PDA

View Full Version : What Is Your Least Favourite Army?



Oogie boogie boss
20-01-2014, 10:05
Okay, so this isn't supposed to be as negative as it sounds. It's also a broader question than it sounds. I'm asking which army you think is the most broken, which you enjoy playing/playing against the least, which army just seems to be no fun to you. To clarify, because I can see this being an issue, I'm NOT asking which army players you dislike the most. And I'm not asking which army you think seems to attract d*****bags.

I want to know if you loathe the prospect of staring at another Dwarf Gunline, if you are tired of Skaven armies with no Clanrats, if you have lost the urge to break out your WOC because you don't want to just walk forward and hit things.

So, let the world know what army is the bottom of your pile, and maybe we can come up with some ideas to fix it. :p

Shadeseraph
20-01-2014, 10:28
Dark elves. They betrayed their true king because of petty pride and almost caused the collapse of the world several times. Traitorous scum...

I know, it's not gameplay related, but I actually hate the army because of the fluff, even if I think (with a couple exceptions, but all armies have the same problem) the army rules themselves are rather nice.

Other than that, I guess WoC, but mostly because dealing with 3-4 characters with brutal ward saves (including the classical 3++/reroll 1s) just bothers me. I did flee 5th edition because it was herohammer, I didn't want to return to it.

Oogie boogie boss
20-01-2014, 10:30
Dark elves. They betrayed their true king because of petty pride and almost caused the collapse of the world several times. Traitorous scum...

Probably a good reason......

Shadeseraph
20-01-2014, 10:39
Probably a good reason......

What can I say, I take my fluff seriously :angel:

Anyway, as I've said, gameplay wise I'd say WoC. I don't consider them the most powerful army, unlike many others here. Just frustrating to play against. And, as stated, I don't like characters in general, so that's an army I'm not too fond of.

VaeVictisGames
20-01-2014, 11:05
To be honest i don't think there is an army i dislike per se. I enjoy the fluff for all of the armies in Warhammer and i've had enjoyable games against all of them. If i were forced to choose at gunpoint, i guess my least favourite would be the Bretonnians. Of all the armies available, they're the ones that aren't quite in sync with the rest of the fluff. Their 5th ed book was far too much Arthurian legend, and their current book doesn't quite work in its attempts to Warhammer-it-up. And their rules are in desperate need of an update.

I Am Forsaken
20-01-2014, 11:10
Gamewise its gotta be dwarves for me. I find gunlines quite boring to play and sometimes they can be quite brutal to play against, especially if you favor CC heavy armies like I do.

Infern0
20-01-2014, 11:12
WoC The most popular armie by far in the area I play. I didn`t have to many games with my DE.. Not too many games of FB at all, really, but majority of them were against warriors, that didn`t care at all, if I charged them to the flank with a 25 man unit of corsairs. I just don`t have much to deal with such verstile foe.. Well, I`m not a good FB player, but here are my 20 kopeks. :)

Oogie boogie boss
20-01-2014, 12:03
See, I have mixed emotions about the WOC juggernaught and the Dwarf Gunline. I've been tabled by both in different ways (took a BRUTAL beating from a Dwarf gunline a while back that still hurts), but at the same time I can't find the will to dislike them. It's how those races SHOULD operate. I admit that perhaps they do it a bit too well, and need to have the weaknesses of such a style emphasised more, but at least such a style is in character.

Romark
20-01-2014, 13:18
I voted High Elves, because i am Druchii through and through! And i hate High Elves for usurping the throne (yeah, that's right Shadeseraph!). But, after reading what this thread is actually about it's between 2 for me.

Warriors of Chaos, due to the build of unkillable hero, Helcannon, Chimera, Beast Tzeench DP, Warriors with Festus. That build annoys me. And the Empire gunline i used to have to face so often. My 3T lads and lasses just couldn't stand up to it. There were ways around them, but in Tournament play i'm not going to min/max against one army.

Alltaken
20-01-2014, 13:34
I really dont like khemri and bretonia. But I dispise playing against skaven, just can't deal with so many rats on the table, no matter the amount of sallies I bring

From my servoskull

SteveW
20-01-2014, 13:42
VC, WoC, and Beastmen. They don't play in every phase of the game.

Ero-Senin
20-01-2014, 13:54
Any army that just sits back and waits for you, castleing is just boring. So gun lines I suppose. Although I don't like playing against any mass horde armies as they just take so long to set up and deploy (skaven & goblins). But im being picky. I generally just love having a battle as dont get more than 1-2 a month at most.

Tyrant of Zhufbar
20-01-2014, 14:52
Delfs, take the cake by a long shot

Vipoid
20-01-2014, 15:11
High Elves for me.

Hard to put my finger on exactly what it is (though Banner of the World Dragon definitely springs to mind...), but I just never enjoy playing against them.


VC, WoC, and Beastmen. They don't play in every phase of the game.

Shouldn't you also include Dwarves?

They don't play in the movement phase. :D

BattleofLund
20-01-2014, 15:31
Okay, so this isn't supposed to be as negative as it sounds. It's also a broader question than it sounds. I'm asking which army you think is the most broken, which you enjoy playing/playing against the least, which army just seems to be no fun to you. To clarify, because I can see this being an issue, I'm NOT asking which army players you dislike the most. And I'm not asking which army you think seems to attract d*****bags.

I want to know if you loathe the prospect of staring at another Dwarf Gunline, if you are tired of Skaven armies with no Clanrats, if you have lost the urge to break out your WOC because you don't want to just walk forward and hit things.

So, let the world know what army is the bottom of your pile, and maybe we can come up with some ideas to fix it. :p

Didn't read this before I voted; I find it generally speeds things up diving head-first. :)

I voted on imagery vs fluff instead, and chose TK/VC. Both are far too clean and smooth in their appearance (models), and not as frightening as they should be (models, but also gameplay - the Undead should be terrifying in and of themselves, not just because of a Death Star or other Power Build).

Really dislike armies that have a Fixed Build That Is The Best, which then gets taken way too often. No matter if this is due to gamer evolutioning or Sudden Armybook Breaking, it makes me sad.

Knifeparty
20-01-2014, 17:13
I don't really hate any army specifically, but I dislike daemons of chaos. Everything is so colourful and lacks uniformity. It looks like a giant mish mash of a bunch of different models thrown into some terrible blender. Not to mention that many of the new re sculpts of the daemon line makes them look like evil Disney villains. The old 6th ed. Models looks much better.

I hate playing against high elves mostly because of frost Phoenix's, but also because I find most high elf players to be really whiny.

SteveW
20-01-2014, 17:18
I hate playing against high elves mostly because of frost Phoenix's, but also because I find most high elf players to be really whiny.
Lol, I have never noticed that any army in particular had whinier generals than any other. I'm going to be on the look out for this now.

Kahadras
20-01-2014, 17:51
Ogre Kingdoms. Not a fan of the background. Don't really like any of the models GW have put out for them. Too many choices are close to autopicks (Slaughtermaster, Bruiser BSB, Ironguts, Leadbelchers, Mornfang Cavalry, Sabretusks, Ironblaster). Their FAQ has one of the worst examples of GW rule writing (allowing Slaughtermasters to take magic armour due to inclusion of an Ironfist in their options then pointing out that this goes against the spirit of the rules).

shakedown47
20-01-2014, 17:51
VC, WoC, and Beastmen. They don't play in every phase of the game.

