PDA

View Full Version : 9th Age, WHFB 8th ed. and prior- What is (was) your playstyle?



Skargit Crookfang
26-01-2016, 16:59
Pretty basic questions:

In your fantasy battles experiences, what was your favourite play style? Were you a horder? MSU, avoidance? Etc...

Why did you utilize this play style?

What made you drift, or evolve, towards playing this way?

Philhelm
26-01-2016, 17:13
My main army is a themed Empire Witch Hunter force consisting Witch Hunters, Warrior Priests, Swordsmen (with Archer bodies, hooded/Flagellant heads, torches, etc. - the Witch Hunter's retinue), Stirland Spearmen, Stirland Crossbowmen, Flagellants, a Luminark, and Greatcannon. That is my core force; I would change it up sometimes, but I primarily had an all infantry army and would typically field a horde of 50 Spearmen and a horde of 50 Swordsmen, with smaller units of 20-25 for supporting melee troops, and 10 man units of Crossbowmen.

I loved the look of the horde formations and would try to create a solid anvil for my center line. Part of it was also inspired by the "Griffon Formation" that was posted at theWarhammer-Empire site, and was a tactic for Empire infantry. I would use the bonuses from the Warrior Priests prayers and the Luminark in order to boost the combat effectiveness of my cheap, core troops. My primary opponent was undead, so with extra attacks, re-rolls, and bonuses, I could often force the opponent to be out-grinded and make the opposing units succumb to "Unstable."

By the way, my most glorious (lucky) victory was during a 2,000 point battle against Nagash. The opponent had the first turn and did not inflict any casualties. I killed a unit of ten Dire Wolves with a Wizard, and then felled Nagash with two well-aimed cannon shots. After the opponent conceded, we decided to pretend that Nagash wasn't killed to see what he can do, since it was the first time he used him. I eventually got crushed from being flanked from insanely huge summoned units, but my center line held up for awhile. They did me proud.

dalezzz
26-01-2016, 17:40
i guess I'm a fan of the big units too ( they look so good!) and would also help explain why my main armys are empire , skaven , beastmen and undead... I do have chaos and ogres too so I'm not a total glutton for painting punishment :p

as for the why it's pretty much down to the look and feel of things , a few units of 20 does not make an army IMO , now a few units of 50 and we are starting to get somewhere

Holier Than Thou
26-01-2016, 18:39
i guess I'm a fan of the big units too ( they look so good!) and would also help explain why my main armys are empire , skaven , beastmen and undead... I do have chaos and ogres too so I'm not a total glutton for painting punishment :p

as for the why it's pretty much down to the look and feel of things , a few units of 20 does not make an army IMO , now a few units of 50 and we are starting to get somewhere

Yep, the bigger the better. I posted a thread showing my undead army, including my two units of 100 zombies. If anyone fancies a look. http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?415576-The-Immortal-Host&p=7578551#post7578551

Katastrophe
26-01-2016, 19:15
Avoidance, MSU, etc

I like that play style because belly clashing is boring to me. I like maneuvering around the board and taking advantage of my opponents movement errors. I enjoy the challenge of trying to outwit my opponent in the movement phase rather than just pushing models together and rolling a bunch of dice.

Malagor
26-01-2016, 19:23
Horde guy with units that charge straight down your throat, no guts no glory.
May not be the best strategy but it is the most fun for me :p

Skargit Crookfang
26-01-2016, 19:33
Avoidance, MSU, etc

I like that play style because belly clashing is boring to me. I like maneuvering around the board and taking advantage of my opponents movement errors. I enjoy the challenge of trying to outwit my opponent in the movement phase rather than just pushing models together and rolling a bunch of dice.

It's funny you mention that.

My journey with WHFB started 20 years ago with the 4th ed. starter set (actually, a friend and I split 3 boxes- he went for the high elves and I went for goblins). I used to have massive, massive blocks of archers and spearmen for years (numbering in the 50-100s usually). I loved the look of a proper goblin horde slogging forward with black-fletched arrows heralding their advance.

As the years went on, I shifted to a more static style of play. Very magic and war machine focused- as many lobbers, divers and shaman as I could fit in. The idea (to varying degrees of success) was to have the enemy have to wade through having everything but the kitchen sink (and sometimes...) thrown at them and, by the time they mashed into my front line, they would be so depleted that my puny gobbos could mop them up no problem.

This changed a lot for both my gobbos and my playstyle, overall, in 8th. I began running a similar war machine-centric army, but this time, with a full allotment of 9 chariots to further delay and massacre any opposition. The army performed pretty well, but it was around this time I found an itch I couldn't scratch- I had barely any movement phase to speak of in the past, and now with the chariots, selection of targets, deployment and shifting the forward line was a new, and devilishly fun, challenge.

