PDA

View Full Version : Comparing the two sides (Good-Evil)



Oberon
06-09-2006, 21:44
Straight to the point: do you think sides as a whole are unbalanced/unfair? Let me explain. When I go to tournaments, my good army(and almost all my friends good armies too) pretty much auto-win, while it's always a struggle with the evil. After a dozen+ tournaments, you might think I should have already found "the ultimate evil list" and believe me I've tried! First it was gobbos, and they were actually pretty good back then(TTT time, 2 wins and 1 second place out of three tourneys), and now orcs. Always orcs, 44+ models, sometimes witchking, sometimes troll chieftain, alway warg captain and something mobile like wargs(or khand mercs recently). Against elves there's no contest, auto-massacre loss is their fate time after time. I play elves, identical list every time, after ~14 tourneys 4 losses max with them so I should know how to beat them but NO! And then there's minas tirith armies, with high D and model count, elite&shooting power. Aargh. Some chances here, but not much. Against dwarves I've had some succes, but I'll blame the opponent, not the army. Other goodies are so lame, that no one plays them->let's ignore them.

What do you think? Are evil armies outmatched at every front? Or vice-versa and I'm just imagining here? I'm currently between the rock and the hard place with my army choice for the next big tournament too. Either Tau, or my trusty elves+goblins for nostalgia value. Tough!

Adept
08-09-2006, 10:33
my good army(and almost all my friends good armies too) pretty much auto-win, while it's always a struggle with the evil

You're answer is right here.

When you use a good force, the good force wins easily and the evil force suffers a crushing defeat.

When you use an evil force, the game is much closer.

If the good side was 'better' than the evil side, then you would win the vast majority of games with your good side, and lose the vast majority of games with your evil side. Which isn't the case.

Instead, it appears you have a problem dealing with shooty armies. My advice would be to invest in another troll, and see how that goes for you.

Avian
08-09-2006, 12:09
If the good side was 'better' than the evil side, then you would win the vast majority of games with your good side, and lose the vast majority of games with your evil side. Which isn't the case.
That's only true if one side was vastly better than the other. If one side is simply 'better' you'd win more with it and lose more against it.

With a good player you'd win even more with the better side and lose a bit less with the other.

It doesn't have to be horribly unbalanced to be unbalanced. :p

Adept
08-09-2006, 16:38
That's only true if one side was vastly better than the other. If one side is simply 'better' you'd win more with it and lose more against it.

Sure, but what he's saying is that he wins easily with his good force, but other people have to struggle to win with their good forces.

Oberon
08-09-2006, 18:00
Sure, but what he's saying is that he wins easily with his good force, but other people have to struggle to win with their good forces.

Then it just didn't come out right. I win easily with my good army, as does my pals. BUT when we play with our evil armies against someone elses good army(or each others good armies), it is harder to win by a big margin. I win easily with good, but I have to struggle to win with evil. As does my friends too. We(5 all told) have played in many tournies over three years, and the results don't change. 89% of the time easy win with good and hard time with evil army.

Adept
09-09-2006, 22:36
I win easily with good, but I have to struggle to win with evil.

You're still saying the same thing. You win easily with your good force, but other good forces have to struggle to beat your evil force.

Avian
10-09-2006, 13:59
You're still saying the same thing. You win easily with your good force, but other good forces have to struggle to beat your evil force.
No, he's not saying that:


I have to struggle to win with evil.

Warp Zero
11-09-2006, 03:43
Wow, about six replies after the initial post and I've yet to get an impression of whether or not Oberon's question is being answered or not.

Mars
11-09-2006, 16:01
I don't believe it's really a Good vs Evil difference.

More of an army vs army disatvantage I think.

For example Minas Tirith vs Isengard:

- Uruks will easily defeat WoMT point per point: they get a higher Fight and strong advantage in the to-wound rolls for just 2 points.

- Which is why I tend to face a lot of Citadel and Fountain Guard with shields when fielding Uruks: point per point they're better at fighting them than Warriors.

Another example is Minas Tirith vs Moria:

- WoMT get a higher Fight value, better courage, better bows, better movement... for 3 points difference, that is not a lot. 5 WoMT will mostly win of 8 Goblins, even though they have the same point cost.

And another is High Elves vs Moria:

- High Elves with heavy armour cost 9 points, 10 if you want to waste points on an Elven blade. That is about twice the cost of a Goblin. Yet against a Goblin, WoMT are just as good in a fight as a High Elf would be, but die slower, even though they only cost about half more than a Goblin.

I do believe certain Evil armies are better at killing certain Good armies, and vica versa. But it seems that every tactic can be countered by either side.