How so? I understand that VC, being ITP, can't do many of the fast cav and redirection shenanigans available to other armies, but they can still have an effective movement phase. Of course WoC don't have much to offer in shooting, other than hellcannons, but personally I've never been disappointed by my opponent NOT shooting me. Beastmen are certainly light on shooting but it's there, and I'd echo my comment from before. Not being argumentative, just curious what your rationale is.

Moshes
20-01-2014, 18:17
Rules aside, Iīd rather say Ogres, because there is no real reason for being an army. I mean, the fluff is so inconsistent that renders the possibility of an organized Ogre force null and devoid. It seems to me like an impossible army of individuals, like an army of WWF performers, but less serious. Fighting against these armies remembers me like fighting against an army of action figures, such as He Manīs, and I canīt withstand my disdain.

Fluff aside, I should point to DE, simply because the studio bias that favoured them. They are, in every incarnation of the codex, made to be better than the HE. And this causes a power creep. Moreover, the first real case of power creep that I can recall went back to the 4th edition, when the HE CODEX WAS REMADE TO BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE DE, WHICH IN TURN CAUSED THE RE-WRITTING OF THE DE CODEX TO BE BETTER for the 5th ed. This nonsense made by the pretension of the designers to do an army THAT HAS NO EQUAL IN EVERY PHASE OF THE TURN, which in game terms begat a pletora of DE players who exploited every trick in their codex to fed me up with dark magic (yeah, our dark magic is better than yours, rat), critters (poor humans, do you retain Ogres? No, such a pitty, we have Hydras), assasins (and our assasins are better too, cheese eating mutant), characters (Imrik... we got the Wicht King) and so on. Insufferable, really and ever.

No offense, please, but the DE make me sick, like only sons...

SteveW
20-01-2014, 18:32
How so? I understand that VC, being ITP, can't do many of the fast cav and redirection shenanigans available to other armies, but they can still have an effective movement phase. Of course WoC don't have much to offer in shooting, other than hellcannons, but personally I've never been disappointed by my opponent NOT shooting me. Beastmen are certainly light on shooting but it's there, and I'd echo my comment from before. Not being argumentative, just curious what your rationale is.

I like using tactics flee tactics and other movement shenanigans, so VC don't appeal to me. They also don't really have a shooting phase. WoC also are light on shooting and the one warmachine they have is stupid and overpriced. The Beastmen just seem like brown orcs that are not able to field as diverse an army.

I do however enjoy playing against every army and am glad those armies are in the game for variety.

Jackspappa
20-01-2014, 19:28
What can I say, I take my fluff seriously :angel:

Anyway, as I've said, gameplay wise I'd say WoC. I don't consider them the most powerful army, unlike many others here. Just frustrating to play against. And, as stated, I don't like characters in general, so that's an army I'm not too fond of.

I think the game lacks eligible characters/named characters (if that was what you meant?). Named characters with their own lore and exclusive rules/abilities is what brings flavor to an army. It seems today that GW is moving away from using named characters in the game which is sad, or the ones existing have some huge point costs they're not worth it.
A nicely painted, expensive character is what should be in every army and looked upon with awe.

TheBrandedOne
20-01-2014, 20:15
Fluff aside, I should point to DE, simply because the studio bias that favoured them. They are, in every incarnation of the codex, made to be better than the HE. And this causes a power creep. Moreover, the first real case of power creep that I can recall went back to the 4th edition, when the HE CODEX WAS REMADE TO BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE DE, WHICH IN TURN CAUSED THE RE-WRITTING OF THE DE CODEX TO BE BETTER for the 5th ed. This nonsense made by the pretension of the designers to do an army THAT HAS NO EQUAL IN EVERY PHASE OF THE TURN, which in game terms begat a pletora of DE players who exploited every trick in their codex to fed me up with dark magic (yeah, our dark magic is better than yours, rat), critters (poor humans, do you retain Ogres? No, such a pitty, we have Hydras), assasins (and our assasins are better too, cheese eating mutant), characters (Imrik... we got the Wicht King) and so on. Insufferable, really and ever.

No offense, please, but the DE make me sick, like only sons...

I second this. DE excel or are superior in almost every aspect of the game. I've heard people justify it by pointing out their low Toughness, but does that honestly matter? The latest incarnation took away the ridiculous Hydra and even more ridiculous Pendant, but now we have droves of Witch Elves as Core and Warlocks (seriously, who determined the point price of those things?!) They now have access to any Lore (though Dark Magic is still a very strong option)... Re-rolls every way you turn, even against their primary opponent (High Elves) which is one of the few that can match their Initiative. Almost everything worth taking has Poison.

It's just my humble opinion that Dark Elves have MORE than enough strength to compensate for their few weaknesses. Almost anything other armies can do, the DE can do better or more efficiently.

Dark Side Duke
20-01-2014, 20:47
I like using tactics flee tactics and other movement shenanigans, so VC don't appeal to me. They also don't really have a shooting phase. WoC also are light on shooting and the one warmachine they have is stupid and overpriced. The Beastmen just seem like brown orcs that are not able to field as diverse an army.

I do however enjoy playing against every army and am glad those armies are in the game for variety.

Let's be serious, who really has a shooting phase in 8th edition. (Cannons aside)

TsukeFox
20-01-2014, 21:04
Ogre Kingdoms. Not a fan of the background. Don't really like any of the models GW have put out for them. Too many choices are close to autopicks (Slaughtermaster, Bruiser BSB, Ironguts, Leadbelchers, Mornfang Cavalry, Sabretusks, Ironblaster). Their FAQ has one of the worst examples of GW rule writing (allowing Slaughtermasters to take magic armour due to inclusion of an Ironfist in their options then pointing out that this goes against the spirit of the rules).

Agreed -! Just immune to everything in the game.
Could have been written much better !& or never written at all, allowing for Chaos Dwarves to come out as a proper GW release

Archon of Death
20-01-2014, 21:06
Empire and Ogre Kingdoms. These three are the primary offenders of black powder weaponry. I have never really enjoyed black powder and above very low magic combinations. Low magic and black powder is fine, like when a wizard is a highly rare thing (a few in the whole world, perhaps) and magic isn't accessible (through items, scrolls, etc) and its pretty much sentient lifeforms against the world using black powder as a means of fighting against a world that may otherwise devour them.

But black powder and magic don't mix. Why would you make a cannon when you have wizards to blast your enemies? Why would you create guns when you have enchanted arrows? Black powder would be a novel invention for a mage specializing in alchemy, but the cost in materials and preparation would initially make it far more effective to just have a mage doing the things that you may otherwise use powder for.

In Warhammer we have a group fighting against a magical world with no ability of their own, no way to be these casters, no way to fight against the cruelties of Chaotic winds; we have Dwarves. Well, the Dwarves found a way to fight back, they found gunpowder, they have not only a means of acquiring it in a cost effective way (byproducts of their mining history) but a reason to use it, to fight their otherwise insurmountable enemies and to aid in the tasks of working the stone. Good for you, dwarves.

But Empire? Ogre Kingdoms? Why would you wish for these things other than signs of conquest and curios, you have magic, you have a means of producing the effects that black powder is used for, at far less expense. But, no, instead of that they have stolen something that should have been a unique aspect to one group.

