards catapulted 15" across the board into some unfortunately placed elven cavalry.

Sh4d0w
11-08-2012, 04:23
Even though I play dwarfs I have to admit they are boring to play against (having swapped armies alot) and with. They miss out on 2 phases of the game basically (movement and magic) and totally stop the opponents magic as well. Obviously they aren't totally stationary but you get the idea. They also stop the opponent taking any monsters (hydra's, bloodthirsters, giants....etc) which make for all infantry games and also the way they play which is basically hiding yourself in a corner while blocking all the movement through leads to an all out assault from the enemy and IMHO it never really changes from game to game.

Drasanil
11-08-2012, 04:45
bear cavalry!!


That's Kislev's thing :p

michaells
11-08-2012, 06:20
Teclis. My friend has never made a list without him which means I never really get any of my spells off.................. (He's the only one at the shop I go to that plays fantasy other then me)

Cragum
11-08-2012, 09:07
Teclis. My friend has never made a list without him which means I never really get any of my spells off.................. (He's the only one at the shop I go to that plays fantasy other then me)

Either A) Buy your friend a new hero model or B) Buy a new friend...

Vipoid
11-08-2012, 10:45
This thread is v interesting, I quite agree that facing gunlines can be a little boring, but would some say also challenging with certain armies? Particularly footslogging WOC, also the emphasis is that shooting is the prime factor behind making these games boring? To me this is curious as a few weeks ago I put a poll on general and shooting came out as the LEAST important of all the phases in determining the outcome of a game.....odd. http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?347227-Where-is-Warhammer-Won-and-Lost

With regard to the poll, I imagine most people consider shooting to be the least important phase, because not many armies have shooting in any decent amount. It doesn't mean that a battle *can't* be lost in the shooting phase - just that it doesn't happen very often.


I'm surprised dwarf gunlines are getting such a heavy mention here. I would've thought in the age of deathstar units with their endless steadfast ranks and all their BSB re-rerolls, the shooting phase would hardly dent such armies :p. Any army is only as boring as the player using them: hate the player not the army! Our local dwarf player is a whirling ball of unpredictable madness, he has even pulled off turn 1 charges as his longbeards catapulted 15" across the board into some unfortunately placed elven cavalry.

Here's the thing - a boring army isn't always the same as an unbeatable army. I've yet to lose a game against Dwarves with my VCs, but that doesn't make the games I did play against them interesting.

Generally, the Dwarf player concedes as soon as I get in melee with him (and, in particular, his war machines). So, all I got to do in the game was move forwards, get shot, and roll my charge dice. Thrilling stuff.

xxRavenxx
11-08-2012, 10:49
If no-one's said it yet, Teclis.

This was going to be my vote too. Teclis just isn't fun. Sitting watching 30% of your army vanish each turn while you do nothing about it is very dull.

Bladelord
11-08-2012, 11:47
I can't actually think of a boring army I've faced, just players.

logan054
11-08-2012, 11:58
Here's the thing - a boring army isn't always the same as an unbeatable army. I've yet to lose a game against Dwarves with my VCs, but that doesn't make the games I did play against them interesting.

Generally, the Dwarf player concedes as soon as I get in melee with him (and, in particular, his war machines). So, all I got to do in the game was move forwards, get shot, and roll my charge dice. Thrilling stuff.


x lots and lots, I loathe playing against dwarf players, especially with my WoC, I walk across the table, models die, I make it across, trash his units, job done, no need to really think about my game, just march forward, I honestly can't remember the last time I lost to a dwarf player, then again I can't remember the last time I played a decent one who wasn't trying to play 40k in warhammer.

Crube
11-08-2012, 13:15
The most 'dull' army I've faced with my Wood Elves was another Wood Elf player, with a similar play style to mine.

I ws dreading facing a Dwarf gunline, but it was actually a really entertaining game. Forced me to really concentrate on my movement, and how best to get to them... Close and hard fought draw, but a great game

nurgle5
11-08-2012, 13:53
Here's the thing - a boring army isn't always the same as an unbeatable army. I've yet to lose a game against Dwarves with my VCs, but that doesn't make the games I did play against them interesting.

err.. I never said that unbeatable = boring, I said that an army is only as boring as the player using them. Taking dwarfs for example: if your local dwarf players are into all this gunline, table edge hugging nonsense that makes the players boring not the army. Our local dwarf player has been using increasingly aggressive tactics since 8th ed started and he's great fun to play against.

m1acca1551
11-08-2012, 14:22
Doesnt matter the army, but net lists... same boring s*** even in fluff games... oh your woc khorne tribe has a bunch of chosen that worship tzeentch... fairo...

oh look at your clan skyre army wow i didnt know clan skyre would use 2 aboms...


players make an army boring... enough said :p

Vipoid
11-08-2012, 15:26
err.. I never said that unbeatable = boring, I said that an army is only as boring as the player using them.

Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but the implication of your last post was that, because dwarf fire wasn't especially powerful against large units, they should be fun to play against.

TheDungen
11-08-2012, 16:02
anyone else find it strange that its always most boring army to play against or most overpowered army never funniest army to play against and most balanced army.

Vipoid
11-08-2012, 16:17
Well, why not change that by starting threads on those topics? :p

Confessor_Atol
11-08-2012, 17:45
Teclis. My friend has never made a list without him which means I never really get any of my spells off.................. (He's the only one at the shop I go to that plays fantasy other then me)

This sounds like Warhammer hell.

logan054
11-08-2012, 18:44
I said that an army is only as boring as the player using them.

Could it be Dwarfs seem to attract more of the boring players? I seen it posted on here many times how dwarfs only viable tactic is to castle in the corner and hope for the best, apparantly that extra 2" movement would make all the difference and force these people to totally rethink how they play...

nurgle5
11-08-2012, 18:48
Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but the implication of your last post was that, because dwarf fire wasn't especially powerful against large units, they should be fun to play against.

I was being facetious, hence the smiley face, though to be fair tone is often hard to convey through written text.

Lord Arkhibas
11-08-2012, 20:00
I'd rather handicap my army than play boring games. That's said, I been trying to create more interesting and more effective army for WoC, that is more tactically challencing and in right hands, effective. Yes, it is easier to make mistakes with it, but one never learns if he does not try ;)
So, idea is, that instead of having big block of warriors marching forward, i have divided my battleline in mainline and detachemts. Mainline does the killing, and usually does not fail at that, because we are warriors of chaos :skull: Detachemnts (with combination of 8 chaosknights on the other wing and 8 chaos ogres on the other) then destroy flankers. How you may ask. Well, shock unit charges in with the tread. usually they still need help, because cavalry does not like getting bogged down. This is where these 12 warriors come in, and clear up what is left. And look at that, i have my opponents flank :evilgrin: But yes, i haven't yet tested this. Here is army composition just so you see the point.