It was around this time that I started a Dark Elf army. Yes, I admit...one of THOSE armies... full core of Dark Riders, loads of Warlocks, Hydras and mounted masters (inlcluding the ubiquitous Cloakasus Master). I had never had more fun in the game than with this army... as cheesy as it was, at times.

With 9th Age, I began my foray into a mix of MSU and avoidance, with some heavy cav- a bit of a hybrid style that focused mainly on movement and board control. My current Daemon and Warriors lists are awash with these tactics and choices. Honestly, my goblins are seeing the light of day less and less (well, I run my wolf rider army every now and then for gits and shiggles... but otherwise...).

I guess it boils down to the fact that I love out-thinking, out-maneuvering and, generally, being forced to think the game a little more chess-like. There's nothing wrong with loads of fellas coming together in the middle for a big melee... but I much prefer the tactical encircling and dissection of my opposition... or miss out on a smart move and totally obliterate myself by my own fault. Also hilarious.

Arrahed
26-01-2016, 19:35
MSU + Avoidance I would say.

I have a close combat Wood Elves army without forest spirits (Except one treeman who is essential for the fluff). Shooting comes only from heroes and Glade Riders.
The effectiveness is highly questionable however. :D It is fun nevertheless.

Ayin
26-01-2016, 20:07
In 7th my army went through such a radical change that I basically had to start over completely, and that led to me branching out significantly. Although I started 8th with the same main force (High Elves), I quickly changed it up and played two very different lists for the majority of the edition.

List 1:Dogs of War (occassionaly Empire)

This list was built around effective Skirmishers and Fast Cavalry in Core (both points effective). With a usually three units of fast cav and three or four of skirmishers, i was able to do a fair job controlling my opponents movement across the board. Behind that I used my Stubborn special choice to hold opponents in late combats and conserve points, all while my Xbows, Cannons and Hot Pots tore points away from them. All this while my Ogre unit kicked it's way through the enemy lines and after any units I could win against. So, lots of movement, lots of shooting, lots of reliability and all backed up by a solid investment in the magic phase.
When I used the list as Empire (through Leitpold the Black from Tamurkhan) it suffered mightily from the Empires absolutely terrible Fast Cavalry and mortar, so much so that the upsides of the list could hardly pull it through to where the 2004 Dogs of War list sat in effectiveness.


List 2:Warriors of Chaos (mono Khorne)

This list was built around me smashing face and opponents just not being able to deal with it. Using dogs to muck up enemy movement (in theory they helped against BS shooting as well, but since that was absolutely atrocious for the vast majority of 8th edition it hardly mattered) I crammed a unit of Halberd armed khorne warriors with a rock solid BSB into the middle of the enemy force, supported with two units of knights (one built to grind, one build to steamroll monsters), a few throw away marauder units, a unit of 'Crushers and a Daemon Prince. The list ran into some hard counters, and there was enough terribly thought out items spread through 8th (or left over from 7th...) that it wasn't difficult for a lot of opponents to cripple it, but it had some solid successes as well, especially the first time a new opponent ran into it (running dead even with Skaven army that runs a lvl4 on bell, three AoS-lite super machinegun rats, a hellpit, ect was hilarious).


For 9th I'm still kicking around the list building, but I hope to start getting it together and on here (and the 9th Age forums!) soon.

Philhelm
26-01-2016, 20:32
I guess it boils down to the fact that I love out-thinking, out-maneuvering and, generally, being forced to think the game a little more chess-like. There's nothing wrong with loads of fellas coming together in the middle for a big melee... but I much prefer the tactical encircling and dissection of my opposition... or miss out on a smart move and totally obliterate myself by my own fault. Also hilarious.

I would argue that fielding large units does not necessarily preclude similar tactics, especially with cheaper troops such as goblins (MBU?). Obviously a horde isn't going to outmaneuver a smaller unit, one-for-one, but by being an anvil it can set up opposing units to be charged in the flanks.

ColShaw
26-01-2016, 20:40
Infantry. I always loved infantry. My armies have always been primarily ground-pounders, from 5th Ed all the way up to 8th, even in cavalry-dominated editions. Even my Bretonnians!

My usual style was to deploy a solid battle line with mutually supporting units to guard each other's flanks, with one flank having whatever cavalry or fast-movers I brought to the fight and the other anchored on the table edge. With my Night Goblins, I had enough units so the army actually didn't HAVE a flank; I had to deploy very carefully to have enough frontage on a 6' table for all the regiments! I liked to alternate close-combat and shooting units, a la the Hundred Years War English army (so bowmen/men-at-arms/bowmen with my Bretonnians).

My tactics tended toward coordinated movement, weakening selected enemy units with shooting or minor magic, baiting charges with sacrificial units (my poor Bretonnian Mounted Yeomen had a bad tendency to die horribly for the sake of the plan), usually taking an initial charge, then delivering a hard counterblow.

My main armies were Night Goblins, Bretonnians, and High Elves, though I occasionally used a Khornate Daemon army for something completely different, and I've got a few other small forces knocking around.