So, I submit to you, my hatred, my anger, and the reason I refuse to enjoy these armies. Thank you.

Edit
Oh, and I voted for Empire, not OK because I could only vote for one. The reason I chose Empire is due to their usage of black powder, tanks (seriously, they aren't even steampunk, and even that should be dwarf exclusive, not empire), full plate, monstrous cavalry, silly costumes, and no truly unique features. In fact, if you kept the full plate as their pinnacle of technological achievement, dropped the engineers and black powder, and maybe given them alchemists instead, you'd have a really cool army that has a trio of leadership (government, magical, and religious) supported by soldiers and heavily armoured elites that would effectively retain a unique theme.

SteveW
20-01-2014, 22:06
Let's be serious, who really has a shooting phase in 8th edition. (Cannons aside)

Tomb kings, The three Elf armies, Brets, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, and Orcs n Goblins have plenty of non-cannon shooting.

Kakapo42
20-01-2014, 22:23
I don't really dislike any of the current factions in terms of background. I see them each having their own place. So I went with one I don't like rules-wise

And that is Ogre Kingdoms. I like the concept behind the faction. I can even appreciate their aesthetics. But I don't like their rules at all. They're a hard as nails straight-up smash-face close combat beat-stick army, which is all well and good, except there's already one of those factions in Warhammer, Warriors of Chaos. But what really fries me about them is that the don't seem to have en exploitable weakness, and all the other factions do. They're faster than the Elf factions, which are supposed to be the speedy factions, extremely tough and have some of the better shooting in the game, and I don't think any faction should have all of those things. One or two perhaps, but not all.

Shadeseraph
20-01-2014, 22:41
I think the game lacks eligible characters/named characters (if that was what you meant?). Named characters with their own lore and exclusive rules/abilities is what brings flavor to an army. It seems today that GW is moving away from using named characters in the game which is sad, or the ones existing have some huge point costs they're not worth it.
A nicely painted, expensive character is what should be in every army and looked upon with awe.

No, I don't like characters in general, named or not. I'm playing a wargame, not Exalted (a roleplaying game), I don't really like the idea of a single character munching a full unit of organized troops by itself, even if I have no problem with a monster doing the same. Preferences, mainly.

Well, to be precise, I don't like how characters work in WHFB/WH40K. I don't mind the concept of characters leading the army, but I'd prefer if they were more support oriented, rather than killy. I'd love if they weren't given a profile themselves, and instead counted as a "unit upgrade" of sorts that gives the unit specific abilities, that are lost once the unit dies, with maybe more important characters being able to move between units.

Dark_Kindred
20-01-2014, 22:46
But black powder and magic don't mix. Why would you make a cannon when you have wizards to blast your enemies? Why would you create guns when you have enchanted arrows? Black powder would be a novel invention for a mage specializing in alchemy, but the cost in materials and preparation would initially make it far more effective to just have a mage doing the things that you may otherwise use powder for.

But Empire? Ogre Kingdoms? Why would you wish for these things other than signs of conquest and curios, you have magic, you have a means of producing the effects that black powder is used for, at far less expense.

Not being an expert on the Warhammer setting, I am not sure that I can comment with any level of respectable authority. However, would it not be possible for the Empire to have benefitted from a "second mover advantage"? Imagine that you are some human military observer or general and you see firearms and artillery in use. You see exactly what you just described: a bunch of short, brawny men without access to magic successfully fight against magically supported armies and win. You might think to yourself: That victory was impressive but imagine if they had their swords, guns, and magic.

By hook or by crook, you manage to procure and study dwarven firearms. Even if a considerable amount of time and resources has to be devoted to reproducing a workable firearm or cannon, you still circumvented a huge portion of the R&D process and now have access to weapons that are comparatively inexpensive and highly effective against heavily armored opponents (re: Knights, Chaos Warriors, and so on). All of the things that made firearms successful in the real world, even supposing that magic were strictly better / more cost efficient (which I'm not sure it is) should make them successful in a fantasy setting unless magic interferes with or is interfered with by black powder. Honestly, magic seems like a pretty neutral force to me. It can make arrows better, why can't it make bullets better? More importantly, you would't have to worry about casting a spell on the arrows in the first place.

That said, I am likewise averse to having black powder and magic in the same setting.

Yersinia Pestis
20-01-2014, 22:53
I don't like playing against gobbos because my regular gobbo opponent fields a ridiculous amount of small night goblin units, all with 3 fanatics in 'em..... You can outmanoeuvre him all you want, whatever (you can go for their flank or rear, it doesn't matter...), once you get in range, he just releases them fanatics, mows away at your unit and then you get the chance to score like no points because it's such a small unit and the same trick repeats itself over and over again.... (maybe a shooty army would deal with it but i play WoC.......)

Archon of Death
20-01-2014, 23:05
Well in the case of Warhammer, the Empire learned how to make them from the Dwarves. And yes, there is an argument for gaining technologies from the originator of them. However in a universe that already has magic, why would those who can economically have magic users need or desire to acquire a technology like this when the labor involved in the material collection and production greatly out costs the aid of magic users. That's the majority of my argument against having black powder in combination with casters. To mine resources oneself to produce the black powder requires intense labor, where as magic users are simply born into the world and will be sent for training whether or not they are even necessary. As for trading for the substances or the ready made black powder, that costs things you produce without gaining any necessities for your culture. It's simply a curio to be maintained by overly wealthy hobbyists who would be less likely to use their treasures when they might end up losing them.

It's like having access to magically flying castles that require only moderate upkeep, and deciding you'd rather have an airplane which runs on fossil fuels. Or like in our current world, having access to fossil fuels as well as hydrogen fuel cells to power cars, then choosing hydrogen fuel cells despite fossil fuels costing less (when said fuels end up costing more, then it will be a different situation and ultimately the roles will reverse)

As for magic being a neutral force that could make powder projectiles better, that's definitely true, but why do that when it's more economically feasible to build a magic powered cannon without the use of black powder? The problem isn't so much that today it's possible to have cannons with black powder, the problem is getting to that point. Sure you may purchase a cannon from the dwarves for trade goods after you see or learn of its effects, but then you realize that they pulled one over on you because you need to trade more to get the fuel to make it work.

It would have been nice if the dwarves had powder weapons alone, however having the Empire and the Ogres have them as well just seems like a diffusion of unique explainable character. And I think a large portion of that is due to GW loving cannons and wanting there to be more, while throwing the uniqueness factor out the window

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
20-01-2014, 23:13
Ogres have pants initiative and essentially auto-lose to armies bringing Purple Sun or Pit of Shades. That's their biggest weakness. Their chaff is also pretty mediocre, and without impact hits they're not actually as scary in combat as one might fear.

Which isn't to say they're not a tough army. A good ogres army is a fearsome beast indeed. But they're not WoC by any stretch of the imagination.



As for my least favourite army to play against? Definitely Warriors of Chaos. Their book is full of cool options but you only ever see the same ******** over and over. Unkillable, unbreakable demon princes. Unkillable BSBs. Flying, regenerating chimeras. Skullcrushers. When you see a character-heavy warrior star on the table and are RELIEVED to see someone taking different choices from the book you have a problem.

