PDA

View Full Version : Common sense vs. friendly play



vinush
28-02-2012, 06:14
Ok guys and gals, first off let me apologise for putting this here, but I wasn't sure if it was a tactics or rules or general topic, so I went with general and the knowledge that the mods may see fit so move it.

Now, on to my question.

When playing in a local meta where it's friendly non-competitive/non-tourney style play is it acceptable to take an item/ability/whatever that is specifically designed to screw over a specific army?

For example, taking the anti-skaven item when playing against a skaven player?

How about taking lore of death for its character sniping abilities when going up against VC?

I ask specifically regarding the latter example, as post game last night where my VC army decimated a beast an army giving them an uninterrupted 4/0/0 win streak, we were discussing the way the game went, and my opponent said the only way for him to win would be to take lore of death to pick off the necromancer as he makes it impossible to win a war of attrition due to the ability to raise outweighing his ability to deal out the hurt on my units.
We usually try to encourage an approach where you have an army list made suitable to face whatever army your opponent puts down, and lore of death isn't usually a lore any of us would use regularly (back when I did my purple wizard for the empire, Matthias the Purple, had a nasty habit of melting his brain every game) as its mostly for character sniping, and not that great vs large units. So, if someone puts down a purple wizard vs VC I'd know it's a choice specifically made to beat that army as opposed to a general all comers list.

The problem though becomes why wouldn't you do that? Death magic with its character assassinating abilities seems the perfect lore to deal with VC. Take out the general, the army says goodbye.

Comments regarding this would be greatly appreciated.

TYIA

THE \/ince

Urgat
28-02-2012, 06:46
Well, I'm all the way a "friendly games" type of guy, but I really don't think picking up a lore over another is unfriendly at all. An unfriendly choice would be that anti-chaos magic item in the previous ogre armybook, things like that that are specifically made to target a specific army (specifically). Death magic is just a lore, (almost) everybody has access to it, it's not like it has a "double the effects versus undead", so no, no problem for me there.

Sexiest_hero
28-02-2012, 07:09
yeah nothing wrong with it. Some items would never be taken and they arnt completely game breaking, or even all that powerful. Tell your friend to visit Herdstone for some beastmen tactics for beating VC.

Duke Ramulots
28-02-2012, 07:11
I only take anti-race items in a campaign setting, they seem to fit there. I like to use the bashas axe of stunty smashin on my roomates dwarfs though :)

Grey Seer Kwokka
28-02-2012, 07:23
How do you expect to moderate such a situation where anything doesn't go (outside of clearly established and agreed-upon rules)?

All opponents have weaknesses; if you're not exploiting them then you're not subscribing to the principles of competition (provided that you are a good sport about it). If your opponent gets smashed, it's up to them to understand their weaknesses and work out the best defense against them.

Scythe
28-02-2012, 07:47
While I am no fan of the 'army build to beat a specific other army' thing, I don't consider taking death magic because you are facing Vampire Counts falls under that. It is not like it is that easy to pull off one of the snipe spells, and the snipe spells can be devastating against other armies as well if you snipe their lvl 4 wizard or the battle standard bearer.

BlackPawl
28-02-2012, 08:10
That's right. If you take some special magical items which are only good against one army (the two High elves magic items which have only an effect against dwarves for excample) then you are tailoring the list.
Even some items are better against some armies like the death mask from the TK against skaven and goblins is not tailoring for me, because they affect other armies to a lesser effect also.

The death lore is not only good against VC but also (and better) against goblins and skaven with their lower leadership.

Echunia
28-02-2012, 08:17
I must also agree with a lot of people and say that tailoring lists is bad behaviour.

That being said I think your beast-pal should try death anyway. From what I've heard the lore is really good to the Beastmen. Sure it will help him a lot vs you, but it will probably help him vs everyone else as well.

Ghremdal
28-02-2012, 08:27
I never build my list to face a specific army, I always go for a all comers list. Playing with a army specific list you won't learn much more then you already know (that its really good against that army).

That said I like to play against army specific lists, as then I learn more from it; how to deal with tough things.