8 CO (Chaos armour and great weapons)
12 CW (AHW)
18 CW (Halberdiers, could be chosens)
12 CW (AHW)
8 CK

Characters can be tooled up as one wishes. Battleline units should be something that does the main killing and detachments should ideally be armed with AHW.
But i just show the stradegy for you, :D Could it work? No more wound marker warriors for me, everything counts :)

Lord Inquisitor
11-08-2012, 20:06
I really only have an issue with Daemons armies that focus too heavily on using leadership manipulation plus Siren's Song. I always feel when fighting such armies that I have really no say in the game and don't even get to play my own army as my opponent gets to determine my movement and charges.
I was wondering how far though this thread we could get before someone mentioned the Ld bomb.


Teclis. My friend has never made a list without him which means I never really get any of my spells off.................. (He's the only one at the shop I go to that plays fantasy other then me)
A lot of people not liking Teclis. There's an easy way to cure people of their love of teclis. (1) play ogre kingdoms (2) take sniper/scout maneaters (3) see how many times they need to lose Teclis turn 1 before they stop taking him...

Blademeister
11-08-2012, 23:43
My buddy has a lizardman army where all he has are skinks, He kills a couple things, but nothing intense, I get in combat, and I steam roll him. Really isn't that fun to play against.

Plexi
11-08-2012, 23:53
WoC is the worst to play against as far as entertainment. I think a lot of people are confusing tough armies with boring armies.

michaells
12-08-2012, 00:02
@cragum Oh he uses another hero with teclis: a lvl 2 mage :(
@Confesser-Atol it is warhammer hell, makes the game really boring and unfun
@Lord Inquisitor I dont have the funds to do such things sadly, but i have thought of it

Nubl0
12-08-2012, 00:18
Depends on the player imo, I have played some filthy list but the guy was cool so we had a laugh.

TheDarkDuke
12-08-2012, 02:08
Dwarves. I just find everything from there play style to there models extremely boring.

Xerkics
12-08-2012, 05:29
High elves otherwise Greenskins with mostly goblins hours to take models out hours to deploy hours to move models 1 by 1.... why not bring at least some more orcs even if goblins are better such a drag to play against goblin armies.

Drasanil
12-08-2012, 05:44
hours to move models 1 by 1....

IIRC O&G don't have skirmishers, so there's no reason to move gobbos one by one.

Lorcryst
12-08-2012, 11:27
Two magic words for O&Gs and all other horde armies : MOVEMENT TRAYS.

@Drasanil : there is indeed two skirmishing units in the O&G army book : Snotlings (poor sods) and Squig Hoppers ... but even then, sensible players don't take units of 20+ of those guys (and don't take units of Snotlings, period).

macejase
12-08-2012, 21:49
My buddy has a lizardman army where all he has are skinks, He kills a couple things, but nothing intense, I get in combat, and I steam roll him. Really isn't that fun to play against.

An army like that could be fun (vs wood elves for example) - I see most people complain against facing Lizardmen with a Life Slann BSB in Temple Guard army, not a Skink only army.

Grantus VII
13-08-2012, 12:06
I find Dwarf gunlines are the most uncomfortable to play against. Especially with the newer warmachine rules and evil runes. They normally shred my Chaos Warriors to pieces!

King Arthur
13-08-2012, 12:40
I hate Dwarf gunlines espcially when a guy plays a quick k an OP deamon slayer 6 attacks strength 6 4++ and D6 wounds along with 2 cannons engineers 16 handgunners and a grudge thrower even in my Bretonnian army I can t reach it in time boring zzzzzzzzzz

Lord Arkhibas
13-08-2012, 12:52
8 CO (Chaos armour and great weapons)
12 CW (AHW)
18 CW (Halberdiers, could be chosens)
12 CW (AHW)
8 CK

Yeah, nobody even bothered to respond. Meaby it's better to stick with big warrior blocks and forget this... i'm just trying to find use for additional hand weapons by increasing area were warriors touch enemy. lol foolish me :P

Antipathy
13-08-2012, 14:04
I'm not surprised Bretonnian's suffer against Dwarf Gunlines. Knights, in a 3 abreast formation? Facing an army of cannons?

Zeroth
13-08-2012, 14:24
For me the problem of boring armies to play against kind of dissapeared after we decided to play with the ETC comp, sure there are still the builds that are very one dimensional, but it got rid of some really bad ones.

Bladelord
13-08-2012, 14:26
@Lord Inquisitor I dont have the funds to do such things sadly, but i have thought of it

Then proxy some:evilgrin:

Lorcryst
13-08-2012, 18:01
For me the problem of boring armies to play against kind of dissapeared after we decided to play with the ETC comp, sure there are still the builds that are very one dimensional, but it got rid of some really bad ones.

Exactly the opposite for me. When we started using the ETC rules, variety disappeared for more "waac-y" builds ... I cannot make a decent horde of Daemons under the ETC restrictions, but my dwarf opponent can make a horde of 40 Hammerers + unkillable dwarf lord, AND some canons.

Montegue
14-08-2012, 04:36
I think the word "boring" is being used to describe "can't just sweep from the table because of strong artillery".

Lorcryst
14-08-2012, 04:44
I think the word "boring" is being used to describe "can't just sweep from the table because of strong artillery".

Nope, not for me in any cases ... what I find boring is slugging across the board while being pasted, and being incapable of doing a thing about it ...

I've adapted a bit, and now use at least two units of Nurglings to try and tie the dwarf gunline early in the game (or at least give it something else than my main combat blocks to shoot at), but that's very hit and miss ...

And on the dreaded "Battle for the Pass" scenario where my usual opponent deploys 3 inches from the edge of the table, I have to cross roughly 36 inches before making contact ... that's four turns of "march-get shot-march-get shot" ... achingly boring.

gorblud
14-08-2012, 09:33
I think the word "boring" is being used to describe "can't just sweep from the table because of strong artillery".

Absolutely not, it's not fun when you win against them either, it's still the same: march straight up to the bunker in the corner, lose all single targets and cast no spells.

Far2Casual
14-08-2012, 11:05
Of course it's dwarves gunlines.

They just ignore the movement phase.
They break the artillery balance.
They break the shooting rules (auto hit organ gun).
They break the magic system (DD generation, free PD for RiP spells, no need of PD to use runes, ignoring dispell attemps).
They break the magic items system (duplicate runes everywhere).