I also loath fighting the skink-cloud lizardmen list, but only because I can't figure out how to deal with it for the life of me.

Vipoid
20-01-2014, 23:18
I don't really dislike any of the current factions in terms of background. I see them each having their own place. So I went with one I don't like rules-wise

And that is Ogre Kingdoms. I like the concept behind the faction. I can even appreciate their aesthetics. But I don't like their rules at all. They're a hard as nails straight-up smash-face close combat beat-stick army, which is all well and good, except there's already one of those factions in Warhammer, Warriors of Chaos. But what really fries me about them is that the don't seem to have en exploitable weakness, and all the other factions do. They're faster than the Elf factions, which are supposed to be the speedy factions, extremely tough and have some of the better shooting in the game, and I don't think any faction should have all of those things. One or two perhaps, but not all.

The trouble is, their 'exploitable weakness' lies with spells like Purple Sun and Pit of Shades - spells which shouldn't exist at all, let alone being the 'weakness' for certain armies.

Archon of Death
20-01-2014, 23:18
Ogres have pants initiative and essentially auto-lose to armies bringing Purple Sun or Pit of Shades. That's their biggest weakness. Their chaff is also pretty mediocre, and without impact hits they're not actually as scary in combat as one might fear.

Which isn't to say they're not a tough army. A good ogres army is a fearsome beast indeed. But they're not WoC by any stretch of the imagination.

Pretty much this. It's also similar to Tyranid Warriors in 40k. They have additional wounds which allows them to take more damage before losing portions of their attacks, but in so doing each model is essentially a swarm of models some other army may field, effects like instant death cause them to crumble which isn't desirable. Just remember, sometimes it's a lot better to have 3 10 point models than one 3 wound 30 point model.

Coldhatred
21-01-2014, 02:12
I don't much care for Lizardmen. I can't really put my finger on it, but I guess it's because in my mind all the action and narrative happens across the ocean from them, so whilst one can do fun narratives with Chaos, Dark Elves, Skaven, and maybe even Empire everything else feels contrived.

Dark_Kindred
21-01-2014, 04:57
@Archon of Death: on phone here but bear with me. With respect to procurement costs, why even have plate armor? Clearly magic is devastating against heavily armed/armored/trained/expensive people. You also need to mine to make said armor/weapons just as you would need a quarry to have enough stone to build a city. I think singling firearms out for being inconsistent with magic is a bit unfair (unless your beef is with black powded specifically). In fact, I would argue that firearms would be more desirable than most anything short of a spear or club because its ranged, portable, powerful, non magic dependent, requires little training, and compounds power more effectively than any sort of melee weapon and most ranged weapons. You also have people running around with catapults and ballistas, which are either more complicated to assemble or just not as powerful. I would also contend that technological diffusion reduces costs so dramatically in many cases: look at cell phones in Africa or Asia. They basically skipped land lines entirely.

m1acca1551
21-01-2014, 05:25
Woc/doc and beastmen... Ok I'm going to say it.... Ready??? THEY DONT NEED SEPERATE BLOODY BOOKS!!! They are essentially the same thing! One is simply very straight forward and powerful one is random and the other hairy smelly and old!!

It's like giving orcs and goblins different books for goblins, night goblins, orcs and savage orcs.

I'm just tired of the 3 different books, they were fine in 6th where they shared ok so simply put it in again, if you want a beastmen army then choose a beast lord from the Lord choice.

And bring back daemon summoning, woc or beasts with daemons was fricking awesome and respected the lore.

:)

Brother Haephestus
21-01-2014, 05:30
Your asking the original 'SQUIRREL!' guy about which army he doesn't like? There's only one that I don't own a few pieces (read 'a battalion box') tucked away somewhere and that is Beastmen. Giant cows with sword-hands is stretching it for me. Everything else I just love to kittens! And, GW loves me ...

Kahadras
21-01-2014, 08:18
Ogres have pants initiative and essentially auto-lose to armies bringing Purple Sun or Pit of Shades. That's their biggest weakness. Their chaff is also pretty mediocre, and without impact hits they're not actually as scary in combat as one might fear.


Well they are at a disadvantage against stuff like Psun and Pit but are in no way going to auto lose (I've played enough games against OK with my High Elf Archmage with Lore of Shadows to know that Pit won't save my army). Chaff might be mediocre but is some of the cheapest around (single Sabretusks). Even without impact hits I find Ogres scary enough in combat, especialy against infantry where they can get their stomps. Ogres do have an average leadership and substandard initative but they get so many advatages that they easily offset them (IMO).

Scythe
21-01-2014, 08:19
Tough choice... I don't really hate any warhammer army, though there are a few I like less, for a variety of reasons.

Dwarves are just kind of dull to play against... Little movement, a lot of shooting, no magic, and they usually deadlock your magic phase as well. Boring.

I never really liked the concept behind Skaven... The ratmen simply don't do it for me.

And finally, I really dislike the current model range of Chaos. Things like the forsaken and the slaughterbrute are just terrible models; you feel like bursting out in laughter upon seeing those poor souls, instead of the dread you should be feeling for facing the hordes of Chaos. The 6th edition range was quite a bit better in that aspect. It also doesn't help that they've got some broken, annoying things on the battlefield, like practically unkillable demon princes.


Well in the case of Warhammer, the Empire learned how to make them from the Dwarves. And yes, there is an argument for gaining technologies from the originator of them. However in a universe that already has magic, why would those who can economically have magic users need or desire to acquire a technology like this when the labor involved in the material collection and production greatly out costs the aid of magic users. That's the majority of my argument against having black powder in combination with casters. To mine resources oneself to produce the black powder requires intense labor, where as magic users are simply born into the world and will be sent for training whether or not they are even necessary. As for trading for the substances or the ready made black powder, that costs things you produce without gaining any necessities for your culture. It's simply a curio to be maintained by overly wealthy hobbyists who would be less likely to use their treasures when they might end up losing them.

Because the Empire used throw all magic users on the fire until about 200 years ago (and Witchunters still like doing that on occasion, if you're not a registered magic user). By that time, blackpowder had already been developed an had been in use for quite a long time.


As for magic being a neutral force that could make powder projectiles better, that's definitely true, but why do that when it's more economically feasible to build a magic powered cannon without the use of black powder?

Why would it be more economically feasible? You only have a few gifted individuals who can learn magic, after years and years of intensive, expensive study. On the other hand, you can practically learn every single peasant the skills to make blackpowder weapons (smiting, wood crafting, etc), while they all have the potential to become engineers as well.
In addition, a gun works in the hands of any user. A spell enhanced bow depends on that wizard being near and alive to keep it going.

boli
21-01-2014, 08:41
DEs mainly as I like HEs and being told (smugly) every time that not only do I loose my rerolls they keep theirs... Oh and they also rerolls 1s to wound.

Its like they were designed specifically to annoy all HE players... Especially when they start moaning about how expensive their "warriors" are now and they really should have kept them the same cost.

Vipoid
21-01-2014, 10:48
DEs mainly as I like HEs and being told (smugly) every time that not only do I loose my rerolls they keep theirs... Oh and they also rerolls 1s to wound.

Why do they keep their rerolls?

boli
21-01-2014, 10:52
Why do they keep their rerolls?

