PDA

View Full Version : is it me, or do the White Dwarf army lists suck?



dominic_carrillo
06-02-2007, 21:31
Im pretty sure when they invite people to do battle reports, they tell them, "Well, Bat Swarms arent selling very well, so we better use them in a battle!"

I want to know if any Warseers out there see the monthly battle reports and say ":wtf:"

Mozzamanx
06-02-2007, 21:40
I guess its just a way of selling their less popular merchandise. Plus, they dont wanna make the proffessionals seem like powergamers, so they deliberately make the lists SUPER FAIR to the opponent =P

Kahadras
06-02-2007, 21:48
They make lists to show off the range that the army has. Spaming Knights Errant and Pegasus Knights in a Bret army, for example, really doesn't show off much of the army. It'll probably win but isn't a very good advert for the GW brand.

Kahadras

Grimtuff
06-02-2007, 21:49
I guess its just a way of selling their less popular merchandise. Plus, they dont wanna make the proffessionals seem like powergamers, so they deliberately make the lists SUPER FAIR to the opponent =P

So we won't mention a certain person who should remain Namelessio? ;)

Stormtrooper Clark
06-02-2007, 21:51
And in all Battle reports the new Army always wins so the opposing side has to have a Army that will defenatly loose.

Voltaire
06-02-2007, 22:03
Thats not true. Do you recall the Dark Elves and Morathi against the Undead with Zacharius? They lost!

Commodus Leitdorf
06-02-2007, 22:03
Some people play Warhammer the Hobby

Some people play Warhammer the Game

For those of us who play the Hobby *shrug*, play your army how you want, who cares.

For those of us who play the Game...Its not WD job to tell us how to Mini/Max our armies, thats for us to figure out on our own.

And, once again, They play several games with the armies and they take the most interesting one and put it in the Magazine. When Brets first came out they mention in the article itself how the Brets lost to the Orcs they were up against the first game. Then they played again and the Brets won and thats the Battle Report they used.

Lostanddamned
06-02-2007, 22:05
So we won't mention a certain person who should remain Namelessio? ;)

Isn't that originally a quote from A WD Steam Tank building article, from when the new STank was released?

I've always wanted to casually drop it into conversation...

OT: the WD army lists are invariably broken to favour the flavour of the month, which will then (shockingly) win, and make the FotM seem like the best army since sliced Brettonians.

dominic_carrillo
06-02-2007, 22:06
a little bird told me that they play multiple games, and publish the one they consider the best. this may account for the Vampires stomping the Dark Elves in one issue.

Grimtuff
06-02-2007, 22:08
Isn't that originally a quote from A WD Steam Tank building article, from when the new STank was released?



Yes it is. :D

Varath- Lord Impaler
07-02-2007, 01:33
Or perhaps (shockhorror) they pick things they like?!

Its not exactly a huge stretch of the imagination.

swordwind
07-02-2007, 01:37
And in all Battle reports the new Army always wins so the opposing side has to have a Army that will defenatly loose.

2nd ed Imperial Guard were slaughtered to a man in thier battle report.

bluesky322
07-02-2007, 01:47
when i first read the title i thought we were talking about list like the zombie pirates which are one of my favorites i am still working on making them still havnt got the queen bess thou

fear me when i do

Mad Makz
07-02-2007, 03:37
It's been mentioned in NUMEROUS WD battle reports over the years that the armies selected are almost always limited by the models the studio team have painted up to photography standards, and thus are often somewhat restricted.

Now, I have often seen silly choices WITHIN these restricted lists that is likely to be bad army design by the players or simply just taking whatever looked cool as they figured they weren't going to have much of a cohesive force based on the studios models anyway.

The best WD battle reports have always involved outsiders of GW bringing in their own armies to play with, especially greatly painted tournament level forces. Instances of these have been few and far between though.

dominic_carrillo
07-02-2007, 04:02
when i first read the title i thought we were talking about list like the zombie pirates which are one of my favorites i am still working on making them still havnt got the queen bess thou

fear me when i do

i dont remember seeing the zombie pirates in a battle report.
i think that its misleading for games workshop to brainwash kids into thinking that particular units/models are practical for starting armies and playing. experienced players can more easily see through the shroud of lies.

blahblahblah
07-02-2007, 04:09
I'd be interested to see battle reports from some of the games played at grand tournaments. I think it would be interesting to see how some of the best at the tourneys play through a game, and getting to hear their thoughts on the battle as it goes could be good for people new to the hobby or even those of us who've been around for a while to see if maybe we'd do the same or try something different.