A typical Dwarf player in tournaments will take like 1 hour to deploy. Then the first three turns he'll take one hour for his shooting phase (he doesn't play the rest of the game right). He leaves his brain on the side and roll dices. If he rolls good, he's happy and he wins. If he rolls bad, he moans and he loses. Honestly when playing a game agaisnt a Dwarf it's the same thing. If he rolls crap you steamroll him and feel bad. If he rolls good he steam rolls you and feel bad.

Imo, Dwarves need a fix ASAP. I love Dwarves in the Warhammer World, but Dwarves as an army can just ruin anyone's experience with the game. That's why I play Chaos Dwarves btw, at least they play full turns ...

Solegga
14-08-2012, 11:56
If no-one's said it yet, Teclis.

Otherwise, Dwarves. Which is a shame, as they're my favourite army. But they badly need a redo (and either a movement or a magic phase).

He-he, you got to it first! Yeah, a HE army with Teclis sitting behind and magic spamming you yo death. Accompanied with 2 giant eagles to throw away and 2 ballistas to shoot stuff. I'll agree with the fella who said it about Lions and Swordmasters. Go fight!

Also, Dwarfs may be boring for most people but don't really have a choice. They were my first army (then I moved on to Skaven) and I find it impossible to do anything else. All the times I tried, I lost. Miserably. Therefore do not say they are boring, somebody said it already, they need to be redone.
Also, I'd suggest (should GW be hearing this) that simple warriors or new units of "young ones" with WS3 have movement 4 but also cost 6 points and not 8. Along with cheaper gyros and bear cavalry, they'll actually be able to move! That way, not only is GW going to sell more (*cough* I said if anyone is listening to this *cough*), they'll even make the game fun for the Dwarf players but also for their opponents. ;)

I find there are no boring armies. Only boring players. (My 2 cents)... :cool:

laribold
14-08-2012, 12:26
I'm coming to the conclusion that Vampire Counts are a pretty dull army to play against at times...

If the idea of Warhammer is to kill off the opponent, to have an army that so easily and readily heals itself of wounds taken to the extent that much of the efforts of my own phase are in vain kind of spoils much of the game for me.

Now if this were hordes of zombies/skeletons or something equally mediocre where it was a case of 'can I cut through enough of this horde before they drag my guys down' then I think I'd have less of a problem with it. What sticks in my craw is when the VC has access to guys who are as equally (if not better) skilled, equally well-armoured, killing (blow) machines that cost not much more than my troops and can be easily brought back to (un)life.

It makes me wonder why I bother...

A specific gripe, I appreciate that, but my dislike of VCs seems to grow with each game.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-08-2012, 15:31
I think the word "boring" is being used to describe "can't just sweep from the table because of strong artillery".

This - or anything else BUT boring: Helplessness, frustration, variation (!), even bad dice. Just imagine, against Dwarfs the one who rolls better wins. Sorry for the vitriol, is it usually the other way around?

You can shoot back at Dwarfs. If you don't have any big guns, take a magic missile or two. Or include Flyers, Fast Cav, skirmisher screens. Play with more terrain, or scenarios that include reserves. It all goes some way to neuter a certain kind of play.

michaells
14-08-2012, 18:49
Then proxy some:evilgrin:
I think I might just do this

Lorcryst
14-08-2012, 18:51
And yet, a Dwarf army with Rangers, Miners, BSB with Strollaz rune and an Anvil is very mobile, punchy, and not boring to play ... even with a couple of canons, there's some action on the board instead of "move-get shot-move-get shot" ...

Wesser
14-08-2012, 22:46
Funnily enough its Lizardmen

Its just that Lizardmen don't have much character. Saurus are almost not self-aware and neither Slann nor Skinks possess any personality.

When an army doesnt have character its just not so fun to defeat it. Much of the game is actually the friendly brawling which works a lot better if you're committed to the armies that play.

Gameplay-wise it goes to Brets. Thats just down to pray and hope

Montegue
15-08-2012, 15:19
Nope, not for me in any cases ... what I find boring is slugging across the board while being pasted, and being incapable of doing a thing about it ...

Which is essentially what I just said. It's not boring, it's hard.



And on the dreaded "Battle for the Pass" scenario where my usual opponent deploys 3 inches from the edge of the table, I have to cross roughly 36 inches before making contact ... that's four turns of "march-get shot-march-get shot" ... achingly boring.

Demons have plenty of methods of dealing with war machines. You have excellent flier chaff, monsters, and other madness you can use.

Vipoid
15-08-2012, 16:15
Which is essentially what I just said. It's not boring, it's hard.

Actually, it's often the reverse - not particularly difficult, but incredibly dull.

Lorcryst
15-08-2012, 20:40
Which is essentially what I just said. It's not boring, it's hard.



Demons have plenty of methods of dealing with war machines. You have excellent flier chaff, monsters, and other madness you can use.

No, it's not hard, it takes all of 45 seconds to push 4 movement trays 8 inches forward, it's just so incredibly boring to do ...

Excellent flier chaff, you're talking about Furies, right ?
Tried that. Flew 20 inches, ended 16 inches from Dwarf handguns, unit vanished, vaporized by a hail of shots.

Monsters ? Yeah right, I use a Great Unclean One only because he cannot be one-shotted by a single canon. I tried the other four options, 5 wounds don't survive in my experience, but then my Dwarf opponent is extemely lucky with his mutliple wound rolls ...

Now, if you could enlighten me as what that "other madness" you're talking about, I would be glad ... Slaanesh Seekers ? Dead meat, that 5+ ward does nothing against 20+ strength 4 hits on an unit of 5 ...

Doommasters
16-08-2012, 06:20
Cannons need to be effective otherwise why would you even bother putting them in a list? If you want every man and his dog to be able to walk/fly over their and crush them turn two why even have cannons in the first place? Sure they may or may not need tweaking but without cannons the game would turn into lord on dragon monster mash.

gorblud
16-08-2012, 08:19
I'd prefer monster fights to be honest,

two generals on monsters in an epic duel, or a huge monster and its lord vs 3 crew members with a big gun 40" away

Vipoid
16-08-2012, 10:24
Cannons need to be effective otherwise why would you even bother putting them in a list? If you want every man and his dog to be able to walk/fly over their and crush them turn two why even have cannons in the first place? Sure they may or may not need tweaking but without cannons the game would turn into lord on dragon monster mash.

Whilst I certainly do understand that cannons need to be effective, I think the game needs a better balance between cannons and monsters - in particular large monster mounts, like generals on dragons.

The trouble is, at the moment, a general plus dragon can cost 800+pts, but be utterly destroyed by a single shot from a 90pt cannon.

Essentially, it means that units like that are rarely used, because no one wants to lose their centrepiece on the first turn to a cannonball.

ihavetoomuchminis
16-08-2012, 11:03
Ward saves from riders should be applied to the mount too.