ASF on both elves - both sides loose re-roll to hit
DE have Hatred (High Elves) - Reroll to hit first round of combat, which with elves vs elves is pretty much the only round of combat.

Vipoid
21-01-2014, 10:54
ASF on both elves - both sides loose re-roll to hit
DE have Hatred (High Elves) - Reroll to hit first round of combat, which with elves vs elves is pretty much the only round of combat.

Ah, I see.

theunwantedbeing
21-01-2014, 11:04
Dwarves, just because unless the other guy is really fun the game is going to be dull.

m1acca1551
21-01-2014, 11:08
I will also add that dwarfs are the most boring army to play against, especially a points denial gun line... I know they have an old book but so bloody tedious... At least their turns go fast.

Vipoid
21-01-2014, 11:20
Dwarves, just because unless the other guy is really fun the game is going to be dull.

Yeah, Dwarves would probably be my second choice - especially considering all their anti-magic stuff.

Rakariel
21-01-2014, 11:21
In general I don`t really dislike any faction. But if I had to pick one I would say WoC. Their newest book just feels bland and boring to play imo.

Knifeparty
21-01-2014, 16:03
In general I don`t really dislike any faction. But if I had to pick one I would say WoC. Their newest book just feels bland and boring to play imo

At least it's not as bad as the 7th edition one.

Army List:

Lvl 4 Tzeentch with spell familiar to get Infernal Gateway

Festus to give the Chosen Regen and Poison Attacks

Chosen Deathstar of Tzeentch with Halberds and Banner of Rage for Frenzy

2 Warshrines to give the Chosen Deathstar 4+ ward (stacks with Tzeentch for 3+) and any other gifts you manage to roll before the game or with the shrines.

So that is a Chosen Warrior with WS 6 St 5 with 3 Poisoned Attacks each while having a 4+ save, 3++ward save, 5+ regeneration (yes, all of these stacked in 7th) and Stubborn.

Tactics: Move forward, Cast Infernal Gateway (which removed entire units if you got Strength 11 or 12 on the roll with 2d6), Charge with Chosen, Win!

This is one of the main reasons why I believe Phil Kelly shouldn't write rules.

Karak Norn Clansman
21-01-2014, 16:28
Those bloody Vampire Counts. Stay dead when I kill ya! :D

Captain Collius
21-01-2014, 17:19
Dark Elves-a bunch of emo raiders who keep coming down and taking our stuff and won't move back to their flipping continent- Signed the Lizardmen.

Imperator64
21-01-2014, 20:25
Daemons. Everything about them annoys me from their stupid spelling to the design of the models. But mainly I dislike them because they seem so fake, forced and unnecessary. I dont think they should exist as an army but instead be a part of a Forces of Chaos union with warriors. (but not beastmen). This feeling is compounded by the fact that half of the model range seems to have been created just in order to increase possible troop options. They look ridiculous!

leopard
21-01-2014, 20:27
Dwarves currently, just because they tend to be very dull to play against, hopefully this will be resolved soon.

Very close second is High Elves, simply for the "re-roll" confetti.

Visually I like all the warhammer armies, from a theme perspective the only one I'd probably not want personally is Dark Elves, doubt I could do them justice.

Jind_Singh
22-01-2014, 06:29
dwarf gunline - I don't blame the dwarfs as their current book doesn't allow for anything else - but it's not a fun game!

Spiney Norman
22-01-2014, 08:27
I don't much care for Lizardmen. I can't really put my finger on it, but I guess it's because in my mind all the action and narrative happens across the ocean from them, so whilst one can do fun narratives with Chaos, Dark Elves, Skaven, and maybe even Empire everything else feels contrived.

In fairness this feels a little ill informed, Dark elves live just as far away as Lizardmen, except that Lizardmen also live in the southlands near Khemri (and not that far away from the old world) and in the dragon isle (within spitting distance of the ogre kingdoms and the bad lands).

Karak Norn Clansman
22-01-2014, 08:34
dwarf gunline - I don't blame the dwarfs as their current book doesn't allow for anything else - but it's not a fun game!

You can always try a Miner army. Without Anvil of Doom. Then watch the enemy outpace your flanking units. :D

WizzyWarlock
22-01-2014, 08:35
Warriors of Chaos for me. Having played with them and against them, I find nothing enjoyable in their style at all. It basically comes down to pushing your models forward to engage them in close combat, as they smash face against pretty much anything in the combat phase. Extremely dull army to play.

Oogie boogie boss
22-01-2014, 13:37
I have to admit, I'm surprised Skaven aren't leading the charge on this one. From my days as a Skaven player, I thought everyone else hated them! And I'm equally surprised anyone could dislike OnG the most.....they're so fun!

logan054
22-01-2014, 13:47
Warriors of Chaos for me. Having played with them and against them, I find nothing enjoyable in their style at all. It basically comes down to pushing your models forward to engage them in close combat, as they smash face against pretty much anything in the combat phase. Extremely dull army to play.

I find that only happens when the other person does exactly the same thing, when you try using chaff units to redirect them, flee from charges, try and bait them into flank charges it becomes a much more enjoyable game.

Captain Collius
22-01-2014, 14:50
Deamons of Chaos-Why nurgle lists just make the game a grind where it literally comes down to a roll off

Montegue
23-01-2014, 05:05
Tomb Kings. Kicking puppies isn't fun.

Piercefierce
23-01-2014, 07:38
Dark Elves. They just seem to get too much of everything.

I think most people are just disliking the warriors because they get beaten by them too much. Which is a valid point i guess.

logan054
24-01-2014, 00:12
I think most people are just disliking the warriors because they get beaten by them too much. Which is a valid point i guess.

Probably the same kind of people who moan about how broken my Khorne lord on jugger is when armed with the sword of anti-heroes....

forseer of fates
24-01-2014, 01:06
wouldn't moan about woc, woc is soso

Max_Killfactor
24-01-2014, 01:22
Chaos Daemons. They should not be a stand alone army.

SteveW
24-01-2014, 02:06
Chaos Daemons. They should not be a stand alone army.

I actually like chaos when all three were one army.

Archon of Death
24-01-2014, 02:44
I actually like chaos when all three were one army.

See, I feel the same in 40k, as well. Mind you back when 40k had only 1 army for them, I was able to have fun playing Noise Marines with a Slaaneshi Daemon Prince who was unable to be targeted, and groups of favored number CSM with Sonic weaponry.

WoodElfGeneral
24-01-2014, 05:14
Chaos Mortals
In my experience, they all run pretty similar stuff (looking at you nurgle)
Also, having them walk at me and then smash all my stuff in combat is not fun, and i have found outmaneuvering is not as viable as it once was because they have lots of fast movers now that are still tough as nails
Also, hate their armor

They have always been my most played opponent and I play wood elves. Take it for what it is.

Dark elves are a close second after the new book

Evil Hypnotist
24-01-2014, 08:31
There's a common phrase at my wargames club "Cheating High Elves". People don't like their opponents re-rolling poor dice. I expect a change when the new Dwarf book comes out though...

Kahadras
24-01-2014, 15:56
There's a common phrase at my wargames club "Cheating High Elves". People don't like their opponents re-rolling poor dice

Wow your gaming club must really hate Dark Elves then.