Commodus Leitdorf
27-01-2016, 01:25
Two Strong blocks, Knights for flanking and a few Warmachines. A simple, old school Empire battleline I've been using since 6th edition.

Darkspear
21-02-2016, 01:21
I play what I call the "Persian Style". Lots of cavalry and missile troops. I did not start playing this way but as I refined my tactics (after more than a decade of warhammer), this is my best playing style. I do try other tactics sometimes but don't perform as well.

The Persian style is neither a gun/bowline nor a pure avoidance army. It uses missile infantry to weaken enemy lines and as the enemy approaches, I will charge first with my heavy cavalry. The tactic works very well with dark elves in the 7th edition onwards as shades gain BS5. BS5, together with the shades' 360 degrees los and move and fire ability allow my shades to support the rest of the army easily.

Kakapo42
21-02-2016, 03:20
Mobile infantry guerrilla warfare.

Really my preferred playstyle is best called '6th edition Wood Elves'. It can never be stressed just how much I adored the 6th edition incarnation of Wood Elves. I loved their entire model range to bits, and everything about the 6th edition Wood Elf army book even more. It resonated with me in a way that remains unmatched by any other Warhammer Fantasy army book (although the 6th edition Bretonnian book comes close). It really was the perfect match for me.

And the playstyle encouraged by the 6th edition Wood Elf army list is no exception. I embraced the subtle stealthy mobile guerrilla warfare hit-and-run tactics it's based around with open arms (it helps that I generally like to take the sneaky approach - not for nothing is the Brotherhood of Nod my favourite faction in the Command and Conquer games). Thus, to this day my favourite playstyle is based around stealth and mobility, keeping just outside the opposing force's reach until the time to strike is right, slipping away from danger while constantly loosing volleys of ranged attacks and generally making my opponent fight smoke with a mallet. Of course, fragile units means that care is required, because in the event that one of them is caught they won't last long.

The mobile infantry part is because I don't like painting horses (except Bretonnian ones, since they're mostly covered by barding), and so I generally keep horse-mounted models to an absolute minimum. This essentially leaves me with a mostly infantry force, but I also quite like having a solid core of infantry as the foundation of an army so that works out nicely for me (Bretonnia is the exception here, but again I don't mind painting Bretonnian horses). I also don't like the look of horde units - any more than 25 models in a single unit just feels wrong to me - which also means that I tend to use medium sized units rather than 'large' ones.

While I was never able to play many games before the fall of Warhammer Fantasy, the plan I came up with for my Wood Elf army was a sort of 'deep encirclement' idea. Essentially the army would be composed of two groups, the large main force and a smaller manoeuvre element. The main force would slowly make its way up the table, based around 3 or so relatively sturdy 'anchor' units that the more mobile units would pivot and move around, with the general forward advance giving me more table-space to move in and the opponent less. Meanwhile the manoeuvre element, composed of infiltrating units like Scouts and Waywatchers and flying units (I don't like painting horses, but giant birds are always welcome in my army and painting table) would deploy/move deep into the rear area of the opposing table edge to critically undermine the enemy force's position, neutralising lightly defended targets of opportunity like wizards or war-machines, cutting off fleeing enemy units and generally wreaking havoc. It probably wasn't the most effective strategy, especially in 8th edition, but it seems very attuned to the background and would have probably been quite fun to play out.

The Bretonnian army I had planned would have been a bit more straightforward beat-stick style, but would have still used similar concepts of using high mobility to concentrate the majority of its force against a small portion of the enemy's to take apart the opposing force piece by piece.

Leogun_91
26-02-2016, 21:43
My favorite style is playing horde armies. It is the most satisfying for me. Sending hundreds to their deaths as a sacrifice for victory is just great and not feeling too bad when you lose a unit to a mistake is also a plus. Normally this was me pushing a sea of green towards my opponent but my TK and Skaven also do this. My dwarfs will however always have a place in my heart as my first army and a defensive wall of steel feels pretty nice as well.

Ayin
27-02-2016, 19:22
I would love to play that style with Infernal Dwarves in 9th. Having two or more hordes of disposable slave troops, lots of disposable hobgoblin wolf raiders, all driven forward by one or two small but solid blocks of evil Dwarves firing indiscriminately into the enemy.

Dosiere
28-02-2016, 16:03
I changed constantly, which is probably why I rarely won games. :) In an effort to utilize as much of my collection as possible I had about 10000 different lists and I rarely used the same one twice. I would get excited about a new model or unit I was working on or feel the need to pull out something I hadn't used in a while. As an Empire player I did love shoving huge hordes of state troops across the table though. It never got old.

Tokamak
01-03-2016, 12:21
Giant blocks of orc infantry (between 30 and 60), orcs, biguns and blorcs all shoving to the opposite end of the field and watching my opponent trying to deal with it.