Vipoid
16-08-2012, 11:09
Ward saves from riders should be applied to the mount too.

I also feel that the cannonball shouldn't automatically hit the mount *and* the rider. It seems like it should either be randomised, or just hit the mount.

ihavetoomuchminis
16-08-2012, 12:20
Or hit the rider on a 6, or on a 5+, or on a Ballistic skill successful roll (with modifiers for long distance and such)

Drasanil
16-08-2012, 16:34
Problem with cannons is that they're far too accurate, despite the fact most of their crews are BS3. I think they should just scrap the cannon rules and make them S10 D6 wound bolt throwers. Still deadly but you won't be (almost) guaranteed auto-hits against anything you point them at. People would feel safer using large monsters, but the cannon's potential would be enough to keep them honest.

Bladelord
16-08-2012, 16:42
Like a ballista & missfire on a 1 (no missfire for dwarfs).

Doommasters
16-08-2012, 21:32
I also feel that the cannonball shouldn't automatically hit the mount *and* the rider. It seems like it should either be randomised, or just hit the mount.

Agree with this 100%, hitting the rider and the mount is a little too much. Personally I think the D6wounds in most cases should random between the rider and the dragon.

Lord Inquisitor
16-08-2012, 22:22
Ward saves from riders should be applied to the mount too.

Actually the whole rider and mount separate thing feels like an anachronism since all other ridden monsters and chariots that don't have characters are just split profile.

The monstrous mount rules were a great improvement and I think that's the way to go.

When attacking the ridden monster/chariot, use the rider's characteristics EXCEPT Toughness and Wounds, where you use the Mount/Chariot's toughness and wounds. Rider and mount attack separately.

Essentially ridden monsters would mechanically be like monstrous cav mounts, except benefitting from the monster's toughness.

Now, ignoring some silly combinations like pendant dark elves on dragons and just looking at the 8th books, what you'll get is ridden monsters like griffons benefit from armour and ward of the rider, but five wounds total. In comparison with a bloodthirster, for example, quite similar in armour, ward, cost, damage output and manoeuvrability. Wizards on mounts would be more viable too.

ihavetoomuchminis
17-08-2012, 08:13
That would be a more elegant solution to the problem, indeed.

Montegue
17-08-2012, 17:36
Excellent flier chaff, you're talking about Furies, right ?
Tried that. Flew 20 inches, ended 16 inches from Dwarf handguns, unit vanished, vaporized by a hail of shots.

Dwarf Thunderers are Move or Shoot. If you fly into their forward arc, of course you'll be shot.



Monsters ? Yeah right, I use a Great Unclean One only because he cannot be one-shotted by a single canon. I tried the other four options, 5 wounds don't survive in my experience, but then my Dwarf opponent is extemely lucky with his mutliple wound rolls ...

Now, if you could enlighten me as what that "other madness" you're talking about, I would be glad ... Slaanesh Seekers ? Dead meat, that 5+ ward does nothing against 20+ strength 4 hits on an unit of 5 ...

Bloodletters. Nuff said. Init 4, killing blow, hatred, S5, unbreakable, and a 5+ ward save. 12 points a model. Demonic instability is even better than the Undead version.

Wizards that know every spell in the lore (you will have Dwellers, you will get it off on IF. It probably won't kill your caster).

Monstrous Cavalry. Flesh Hounds (2 wounds, S5), until recently you had really amazing Flamers. Now they are less amazing, but still pretty awesome. The entire army has a 5+ ward. One infantry unit has Regen and T4. Another unit has better ward saves. Furies. Deamonettes.

You might think it's boring to slog across the field, but you have something to do every phase of every turn. If you're not having fun, maybe it's because you've defined fun as "it's fun to roflstomp my opponents, and having to withstand a hail of fire before doing so just makes me sad". It's hard to call it slogging when your base move on Bloodletters is 5, your fliers move at a 20, etc etc. Your flamers shoot well (just not brokenly well anymore). You have a huge choice of monsters...variety...yeah. Lots of options.

If you're smart about movement, terrain, and deployment, you can even get those big nasty gribblies into combat. Dwarf cannons are pretty amazing, admittedly, but they aren't always the laser-guided death gods they are made out to be. In my third game of Bayou Battles, I hit a Great Unclean one with 3 different shots. 2 failed to wound, and his Ward Save picked off the other one.

Col. Dash
17-08-2012, 20:51
Any gunline army. Not saying they are unbeatable or super tough, just very boring to play against.

theunwantedbeing
17-08-2012, 21:03
Any gunline army. Not saying they are unbeatable or super tough, just very boring to play against.

This is the type of army most dwarf players field.
As such, dwarves become the most boring army to play against.

I find using purple sun makes the game far more interesting as the dwarf player tends to give up and leave nice and quickly.

DareX2
17-08-2012, 23:01
As such, dwarves become the most boring army to play against.

I find that it's because you're playing against an army that can only field heavy infantry and warmachines. No magic, no cav, no fast cav, no monsters, no monstrous infantry/cavalry, no light infantry, no real variation in equipment loadouts for troops, etc. The great flaw for Dwarfs isn't their limited movement or lack of magic: it's their utter lack of variety.

Montegue
18-08-2012, 04:31
This is the type of army most dwarf players field.
As such, dwarves become the most boring army to play against.

I find using purple sun makes the game far more interesting as the dwarf player tends to give up and leave nice and quickly.

When you say gunline do you mean "four to five war machines" or do you mean a lot of infantry with guns/crossbows?

Lorcryst
18-08-2012, 11:56
When you say gunline do you mean "four to five war machines" or do you mean a lot of infantry with guns/crossbows?

Both, actually. Specials and Rares filled to the brim with warmachines, Core filled with shooting troops, Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers inside of horde of Hammerers, and maybe a Runesmith ...

BTW, I tried all the tricks you mentionned in your earlier reply to my questions, and they didn't work, at least in the scenario played down the length of the table ... 36 inches apart mean at least two turns where your magic is out of range (but canons are not), Bloodletters are horribly fragile (and I don't have much luck with my ward saves), and when the dwarf gunline is one compact block smack in the middle of the deployment zone, covering all angles, it's really hard to fly outside of their firing arcs ...

Oh, and I'm a dedicated Nurgle player with a solid hatred for polytheist armies ... that might have an impact :p

Urgat
18-08-2012, 13:51
I find using purple sun makes the game far more interesting as the dwarf player tends to give up and leave nice and quickly.

...