Sinsigel
24-01-2014, 16:38
Skavens obviously.
Ridiculously powerful and cheap options(HPA, WLC, 13th Spell, LD 10 Steadfast 100pts slave block, Wither, Plague, plague furnace, etc)
that can most of the time fit in a single list is what I find quite disturbing.
Even more uncomfortable is the fact while I(who plays high elves) spend considerable time building optimal 'all-comers' list,
skavens just put in their lists few things and the job is done. Such hastely written list is versatile in almost all ways at low cost without much instability.

Ironguts sporting Rune Maw? A pair of WLCs please. Cannons threatening HPA? Storm Banner is here.
Enemy flying monsters spotted? Get some jezzails, WLCs and if those aren't enough place HPA nearby.
Choppy elites? They're rats now. Infantry hordes just melt to plague, wind mortars and Plague Claw Catapults. Not to mention skavens are one of the best grinding armies out there.

Yet many of the players I met who collect skavens complain that skavens are so cowardish and unstable, and so prone to misfire.
Yeah right, and I am the king of England.

snyggejygge
24-01-2014, 19:21
Lizardmen, hate dinosaurs, have nothing to do in my view of the warhammer world & the games are boring as well, itīs usually decided by whether you kill the fat frog or not....

Vipoid
24-01-2014, 20:25
Wow your gaming club must really hate Dark Elves then.

Well, I can't speak for Evil Hypnotist, but at least Dark Elves do stuff.

High Elves seem designed more to stop you doing stuff - a frozen turkey that weakens any unit it touches, a spell that destroys magic items, a spell that automatically removes all RiP spells from a unit and, let's not forget, an abundance of ward saves - even 2+ ward saves.

SteveW
24-01-2014, 20:50
Well, I can't speak for Evil Hypnotist, but at least Dark Elves do stuff.

High Elves seem designed more to stop you doing stuff - a frozen turkey that weakens any unit it touches, a spell that destroys magic items, a spell that automatically removes all RiP spells from a unit and, let's not forget, an abundance of ward saves - even 2+ ward saves.

Yeah, that is why I love my High Elves. They have an answer for everything.

badguyshaveallthefun
25-01-2014, 00:07
That's why I chose High Elves. Doesn't help that my regular opponent plays them either and so a majority of my games are against them. But between BotWD, ward saves everywhere else, that d*mn Frost Phoenix and decent magic, I just don't enjoy fighting against them anymore.

I really don't enjoy fighting gunlines either, they're a close second, whether or not it's dwarves, empire, or anything else.

dalezzz
25-01-2014, 01:29
Better players annoy me no end! How dare they bring things to counter my insta win strategy, or even worse , move things sidewise!

Ullis
25-01-2014, 01:56
I am coming at this from a fluff point if view and my least favourite in that regard are the Tomb Kings. I am simply not a fan of the Egyptian theme of the army book, but having said that I am glad they are represented in the game - the more races the better, in my opinion.

Importman
25-01-2014, 03:11
Dwarves. Their gunline army is boring as hell to play against. Prone to list tailoring in order to win against.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

NagashLover
26-01-2014, 02:25
Based upon the criteria I will say dwarves (dwarfs? Somebody with a better grasp of English can educate me as my language isn't "naturally" English and my degrees are Philosophy and Business). I love the lore. Though I despise the Ogre lore, but on the table top it is the play style. This is due to my experience over the years but our 1 dwarf player mostly plays a "gun line" approach. Where as our ogre player fields pretty much everything in his book.

So in consolidation.

Ogres haves terribly boring or unimaginative lore but, with what I face, our dwarf player lists almost the same list which I reasonably attribute to the age of the book. I honestly don't mind winning or losing (I play Tomb Kings and I also play a Necro/Wight heavy VC list) but when facing opponents it appears that our dwarf player fields mostly the same types of list. Which leads to expected experiences.

Coldhatred
26-01-2014, 04:58
In fairness this feels a little ill informed, Dark elves live just as far away as Lizardmen, except that Lizardmen also live in the southlands near Khemri (and not that far away from the old world) and in the dragon isle (within spitting distance of the ogre kingdoms and the bad lands).

I know, and you're right. But at the very least with Dark Elves you have raiding party idea to fall back on. It's really not a condemnation against Lizardmen, they just never really worked for me in my imaginings. I have no clear idea as to why.

tezdal
26-01-2014, 06:29
Empire, they just got entirely stupid looking. In 5th they had some of the best looking models ever(looking at you especially Reiksguard foot) now it's all gigantic cod pieces.

Acephale
28-01-2014, 08:12
I voted Dwarfs. They're too much of a generic fantasy race for my tastes, and most of the troop types and designs don't appeal to me at all.

Sure, Elves and Greenskins are generic too but at least you get some variety and some pretty Warhammer-specific fluff.

Dwarfs are just the same old mountain-dwelling, beer-drinking, metal-lovin' neckbeards they've always been in every fantasy world since Tolkien.

DeathGlam
28-01-2014, 11:45
I voted TK/Vampires but i really mean just Vampires, not sure why really, just never had a game i really enjoyed against them.

But i personally love all the armies when it comes to the fluff, which is why i have a unit of nearly all of them and struggle to stick to just the one army.

Oogie boogie boss
28-01-2014, 13:01
Can I just say I'm shocked at the 8 people who like OnG least. Shocked.

N1AK
28-01-2014, 13:05
Fluff aside, I should point to DE, simply because the studio bias that favoured them. They are, in every incarnation of the codex, made to be better than the HE. And this causes a power creep. Moreover, the first real case of power creep that I can recall went back to the 4th edition, when the HE CODEX WAS REMADE TO BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE DE, WHICH IN TURN CAUSED THE RE-WRITTING OF THE DE CODEX TO BE BETTER for the 5th ed.

Dark Elves had the only army book so bad they actually amended it and spent years being weaker than the High Elves before becoming absolutely broken with the Gav Thorpe army book. The current book is probably about equal with HE in uncomped play, because although I think the majority of units are better for their points the BotWD and Frost Phoenixes are that good.

duffybear1988
28-01-2014, 13:17
High elves. They are bland and way to shiny. Personally I would have rolled Wood Elves and High Elves together into one nation/army.

Lord Solar Plexus
28-01-2014, 13:57
Don't particularly like DE and Skaven, they have that power creep thing about them. Warlocks, seriously?!? The only thing they can't do well is **** gold I think...I wonder why they cannot fly and have a re-rollable 1+ AS on top????


However in a universe that already has magic, why would those who can economically have magic users need or desire to acquire a technology like this when the labor involved in the material collection and production greatly out costs the aid of magic users.

Uhm...what precisely is the basis for this assumption? Have you seen the average wage of an L2? Do you know how much material Fire wizards waste to try even a small cantrip? :p Sorry but that's based on thin air.

SteveW
28-01-2014, 20:12
Uhm...what precisely is the basis for this assumption? Have you seen the average wage of an L2? Do you know how much material Fire wizards waste to try even a small cantrip? :p Sorry but that's based on thin air.

Not only that, but you can conscript endless laborers while there are only so many wizards.

lordfeint
29-01-2014, 18:59
Daemons of Chaos.
Not because they're OP, but I just don't like the general look of em. Especially now that they have the weird hoverboard looking thing that reminds me of Flash Gordon.

"Bumbumbumbumbum... Khorne!!! Ah-Aaaah!!!"