THE KAPPTIN
07-02-2007, 04:13
When you're making a battle report, you pick a list to make for an interesting game, not to win. Because it doesn't matter if you win! What matters is to make an interesting article. I think it's more interesting to have a big variety of troops on the table rather than a very effective force.

Also consider they are only using the studio's models. Studio doesn't have four las/plas tac squads painted up, so they can't use 'em. Et cetera!

And the obvious, loser's gotta LOSE! In previous issues they've referred to those games before the new army wins as "practice games". It always sounds like they played practice games until the wood elves (or whatever new army) won. It was most evident with the last edition of wood elves...
That little fact made the report extra interesting to read 'cause you're like, heh, I can see through their scam... yeah.

azazel_fallenangel
07-02-2007, 12:00
I seem to remember that the inaugrial battle report for Skaven, where, of course, they slaughtered the Empire down to a man, they actually stated that they played the game several times to get the results they wanted.

Jedi152
07-02-2007, 12:14
Or perhaps (shockhorror) they pick things they like?!

Its not exactly a huge stretch of the imagination.
Exactly. There are some people - weird, sick people - who choose units on the strengths that they look good and suit the look and feel of the army, not solely to win.

:rolleyes:

Kjell
07-02-2007, 12:52
Don't they print the report where the new army performs closest to its intended flavour? For example: a Tomb Kings report where they show off their magic system and their chariot capabilities, regardless of whether they win in the end or not.

Avian
07-02-2007, 13:33
In the old days of early 6th edition, the new army would win about half the time. Nowadays, since late 6th edition, the new army wins ALL the time.

This can be done in a variety of ways: either army selection*, the scenario** or due to the "tactics" used*** during the battle.


* new Orcs & Goblins vs. Lizardmen, which had a Slann with no items, a heap of Skink Priests so the Orc with the Screaming Sword could get max attacks, and several huge units of skinks.

** the new Tyranids vs. Imperial Guard, where the Guard player was required to move a character on foot right past the whole 'nid army

*** the new Dwarfs vs. Ogres, where the Ogre player moved Greasus (who has no save of any kind) into combat with Thorek (whose only real disadvantage is his difficulties with getting into combat with anything worthwhile)

Micke
07-02-2007, 16:02
The only big loss for a new that I can recall is when BoC where released and where pitched against a WE tournament list. Needless to say, the beasts where slaughtered.

Mouldsta
07-02-2007, 18:03
The trouble I always have is that battle reports should be;
A). Interesting for experienced players, and;
B). Informative for new players.

The latest battle reports are neither. Taking the O+G vs Lizardmen one, they have a unit of 6 trolls - straight away all the experienced players are hanging their heads and rolling their eyes. New players might even (given how it's talked up) be convinced that taking a unit of 6 trolls is a good idea. Now I'm all for fluff and everything, so if you want 6 trolls then take 6 trolls, but why weren't they in 2 units of 3? This is quite clearly the superior option as it allows far more scope while doubling the potential attacks. I don't want to start seeing min-maxed tournament armies trying to out cheese each other in battle reports, but can we at least stop trying to use the excuse of "fun and fluffy" to justify truely abysmal army choices? There's plenty of ways to make a fluffy and fun army, without it being an utter crock of grox-dung.

Zonq
08-02-2007, 03:36
You make me think of the army list at the end of the new O&G army book...
an awful list indeed.

Zonq

Asuril
12-02-2007, 23:45
My experience with White Dwarf ended about 2~ years ago, so I really only remember it when it was a pretty good magazine.

I used to really enjoy the battle reports because the armies seemed to be characterful of the actual armies. That is to say, they had a wide diversity and a balanced approach. I know they played a few games and then published the one that was the most interesting or enjoyable, and I didn't mind that. I also recall that the most recent army wouldn't always win.

I don't know how things are now, but I imagine it's mostly just Space Marines slaughtering stuff. Stupid.



I remember the old old battle reports where the staff would actually use their own armies. Especially Adrian Wood's awesome oldschool Ork army and Matt Hudson's gorgious Black Templars.

Heretic Burner
12-02-2007, 23:53
I have to disagree completely, generally WD are fairly decent for what they set out to do.

Even limited with the painted models available an attempt is usually made to show off numerous components of the army. Certainly not min-maxed, you rarely end up with a dominant and fun-sapping army selection that would go entirely against the point of a magazine showing off GW's product.

Of course the news isn't all good. They might not be WAAC but they are quite often outright illegal lists.