Which army has the best generals?

[Nymie_the_Pooh]

Yea let me clarify. I want to know which army has the best players (generals) not general unit. Sorry, my bad on that. Which players are the cream of the crop?

There is no real way to answer this.

This argument used to come up in 40K quite a bit in regards to Eldar as they required coordination between units so there was a steeper learning curve. The thing is that the best players of other armies were also playing that way when talking about players utilizing the best tactics. Eldar almost forced you to think like a competitive tournament player from the get go so if you wanted to learn advanced strategies as quickly as possible when starting then they were a great choice for that as those same tactics applied to other armies. I imagine Wood Elves would provide that now in some ways, but their strategies are vastly different from every other army in the current edition that I feel you can't take your Wood Elf tactics and apply them to Greenskins or Chaos or pretty much any other army. When they came out a lot of their power was tied up with manipulating what was then considered some basic core rules that have changes drastically over a couple of editions. Even if using army books from then in the current edition they would face some of the same challenges they do now that weren't there in sixth.

The best players are the best players sometimes in spite of what army they are playing. Some of them their way of playing meshes really well with a particular army, but speaking in generalities the army does not make the player.

[Doommasters]

I think a Tyrant is viable. Really gives you a boost in the Ogre vs Ogre matchup as he butchers Mournfang and makes your Gutstar better than theirs. The best Ogre General in the world currently uses one I think? If it's still Dave Grant.

I don't think anyone is saying the Tyrant is not viable, they are a very strong combat character just like and Old Blood or Chaos lord. It would seem however through popular opinion and tournament results that the SM, Slann and Sorcerer are far more cost effective most of the time.

[Darkminion]

I don't think anyone is saying the Tyrant is not viable, they are a very strong combat character just like and Old Blood or Chaos lord. It would seem however through popular opinion and tournament results that the SM, Slann and Sorcerer are far more cost effective most of the time.

Indeed. In no way will you ever hear me say a Tyrant is a bad General for your army. He is one of the top combat lords around. However, in order to field him you are almost forced to spend way more points on characters then a player fielding a Slaughtermaster, since you still need to buy magicusers and the very important BsB. The few players who use Tyrants also field 2 Firebellies because they are aware that they are weaker then the almost mandatory lvl 4 in most armies and thus they need the 2 arcane slots (dispell scroll / Hellheart) to make up for this.

So yes, a Tyrant is viable...but in most cases a Slaughtermaster is just the better choice...

D...

[brother_maynard]

Well, I have been playing most of these armies forever (aka before they were good). Does this make me one of the better players?

no of course not. the OP said he noticed that in his local area, the better players tend to play better books.

i looked at all of the top ten GT finishers in my group, and a vast majority of them play powerful books.

[Zeroth]

Most generals not playing; Dwarfs, Chaos Dwarfs, Daemons and Lizardmen. Because playing these armies does not require an enormous amount of tactical insight. Being a Daemon player myself I can sign it. Reason of putting dwarfs in there is that they don't have that many viable options and the ones that are, is either stand still or move forward. I was tempted to put Skaven and Dark Elves there too, but they aren't necessarily that straight forward.

[brother_maynard]

oh yeah, you're right. i forgot that those armies had some mystical skill-sapping power that reduces any talented player who starts them to a dribbling wreck

[mostlyharmless]

Anyone who played 6th ed Dark Elves and managed to win with them. That book was horrendously underpowered and overcosted for what you paid for. Even after the major errata, it was terrible, but if you managed to get a draw or even win with it, that made you an exceptional player.

[-Totenkopf-]

first, lizardmen are hardly a srtaight forward army to play.. there are many competitive lists and you actually need to understand not only the army, but several phases of the game to play them really well..

Now as far as generals go, fluffwise, I'd say TK have the best.. Their presence is absolutely necessary for the army to even exist and both mage and combat lords exist solely to boost the survivability and combat ability of the troops under their command..

[Doommasters]

No idea what army produces the best general but I will say that playing WE over the last 12 months has taught me a significant amount more about the game than I ever did with other armies. Not saying I am the best general or WE generals are better than others just that when the odds are stacked against you and one move is the difference between a win and crushing defeat you think a littel harder.

I would say if you want to become the best general you can pick a mid to low tier army as your wins will be much more rewarding and your loses will teach you more. The best generals will be the people who have played all the armies and know all the little tricks, strengths and weaknesses.....knowing your enemy is half the battle.

[Trains_Get_Robbed]

I would say High Elves, T.K and W.E. All these armies have a reoccurring low T or built in army deficiency -in regards to the T.K; movement- even with some items like the BoH, or characters like Khalidia, it's often not enough to make the list auto pilot, instead bringing different difficulties to the game at hand. If your opponent builds a decent list, and is a reasonable general, it will actually take analysis, target prioritizing, planning (from list on out), as well as luck to win -one mistake can lead to defeat, even if that mistake is you sucking our mage into the warp on a two die cast.

Ogres, WoC, L.M, Dwarfs are all auto pilot armies that are partial in part due to not participating in all phases of the game (save for Skaven) -Demons, Skaven and Dark Elves on the boarderline, as all have stupidity -cheap stupidity- but can still some expensive toys and can suffer if played poorly.

[Bingo the Fun Monkey]

I would say that armies that can gather the most long-lasting player attention periods are the ones that generate the best generals. Through extensive use, single army generals get extremely familiar with their army and collection and can flex it like an extension of their mind.

However, the term "best general" is harder to begin to try to define when contemplating which army a "good general" would choose. Is it the army that has the best inherent power potential for the least effort? Or is it the army that presents a balance of challenges and rewards in its relation to the local meta?

I would say that, as gaming is a mental exercise rather than an actual professional experience, the latter of the two would possess the symptoms of a better general. This is because challenges force players to think outside of the box; whereas a continual stream of "wins" with a cookie cutter internet win list produces a general who is good at following other people's advice and ideas but has little experience in creating an executable plan.

The OT's question gets even harder to answer upon the understanding that different armies at all learning curve trajectories are able to teach their players different things about the game. In my own experience, playing Dwarfs in 6th edition made me better at planning my deployment, whereas playing Orcs and Goblins has turned me into a fluid player able to hatch new plans as the battlefield and animosity-scape evolve.

I imagine that the Wood Elf generals that are sticking to their guns right now are going to completely outclass their local scene for a couple months after their army book gets updated to 8th ed power levels. However, I wonder how well they would wield an army of hordestar blocks?

[Ximinipot]

Ogres, WoC, L.M, Dwarfs are all auto pilot armies that are partial in part due to not participating in all phases of the game (save for Skaven) -Demons, Skaven and Dark Elves on the boarderline, as all have stupidity -cheap stupidity- but can still some expensive toys and can suffer if played poorly.

First off I don't agree any army is an auto pilot army. The game is ever changing with each turn and if you don't change your tactics with it, you're probably not going to win.
Also I'm curious to what phase of the game Lizardmen don't participate in.