Penitent Engine
29-01-2014, 23:11
Elves - High and Dark
High Elves because they're arrogant bastards. And Teclis.
Dark Elves because (a) Hydras, (b) Dreadlord combo, (c) everything about their magic, especially the signature. Really, really annoys me as a VC player that I can be out-magicked by a lone L2 Sorceress with some special dagger.


Not only that, but you can conscript endless laborers while there are only so many wizards.
Not to mention that magic tends to be corrupting, can result in inter-dimensional cascades, monsters and daemonic incursions and takes decades to become proficient at. Heinrich Kemmler took twenty years to be able to reanimate a graveyard (say 30 zombies) and he was exceptional. Magic may often be "better", but it's unreliable, harder to learn and far more dangerous.

lybban
31-01-2014, 19:05
Lizardmen. They look like childrens toys to me. Not like smelly old fat nerd toys like the rest of the armies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

amabot
02-02-2014, 08:27
Ogres......

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2

Sir_Turalyon
02-02-2014, 21:29
Skaven, the theme is just to disturbing. They are unique, interesting and expand the game in directions that should be left unexpanded.

Not to keen of post-2004 approach to Ogres and Wood Elves, too, but both armies can be fixed by new rules and old background.

Lordcypress
02-02-2014, 21:40
Chaos Dwarves. I just don't like the fact that they don't have an army book that was put out by Games Workshop. I know that they are now legal and all but to me they just aren't part of the core armies yet.

TheBearminator
02-02-2014, 23:54
Deamons, for both games. The army I always forget it exists because it doesn't interest me one bit. And yet they have a few nice models, like the deamon engines.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
03-02-2014, 05:31
Dwarfs. I tend to play Empire or Dwarfs myself and especially when playing Dwarfs it just seems so unlike Dwarfs to fight their kin.

Kakapo42
03-02-2014, 06:54
Dwarfs. I tend to play Empire or Dwarfs myself and especially when playing Dwarfs it just seems so unlike Dwarfs to fight their kin.

Surely the your Dwarves had a grudge to settle with the other Dwarf army?

trotsky
03-02-2014, 23:14
Surely the your Dwarves had a grudge to settle with the other Dwarf army?

I don't know how they sort it out but they don't fight. Don't even have a word for civil war- the whole sundering thing freaked them out IIRC

Angelwing
03-02-2014, 23:33
Dwarves. I've never ever had an enjoyable game against them. The last time I played against them they turtled up in the far corner with loads of cannons and the special character anvil. I was VC's and decided to turtle my entire army behind trees, just trying to raise back the models killed by the silly anvil attack and go for the draw. It was painfully obvious that any attempt to walk up the field and actually try for close combat was doomed to failure. Luckily the game flew by as the turns consisted of: Dwarf turn. Use anvil. VC turn. raise dead, get dispelled by runesmith. Repeat 6 times.

Pity, as many of dwarf models produced by GW over the years have been quite nice, and I've been tempted by a small force myself.

Montegue
04-02-2014, 00:28
Dwarves. I've never ever had an enjoyable game against them. The last time I played against them they turtled up in the far corner with loads of cannons and the special character anvil. I was VC's and decided to turtle my entire army behind trees, just trying to raise back the models killed by the silly anvil attack and go for the draw. It was painfully obvious that any attempt to walk up the field and actually try for close combat was doomed to failure. Luckily the game flew by as the turns consisted of: Dwarf turn. Use anvil. VC turn. raise dead, get dispelled by runesmith. Repeat 6 times.

Pity, as many of dwarf models produced by GW over the years have been quite nice, and I've been tempted by a small force myself.

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. You're angry because the Dwarf player did what his army does best, and then you hid behind trees and did nothing, and blamed him for your choice not to engage? He should have gone out there to die playing into your hands? That would have been "fun"?

This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts, as a dwarf player, about the anti-dwarf sentiment out there. It's usually based on "well, you made it hard for me to execute my plans by playing defensively and to the strengths of your army. You're the boring one! Why didn't you wander out to be slaughtered by my superior, much more varied army book? Why must you bore me so?"

SteveW
04-02-2014, 00:37
Dwarves. I've never ever had an enjoyable game against them. The last time I played against them they turtled up in the far corner with loads of cannons and the special character anvil. I was VC's and decided to turtle my entire army behind trees, just trying to raise back the models killed by the silly anvil attack and go for the draw. It was painfully obvious that any attempt to walk up the field and actually try for close combat was doomed to failure. Luckily the game flew by as the turns consisted of: Dwarf turn. Use anvil. VC turn. raise dead, get dispelled by runesmith. Repeat 6 times.

Pity, as many of dwarf models produced by GW over the years have been quite nice, and I've been tempted by a small force myself.

This is pathetic and also doesn't make sense. The only thing hiding behind trees should have helped with was his BS based shooting. His cannon, grudgthrowers, and anvil should have had a field day with your forces. The pathetic part is you're playing VC, everyone should sit back and make you come to them. Are you complaining that other people don't use the best strategy for you to win?

SpanielBear
04-02-2014, 00:47
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. You're angry because the Dwarf player did what his army does best, and then you hid behind trees and did nothing, and blamed him for your choice not to engage? He should have gone out there to die playing into your hands? That would have been "fun"?

This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts, as a dwarf player, about the anti-dwarf sentiment out there. It's usually based on "well, you made it hard for me to execute my plans by playing defensively and to the strengths of your army. You're the boring one! Why didn't you wander out to be slaughtered by my superior, much more varied army book? Why must you bore me so?"

Well, to be fair, if he had ventured out from behind his trees, he would also have been slaughtered. You have three choices with gunlines- out shoot them, avoid them, or charge- fast. Vampire counts can do... One of these. Which he did. Boring battle, but both players were playing to their strengths. Frustrating battle too- I don't imagine the dwarf player was having the time of his life sniping zombies.

Dwarfs have a "problem" in that unlike almost every other race, their army is not terribly dynamic. Vampire counts are about the only other group that struggles at the movement game to the same extent, and as long as they stay in range of their general, they can overcome that a little. Dwarfs, bless the little stunties, will never win in a sprint.

So it is kind of unfair to claim that they are being played badly if they do what they do best and turtle. But I don't think that's what Angel Wing was saying- it seems he was saying that the game was slow and frustrating. I think finding a play style frustrating is very different from saying that the person who uses it is somehow blameworthy. And it is unfortunately true- for the moment at least, and it might well change- that Dwarfs will play to their strengths, and shoot the ever-living **** out of anyone who comes near them. And that's fine. It makes sense. But there are going to be match-ups were the game is a little tedious.

Kahadras
04-02-2014, 01:05
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. You're angry because the Dwarf player did what his army does best, and then you hid behind trees and did nothing, and blamed him for your choice not to engage? He should have gone out there to die playing into your hands? That would have been "fun"?

I suppose you could say he doesn't like the army because of the way they play and the way that they force him to play? A defensive, shooty, anti magic army could be a real problem for a foot based Vampire Counts force. Threads like this are very subjective. If this had been put up a few years ago when I played Wood Elves I would have said Dark Elves. The local Dark Elf player always came to the table loaded down with as much magic and shooting as possible (along with the nasty tricks the old DE book had) and I just couldn't get past the hail of dark magic/bolt thrower bolts/crossbow bolts.