Most boring armies? Those that rely on IFing spells to win :p

Soundwave
19-08-2012, 18:17
Yeah just players with waac lists very bland very boring...

nurgle5
20-08-2012, 22:11
I really, really don't get all the dwarf hate going on in this thread. Every army can be played with a mindlessness that could make them dull, it all depends on the player. I think it is very telling that Lord Solar Plexus's exceedingly sensible post was ignored in favour of tarring all dwarf players with the same brush.


Oh, and I'm a dedicated Nurgle player with a solid hatred for polytheist armies ... that might have an impact :p

I wasn't a massive fan of polytheist lists but since Nurgle doesn't have the unit diversity he did in the Storm of Chaos book I've had to throw in a few units from other gods. I like to think that the Chaos Gods have the relationship of a stereotypical 1950s couple: all smiles and holding hands in front of the world, but domestic abuse behind closed doors :o.


...

Most boring armies? Those that rely on IFing spells to win :p

Ssshh!! .....Teclis might hear you :shifty:

Hashut-Up!
21-08-2012, 07:33
I wouldn't say there's any boring army to play against but more types of players and their lists. I'm not a huge fan of any list that takes exceedingly large units as a means for points denial. It turns any game to a very slow paced one, especially if used with the folding fortress. Makes the game feel like a chore, and who enjoys that kind of game.

ihavetoomuchminis
21-08-2012, 08:05
As said in the 40k copycat thread, the most boring army to play against are those wich take no more than 3-4 units of the whole book, usually the most OP unit in every category. And the bigger the game, the more boring it becomes.

gorblud
21-08-2012, 09:49
I really, really don't get all the dwarf hate going on in this thread. Every army can be played with a mindlessness that could make them dull, it all depends on the player. I think it is very telling that Lord Solar Plexus's exceedingly sensible post was ignored in favour of tarring all dwarf players with the same brush.

I don't think everyone means every dwarf, just the most standard lists, that's what I was talking about anyway :)

Athlan na Dyr
21-08-2012, 12:50
I don't think everyone means every dwarf, just the most standard lists, that's what I was talking about anyway :)

I think they're just talking about the dick players who do everything in their power to remove as much of the game from the opponent as possible (i.e. a denial list). It just happens that a certain dwarf build happens to be the prime example, as it takes away the magic phase, the shooting phase and movement phase by loading up on DD and Dispel Scrolls, castling in a corner with enough war machines to own the shooting phase. Wood Elves have a version of the same (except with bows and cavalry to avoid everyone and shoot them), but due to their comparative rarity haven't been mentioned.

So, the most boring army to play against is one that removes large chunks of the game (in my opinion).
However, the most boring army played by the right person is better than the most enjoyable opposition played by the wrong sort of person.

Montegue
21-08-2012, 15:38
I think they're just talking about the dick players who do everything in their power to remove as much of the game from the opponent as possible (i.e. a denial list). It just happens that a certain dwarf build happens to be the prime example, as it takes away the magic phase, the shooting phase and movement phase by loading up on DD and Dispel Scrolls, castling in a corner with enough war machines to own the shooting phase. Wood Elves have a version of the same (except with bows and cavalry to avoid everyone and shoot them), but due to their comparative rarity haven't been mentioned.

So, the most boring army to play against is one that removes large chunks of the game (in my opinion).
However, the most boring army played by the right person is better than the most enjoyable opposition played by the wrong sort of person.

There's nothing ******* about utilizing dwarf anti-magic. We have literally no way to augment our infantry - we can't give them extra buffs, we can't hex our opponents, we can't get rerolls (Except against greenskins) - we have access to *none* of the tools that every other army in the game has access to.

Our infantry models are nice, but they're expensive. So, we rely only on their base stat line to get the job done. We have no super killy characters to help with combat resolution. We have no monsters with stomps or thunder stomps. We have no chariots. We have no cavalry. We have only two kinds of troops - infantry and war machines. That's it. Nothing more.

*******? What are we supposed to do, field easily destroyed small units of infantry that can't move and can't be augmented with magic to make them a real threat? Spend all our points in to heroes that can't fight well, carefully avoiding the heroes we have that provide solid anti magic?

A unit of 6pt halbrediers is more than a match for even our best troops (Dwarf Hammerers) when taken pound for pound. With just a Warrior Priest to augment them with hatred, they will win the grind every single time.

The standard dwarf playstyle evolved because it's one of the few that will actually play competitively. That's a flaw of the book, not a comment on the attitude of it's players.

DareX2
21-08-2012, 16:20
Wood Elves have a version of the same (except with bows and cavalry to avoid everyone and shoot them), but due to their comparative rarity haven't been mentioned.

I wouldn't say it's because of their rarity, but rather it's because of their fragility. A naked T3 elf with S3 (S4 under special conditions) bows feels much less threatening than a T4, armoured, S4 gun/xbow toting dwarf (who may even have great weapons). WE don't have a special predisposition to shutting down the magic phase, either, and are generally moving all over the place in the movement phase instead of standing in the corner. They also don't have any high strength, multiwound, or template shooting unless they take expensive special characters. They also have a variety of units, so you need a variety of tools to take on the army, whereas Dwarfs severely lack variety.

The shooty denial list of a WE player is far different than the shooty castle list of the Dwarf player. One is much more dynamic and fragile than the other, which is why I think nobody has listed WE as being boring to play against. WE players genuinely have to work for that win.

Gary wyper
21-08-2012, 16:42
has anyone suggested dwarfs yet?

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

NonComPoop
21-08-2012, 17:02
I find that one of the armies I least enjoy playing against is Vampire Counts. Mainly because there is no emotional payoff. I like breaking a regiment here and there, it's a great feeling when your opponent fails thier route test and you smash headlong through his lines to carry the day! You don't get any of this when you fight against undead , it's just a never ending slog-fest until you outkill your enemy (hopefully). I like a melee combat that doesnt drag on for the entire game without any resolution. It just feels like the game drags to a crawl once you get to grips with them...bleh.

Ulthwe's Tears
21-08-2012, 19:08
The standard dwarf playstyle evolved because it's one of the few that will actually play competitively. That's a flaw of the book, not a comment on the attitude of it's players.

No doubt. The army needs a massive overhaul with lots more movement, unit variety and magic. The current book is incredibly boring in most cases to play against. However I still cannot understand how some Dwarf players can continue for so long with the same army.

gorblud
21-08-2012, 19:12
There's nothing ******* about utilizing dwarf anti-magic. We have literally no way to augment our infantry - we can't give them extra buffs, we can't hex our opponents, we can't get rerolls (Except against greenskins) - we have access to *none* of the tools that every other army in the game has access to.

Our infantry models are nice, but they're expensive. So, we rely only on their base stat line to get the job done. We have no super killy characters to help with combat resolution. We have no monsters with stomps or thunder stomps. We have no chariots. We have no cavalry. We have only two kinds of troops - infantry and war machines. That's it. Nothing more.