Montegue
04-02-2014, 01:19
Well, to be fair, if he had ventured out from behind his trees, he would also have been slaughtered. You have three choices with gunlines- out shoot them, avoid them, or charge- fast. Vampire counts can do... One of these. Which he did. Boring battle, but both players were playing to their strengths. Frustrating battle too- I don't imagine the dwarf player was having the time of his life sniping zombies.

Yeah, that's not true. It's an illusion to believe that you can't beat a dwarf castle by going to it. Only if his artillery hits every single time would a VC army not be able to get the job done, with good playing and perhaps some luck in the magic phase. Most armies are fully capable of overcoming dwarf hordes in close combat now - monstrous infantry, chariots, heavy hitting cavalry, etc, all combine for a very challenging game for dwarfs.

There's a reason we castle. It's not because we think it's awesome. It's because given our limitations it's our strongest choice.



Dwarfs have a "problem" in that unlike almost every other race, their army is not terribly dynamic. Vampire counts are about the only other group that struggles at the movement game to the same extent, and as long as they stay in range of their general, they can overcome that a little. Dwarfs, bless the little stunties, will never win in a sprint.

Vamps are quite dynamic. You have many different options for cavalry, flying monsters, monstrous infantry, and monsters.

That player's own choice to hide from the Gunline instead of getting on it was what made that game boring, not the Dwarf player's castle.

SpanielBear
04-02-2014, 01:32
Vamps are quite dynamic. You have many different options for cavalry, flying monsters, monstrous infantry, and monsters.

That player's own choice to hide from the Gunline instead of getting on it was what made that game boring, not the Dwarf player's castle.

I would assume that if his army included the cavalry, flying monsters, monstrous creatures etc. he would indeed have been making a curious decision to hide. But just because units are in an army book doesn't mean a player owns them. Trying to get a horde of undead across the table, with their resurrection spells being denied... I could see that being challenging.

But you are right that dwarves, like Brettonians and Wood Elves (and Beastmen), are stuck a few editions behind; and that this limits their options a tad. And its entirely reasonable for a player to use his armies strengths, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. Hopefully though the new codex might change things, and give Dwarfs options to change things up a tad.

Smithpod68
04-02-2014, 01:36
WoC . My WE's have always struggled against them.

Sophet Drahas
04-02-2014, 02:58
Ogres. I just don't like their aesthetics. They're the only army I don't like. Favorites are Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, and Brettonia. But I prefer the more gruesome and realistic imagery we got a few editions back. I really loved Adi Wood and Karl Kopinski's artwork.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lord_Byron
04-02-2014, 08:04
Dwarfs have a "problem" in that unlike almost every other race, their army is not terribly dynamic. Tomb Kings are about the only other group that struggles at the movement game to the same extent, and as long as they stay in range of their Liche Priest, and cast well, and aren't dispelled, they can overcome that a little. Dwarfs, bless the little stunties, will never win in a sprint, except against Tomb Kings.

Fixed that for you, Vampires can march well enough.

quietus1986
04-02-2014, 17:40
high elfs don't know what it is juist don't like playing against them.
I most say I like dwarfs that turtel op in one corner. pretty easy to kill them all with vampire counts its when they spread out its hard to get your points out of them.

doglogan
05-02-2014, 05:36
Voted lizardmen, I've never really liked them for some reason.

I almost voted for my Tomb Kings, love the models and fluff, hate feeling like I'm at a disadvantage when I play them.

Angelwing
05-02-2014, 12:15
whoah, okay, I better add some more detail here as my last post has ruffled some feathers.

First off that game was a 7th ed game.
Second, my dwarf opponent had blocks of crossbows / handgunners, loads of cannons, that special anvil and a block of iron breakers with runesmith support. He was sat at the very far end of the board. I had 5 black knights and a unit of fell bats as my only 'fast' stuff in that game.
Third, yes my own decision to turtle made the game boring. However, walking up the table getting shot to bits, and if anything actually made it to the dwarf line, it wouldn't have been able to to actually break any units would have been boring and pointless for me, and a gleeful shooting fest for my opponent as I scooped models off the board. By turtling, I could go for a draw, or hope for a cheeky win if any of the warmachines miss fired and destroyed themselves (not likely with the rune of re roll on them to be fair).
Fourth, my list wasn't good for the match up, but it was a blind pick up game. Also the game was pitched battle, meaning my opponent did the correct tactics for the game type.

I simply did what I thought was best to gain the best 'victory' result in the situation I was presented with, with the forces at hand. I tried to force my opponent to move towards me, he wasn't having any of it. My list wasn't well suited against my opponent. He effectively shut down my magic phase. His anvil could attack me anywhere on the table without reply.

And no I wasn't 'angry' or 'pathetic'. :eyebrows: It was one of those bad match ups that resulted in a bad game for both parties.
I've also played in 4th / 5th when dwarf characters were insanely tough, blocks of infantry with runes of courage couldn't be shifted and they all seemed to have a wizard lord as a convenient ally. Dwarfs for me have always been very frustrating to play against, and hence 'my least favourite army', despite the fact I like how dwarf armies look.

Colonel Mayhem
05-02-2014, 12:27
Ogres. I remember when they were released myself asking "why?" and I still do. You got an entire race right next door with much more interesting background and look and potential, which you already got some minis for, and you choose to make the most boring looking and playing army in existence. Yes they are mercenaries, so it can be explained in the fluff why they show up everywhere instead of staying in their mountains, but you also got an entire army list of mercenaries, which is also much better looking and fun than 40 cave men, residing in this game.

Litcheur
07-02-2014, 01:21
Dorfs of course.

They're slow, their "strategies" in all GW games are just about camping on the spot and waiting for you to do all the job or die trying.


But I don't like Ogres either. Pretty much useless, and there were so many other (interesting) possibilities in the Old World...

N1AK
07-02-2014, 14:25
There's a reason we castle. It's not because we think it's awesome. It's because given our limitations it's our strongest choice.


That's true but it doesn't completely invalidate the criticism. A Dwarf gunline isn very rarely fun to play against regardless of whether you win or lose so regardless of whether it is the effective tactic or not. A gunline is choosing to put armies effectiveness above the enjoyment of the opponent. If there was a gunlining Dwarf player at our club then I'd play other people for more interesting games but fortunately nobody does.

I've been playing combat Dwarves for the last couple of months with typical lists including an anvil and cannon and everything else being combat infantry (Warriors, Slayers, Hammerers). It's a much weaker build and it doesn't win a lot but it's a far more enjoyable game.

Urgat
07-02-2014, 14:39
I don't know how they sort it out but they don't fight. Don't even have a word for civil war- the whole sundering thing freaked them out IIRC

Heh? In Grudgebearer, two clans very nearly come to open war because of a stupid, iirc half empty gold mine.
Oh and I don't like elves because they stink funny. Especially HE and WE. I bet the 8 who voted for OnG are elf players anyway. More reason to dislike them!

SpanielBear
07-02-2014, 14:53
"Wood Elf players stink funny"? Oi! I resemble that remark!

JacobDrake
07-02-2014, 16:03
Has to be Ogres they just don't feel right to me, I love reading the fluff in the BRB but I cannot for the life of me bring myself to read about them I used to like them so I brought the army book and lost it when they ate sky giants