It's not fair that dwarves can simply ruin everyone elses magic phases and kill their monsters so easily just because they don't have any of their own.

Vampire Counts doesn't have a single shooting attack, still they cannot render everyone elses shooting useless. They don't have any protection at all, except for blood knights who may add a 4+ ward for 75 points..

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with using the anti magic and anti monster (very accurate cannons) things they are given. Nothing wrong at all, just plain boring.

nurgle5
21-08-2012, 19:54
It's not fair that dwarves can simply ruin everyone elses magic phases and kill their monsters so easily just because they don't have any of their own.

In order to "ruin" the other players magic phase, the dwarf player has to make a significant investment in characters and wargear that aren't much use for anything else. Given the intemperate nature of the magic phase, this investment can rendered useless by Irresistible Force rolls or pointless by poor Winds of Magic rolls.

To easily kill monsters, a significant investment is required in units which are often easy prey to fliers or scouts and are usually ineffective from turn 3 onwards. Given how fast most monsters are, if the artillery doesn't kill the monsters fast, they most likely won't at all.




Vampire Counts doesn't have a single shooting attack, still they cannot render everyone elses shooting useless. They don't have any protection at all, except for blood knights who may add a 4+ ward for 75 points..

To play the Devil's advocate, you could argue that Vampire Counts render everyone else's shooting phase useless: They are unaffected by panics tests and can restore wounds, both of which severely reduce the impact of what is usually a low damage output phase for many armies.



The shooty denial list of a WE player is far different than the shooty castle list of the Dwarf player. One is much more dynamic and fragile than the other, which is why I think nobody has listed WE as being boring to play against. WE players genuinely have to work for that win.

WE armies can be far more frustrating and boring to play against. The fragility of the WE units can become a non-issue when you're unable to engage an army of m9 fast cav that move through forests without penalty, move and shoot without penalty. Both armies require effective use of the movement phase to win, even it just means using fire lanes to control your opponent's movement.

gorblud
21-08-2012, 20:13
In order to "ruin" the other players magic phase, the dwarf player has to make a significant investment in characters and wargear that aren't much use for anything else. Given the intemperate nature of the magic phase, this investment can rendered useless by Irresistible Force rolls or pointless by poor Winds of Magic rolls.

To easily kill monsters, a significant investment is required in units which are often easy prey to fliers or scouts and are usually ineffective from turn 3 onwards. Given how fast most monsters are, if the artillery doesn't kill the monsters fast, they most likely won't at all.


Of course they have to invest in it, same as other armies have to invest in magic. ~240p (?) to negate magic worth sometimes 400 points. And those wizards usually aren't good for anything else, they can't be given the same combat protection as a runelord can. Poor rolls on winds of magic renders the investment in wizards useless aswell. Irresistable force also hurts the caster, and can sometimes kill him outright.

Thing is, the monsters easily die on turn 2 at least, 120 - 200p to kill a monster or two worth over 200 points each seems very well spent points to me. And they aren't easy prey when they're tightly squeezed in between 3 hordes of hard hitting dwarves.

I agree, the resurrection thing can be seen as negating enemy shooting, but not when facing dwarf dispel dice and runes. And they cannot ressurect an already dead monster. Also, they have to sacrifice power dice to ressurect their dead, instead of causing damage to the enemy or putting up augment spells on their forces.

Alot of things are immune to panic, and when they're not, there is usually a general and a bsb nearby. Also, it is hard to deal 25% damage to a unit in one phase, unless all ranged is focused on that one unit. Assuming it is a regular 8th edition sized unit.

nurgle5
21-08-2012, 21:17
Of course they have to invest in it, same as other armies have to invest in magic. ~240p (?) to negate magic worth sometimes 400 points. And those wizards usually aren't good for anything else, they can't be given the same combat protection as a runelord can. Poor rolls on winds of magic renders the investment in wizards useless aswell. Irresistable force also hurts the caster, and can sometimes kill him outright.

The overall point is that dwarf magical defence requires just as much of an investment as a wizard and is just as intemperate, so how is this, as you said, unfair?


Alot of things are immune to panic, and when they're not, there is usually a general and a bsb nearby. Also, it is hard to deal 25% damage to a unit in one phase, unless all ranged is focused on that one unit. Assuming it is a regular 8th edition sized unit.

So apart from killing the odd monster, why then is Dwarf shooting such an issue if it has such a hard time denting an army of typical 8th ed units?

gorblud
21-08-2012, 21:31
I think it's unfair that no other army may cast spells just because the dwarf cannot. Some armies rely alot on magic. Also, dwarf dispelling is solid, while magic isn't. If you get a bad roll on winds of magic there are no spells. If you get a good roll on winds of magic, there might be one spell going through. And there is always the risk of killing your own character and a big part of the unit he might be in.

I don't think it's unfair in a way that it is overpowered or anything like that, because it isn't. What is unfair is that they can deny things just because they don't have any of their own, while other armies cannot.

Dwarf shooting isn't the issue. The issue is that nothing else happens for the first 3 turns, which leads to the game being rather boring. Again, talking about the regular "stand in a corner and shoot" list.

I'm not trying to say that dwarves are overpowered in any way, just pretty boring to play against.

popisdead
23-08-2012, 16:42
For me, it's the mirror match (regardless of what army I am playing). I just don't find it all that fun to play against the same army (for both fluff and gaming reasons).

The Civil War rules (especially for Beastmen) really change that. I love playing against my own army with crazy rules. Makes me adapt and focus more on being a better tactical general.

Iniesta
24-08-2012, 10:16
The overall point is that dwarf magical defence requires just as much of an investment as a wizard and is just as intemperate, so how is this, as you said, unfair?
Because its too cheap. Its costing to little to stop magic with dwards, as their book was made in an ancient edition where you could get 15-20 powerdice a turn, now its typically just about 7(awerage) and items that generate more powerdice are gradually nerfed with new books more often than not, so it needs to be nerfed! Then again i wont say dwarfs got much choice of composition of their list, but going overpoard with warmashines and dispel just ruins the games. I have dwarfs myself, but find myself playing it wery litle of the 7-8 armies i can play at 2k+ as its just so dull to play with and against.
And with VC its just a waste of time meeting dwarfs as their earlier way of getting more powerdise are taken away from them and need to tailor list to make it a even game, so in a tournament setting its just to boring. Especially the way most dwarf players squeese their warmashines between their infantry making it almost impossible to charge with most units, even a lot of flyers..


So apart from killing the odd monster, why then is Dwarf shooting such an issue if it has such a hard time denting an army of typical 8th ed units?

The warmashines are also too cheap/too reliable in 8th edition standards. Grudge throwers are priced from an edition where you had to guess range and roll for partials. Only way to fix it is to give them a new and more versatile book.

But then again its not the only boring army to play. I also play boring armies to meet when i power up, but some armies are just more boring to play all over. And it tend to be the min-maxed armies that are really both fun to play from time to time and boring to play in the long run. And as such i think playing dwarfs is one of the most boring as you often remove your models even before they reach combat. Uber-combat armies can also be quite dull, as can armies that are to strong in the magic phase. Uber magic is more often than wm armies in 8th, so id say its just as boring to play against as you know you can only dispel a fraction.

Havock
24-08-2012, 10:53
Warshrine armies, followed by dwarfs. We have have 3 dwarf players here, and soon as you get to the guns, the concede, and ask for a rematch, over and over and over.

What? Really?

Lorcryst
24-08-2012, 11:16
What? Really?

I got a couple of Dwarf players like that in my neck of the woods too ... strangely, they rarely get a second match ... but they do terrify the nooblets playing at the local GW store ...

Played against one once, he indeed conceded the game when I got in charge range of his artillery battery, I accepted, and then told him that a conceded match is a 2000 to 0 victory points (not really true, he did kill one unit of mine, and did casualties everywhere) ... the look on his face was funny :p

ihavetoomuchminis
24-08-2012, 11:20
Once up on a time i played against dwarfs, and my opponent wanted to concede when i reached his gunline. I told him "you've been playing your game and i've been bored for 1 hour. No you'll be bored and i'll be playing my game for the next hour"

Vipoid
24-08-2012, 11:31
Once up on a time i played against dwarfs, and my opponent wanted to concede when i reached his gunline. I told him "you've been playing your game and i've been bored for 1 hour. No you'll be bored and i'll be playing my game for the next hour"

Heh, I'll have to remember that one.

Xerkics
24-08-2012, 20:42
Lizardmen are REALLY bland i mean more so than dwarfs but from a visual perspective not a gaming.

nurgle5
24-08-2012, 20:49
What is unfair is that they can deny things just because they don't have any of their own, while other armies cannot.

Because its too cheap. Its costing to little to stop magic with dwards, as their book was made in an ancient edition where you could get 15-20 powerdice a turn, now its typically just about 7(awerage) and items that generate more powerdice are gradually nerfed with new books more often than not, so it needs to be nerfed!

Dwarf dispelling is rather antiquated at this point, which does lead to some anomalies, but it does not equate with a flat cancellation of the opposing player's magic phase. A runelord certainly doesn't cost as much as lord level wizard, but nor is he as useful and he is a wasted investment if the opposing player is magic light, or not using a wizard (believe it or not, not every player uses a magic user). Anywho, given that we're discussing this on warseer, it is a given that the magic user is always throwing 6 dice for the IF :D!

As for their warmachines, yes they are too cheap, but I don't see how this makes them boring. By this logic, Bretonnians are equally as boring for having trebuchets.


And as such i think playing dwarfs is one of the most boring as you often remove your models even before they reach combat.

:eyebrows:

By this logic any army with access to shooting, or one of the dreaded "6th spells" is boring to play against because you might lose models before hitting combat. Is it really dwarfs that people find boring or the idea of your opponent dishing out causalities without taking hits back immediately?


I'm not trying to say that dwarves are overpowered in any way, just pretty boring to play against.

If you find them boring, fair enough, it's a personal preference; I just don't agree with your reasoning.

Montegue
24-08-2012, 22:57
Your typical Runelord will run you just under 300 points. It's not all that far off from a Level 4. And the thing is, the Runelord cannot fight effectively. Nor can he cast any spells at all. All he can do is stop you from casting, and his entire points cost can be swept aside by a simple roll of 2 sixes. It's almost *always* worth miscasting. You get the spell, all those anti magic points are gone, and you'll most likely have your Wizard take a wound, which he can Ward save off.

To get a proper amount of anti magic, you need a runelord, and 100 points spent on anti-magic runes (Balance, two spellbreakers). If you want your *only* source of anti magic to survive, you'll need to pile on some defensive runes as well.

I would happily trade all of that for a real magic phase in which my Runelords could augment my army, hex my foes, or blow them the hell up with the sort of magic my opponents toss about willy nilly. Believe me, having a level 4 on shadow is *significantly* more likely to turn a game in your favor than having a Runelord on anti-magic overwatch.

DareX2
24-08-2012, 23:20
Lizardmen are REALLY bland i mean more so than dwarfs but from a visual perspective not a gaming.

They tend to be one of the most colourful armies on the battlefield, with a distinct visual style with their mesoamerican influences. I would call Skaven, Beastmen or the older half of the Tomb Kings range bland before I would call Lizardmen bland.

Xerkics
25-08-2012, 00:52
They tend to be one of the most colourful armies on the battlefield, with a distinct visual style with their mesoamerican influences. I would call Skaven, Beastmen or the older half of the Tomb Kings range bland before I would call Lizardmen bland.

A matter of preference im sure.

yabbadabba
25-08-2012, 09:22
Probably already been said. Its the player that's boring, not the army.

A bad workman blames his tools.

Daniel36
25-08-2012, 09:35
Most boring army to play against?
All of the cheese lists. All of the lists that are tailored specifically to deal with the one they know they are going to face. Sure, I have been guilty of that move as well (Lore of Metal against Chaos Warriors, in particular), but such moves always ends up costing everyone the game because it's just not fun.

It's a different thing when someone takes something that works really well against an army that he or she didn't know would be facing... But I simply dislike it when people tailor.
It's a good thing my mate implemented a random encounter system at our club, so from now on, we never really know who we will face. I like that.

gorblud
25-08-2012, 12:15
If you find them boring, fair enough, it's a personal preference; I just don't agree with your reasoning.

You don't find it boring to be shot down for 3 turns, unable to defend yourself or even get into combat? I face dwarves every time I play, half the game is just moving up and getting shot at, there's nothing else happening.

nurgle5
25-08-2012, 16:03
You don't find it boring to be shot down for 3 turns, unable to defend yourself or even get into combat? I face dwarves every time I play, half the game is just moving up and getting shot at, there's nothing else happening.

How is that any different to playing against an Empire gunline or an evasive Wood Elf army? It seems like it's getting shot at you find boring rather than Dwarfs.

passwordman
25-08-2012, 16:11
Dwarf anti-magic doesn't auto stop other players magic, all it does is level the playing field. Magic uses dice rolls so it is not guaranteed that you can dispel each spell cast.

Passwordman

gorblud
25-08-2012, 16:20
How is that any different to playing against an Empire gunline or an evasive Wood Elf army? It seems like it's getting shot at you find boring rather than Dwarfs.

You're clearly not listening. I don't mind getting shot at. What is boring is that getting shot at is ALL that happens for half the game. In wood elves lists there is enemy movement and magic. They don't have as much magic defence either so the possibility of getting spells of against them is higher. I have never met an empire gunline but I imagine it's easier to get spells of against them aswell, so at least I'd get to do something besides failing spells and moving forward for the first 3 turns.

I understand that it's possible to get spells of against dwarves, just very unlikely, especially spells that would make a difference.

nurgle5
25-08-2012, 17:24
I don't mind getting shot at. What is boring is that getting shot at is ALL that happens for half the game. In wood elves lists there is enemy movement and magic.

Just to clarify: what you find boring about dwarfs then is their lack of mobility and access to magic, rather than their shooting?

Also, don't you play the scenarios? Dwarfs wouldn't get away with just sitting there in the likes of Watchtower; Meeting Engagement and Dawn Attack would hamper their deployment.


I understand that it's possible to get spells of against dwarves, just very unlikely, especially spells that would make a difference.

You can still IF spells against dwarfs, no matter what the defence; and throwing six dice into that all critical spell hoping for the IF is apparently a very common occurrence. Unless the Dwarf player is investing a disproportionate amount of points into magical defence (at which point, this would negatively affect the rest of the army), the dwarf player will have around three additional dispel dice with a +2 to the roll and perhaps a couple of dispel scrolls. I don't see how this makes it "very unlikely" that a level 4 wizard will cast anything all game.

sepulchre
25-08-2012, 17:43
Most boring army to play against? I'm going to go in another direction and say most HE list with teclis. He throws 6 dice at something, Oh! IF what a surprise. My WL are T7/PG are strength 9. BORING!

theunwantedbeing
25-08-2012, 17:47
You can still IF spells against dwarfs, no matter what the defence; and throwing six dice into that all critical spell hoping for the IF is apparently a very common occurrence. Unless the Dwarf player is investing a disproportionate amount of points into magical defence (at which point, this would negatively affect the rest of the army), the dwarf player will have around three additional dispel dice with a +2 to the roll and perhaps a couple of dispel scrolls. I don't see how this makes it "very unlikely" that a level 4 wizard will cast anything all game.

Agreed. It's very boring to play that way though (and yet never seems to deter the dwarf player from always doing this?).

gorblud
25-08-2012, 18:17
Just to clarify: what you find boring about dwarfs then is their lack of mobility and access to magic, rather than their shooting?

Also, don't you play the scenarios? Dwarfs wouldn't get away with just sitting there in the likes of Watchtower; Meeting Engagement and Dawn Attack would hamper their deployment.



You can still IF spells against dwarfs, no matter what the defence; and throwing six dice into that all critical spell hoping for the IF is apparently a very common occurrence. Unless the Dwarf player is investing a disproportionate amount of points into magical defence (at which point, this would negatively affect the rest of the army), the dwarf player will have around three additional dispel dice with a +2 to the roll and perhaps a couple of dispel scrolls. I don't see how this makes it "very unlikely" that a level 4 wizard will cast anything all game.

Lack of mobility isn't that boring, tomb kings have even less mobility yet they are more fun to face. The combination of shooting, anti magic and not moving at all (not counting 2" backwards or sideways as moving) is boring. All they have to do is dispel my invocation and I'm done for, there's not any spells that can do much harm in lore of vampires even if a spell were to get through.

We don't play scenarios yet.

Yes, 3 extra dispel dice AND 2 or more dispel "scrolls". Trying to 6 dice spells is neither fun nor that effective since for some reason I rarely roll 2 6's that way anyway, which results in either a dispel scroll or double dispel 6's. That's the end of that magic phase. Even if the IF succeeds it can cause even more harm to the one casting the spell.

Vipoid
25-08-2012, 18:37
[COLOR="#00FF00"]You can still IF spells against dwarfs, no matter what the defence; and throwing six dice into that all critical spell hoping for the IF is apparently a very common occurrence.

No, it isn't.

Many players do throw 6 dice at a spell, in the hopes of getting IF, so that the spell is guaranteed. However, these spells are generally ones like Purple Sun - spells which can easily turn the tide of battle, and are worth risking a miscast for.

But, you're talking about trying to 6-dice every spell, in the hopes of getting them off. Considering that a miscast can:
- Wound your wizard
- Wound *all* your wizards
- Kill your wizard outright
- Remove his wizard levels
- Blow a hole in your wizard's unit
- Blow a massive hole in your wizard's unit

It's just not practical to try and IF your basic spells.

nurgle5
25-08-2012, 19:35
It's just not practical to try and IF your basic spells.

Note that I wrote "that all critical spell", critical in this context meaning crucial or decisive.



We don't play scenarios yet.


I would suggest playing the scenarios and rolling randomly to determine which one you play each game. Not only are they more fun, but they affect army composition and play style, as the army has to able to play each scenario effectively. I think this would solve a lot of problems as gunlines are less than optimal in many of the scenarios.

Lorcryst
25-08-2012, 19:35
And, don't forget, you need to roll average or above to actually get the six dice to throw at a spell ... with my usual luck of rolling 4+1 on two dice, my Dwarf opponent usually has 7 dispell dice against my 5 casting ones, making the magic phase of my Nurgle Daemon a foregone affair ...

gorblud
25-08-2012, 19:55
I would suggest playing the scenarios and rolling randomly to determine which one you play each game. Not only are they more fun, but they affect army composition and play style, as the army has to able to play each scenario effectively. I think this would solve a lot of problems as gunlines are less than optimal in many of the scenarios.

Yeah we will soon enough, we haven't been playing that long actually and all of us have quite recently developed our lists into something we feel rather comfortable with, just making small changes from time to time.

frapermax
25-08-2012, 21:23
They tend to be one of the most colourful armies on the battlefield, with a distinct visual style with their mesoamerican influences. I would call Skaven, Beastmen or the older half of the Tomb Kings range bland before I would call Lizardmen bland.

Did i hear someone call beastmen "bland". To war!

btw most boring army to play with and against:
dwarf gunline (dwarf players get over it, that so called play style you like only amuses you).
I consider my time precious, just moving up models for 2-3 turns is dead boring, win or lose.
Other dwarf lists are certainly viable and fun, just try them and learn to be good with them, then come back and complain.
greets
fpm

Tony rid
25-08-2012, 22:03
I play Dwarves and most of my friends love them. I do not play gun lines. Then again they either let me play with a full or partial slayers or t least a mix of slayers and regular dwarves.