BaSe
28-02-2012, 08:38
Although I agree with the principle list tailoring is bad, if you and your opponent agree to both build lists which would be aimed at beating your friend then in that case fair play.
Also if the only thing you change in a list is the magic lore it's not really tailoring.

NerZuhl
28-02-2012, 08:38
So the follow up question is...

When do you ever use Anti-Specific-Army items?

ewar
28-02-2012, 08:52
So the follow up question is...

When do you ever use Anti-Specific-Army items?

In a campaign or narrative game I'd say. Or against a long standing friendly opponent perhaps - people are a bit obsessed with 'rules' for these sort of things. Talk it over with your opponent, they're the only one who can give a definitive answer!

Urgat
28-02-2012, 08:53
So the follow up question is...

When do you ever use Anti-Specific-Army items?

As for me: never. They suck.

Oogie boogie boss
28-02-2012, 09:45
As for me: never. They suck.

I disagree. In a friendly game, where you know the person you're playing and know his/her army, i don't think there's anything wrong with tailoring your list a little, as your opponent has the same opportunity. Obviously, there is a difference between a little tweaking to make your army better prepared for a particular opponent, and taking a rock hard tourney list designed purely to abuse the rules of that army, and which whiffs strongly of cheddar.

I've always thought the most important thing about a friendly game (and i only play against friends, i don't do tournaments) is your behaviour during the game, i.e giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt, letting the occaisional mistake slide, etc.

As for race specific weapons/items/spells, etc, i really don't have a problem with them. They are rarely powerful enough to dominate a game, and really just give a slight edge. Besides, the fact is that every army has, due to fluff and game dynamics, a 'crux' army, that is just naturally better against it than others. For Dwarves it's probably Skaven. For Skaven it's probably Lizardmen or Empire. For Empire it's probably WoC or OnG. And so on.

I know that when i had my Skaven army, and played against my friend's dwarves, he didn't like the fact that i had an anti-Dwarf weapon. However, considering how easy it is to make dwarf characters virtually unkillable, it generally evened out, and i can't actually remember a game which was decided by the use of Dwarf-Slayer. The same with Basha's Axe of Stunty Smashin' (which i can see my Dwarf friend not liking one little bit...).
It may give an Orc character an edge against Dwarves, but when you consider that all Dwarves have hatred against greenskins, it more than balances out. Besides, Skaven and OnG are the ancestral enemies of Dwarves, so it makes sense that they would have some Dwarf-specific weapons.

Urgat
28-02-2012, 10:01
I disagree. In a friendly game, where you know the person you're playing and know his/her army, i don't think there's anything wrong with tailoring your list a little, as your opponent has the same opportunity.
My opponents don't do that either, because those items are crutches. I'm not questioning your logic, I'm just static my opinion in regard to the answer I gave to the question. I don't claim it's the best way, it's just what I do.

Corvus Corone
28-02-2012, 10:18
Whilst I'm almost always against list tailoring, in this case just choosing a lore seems fine. Bear in mind that the character sniping spells are shorter range, so it's not like he won't have to wrok for it / you won't see it coming. Bear in mind also that it's not enough just to snipe the general anymore if there's another vampire lore caster ahoy; one turn of crumbling can be weathered and then your second caster can step in (that's a choice for the vampire player; if you don't take one then that's your risk). After that, the lore of death is just as dangerous to VCs as any other army; having your general sniped is a serious loss!

theunwantedbeing
28-02-2012, 10:18
As a surprise item it's fine to do a little bit of tailoring as there is rarely any reason to take an item that has it's main(often only) effect vs a specific army.

I wouldn't advocate specific tailoring except vs opponents who play in an overly competitive manner and take armies like deathstar points denial bunkers.
You should always try to build an all comers style list even if you only have very few opponents.

tmarichards
28-02-2012, 10:23
List tailoring is fine, as long as you both get a chance to do it. I remember a good few years ago when I was getting into the hobby I'd turn up to my local GW with my Dwarfs, and sure enough every opponent would set out an army that had absolutely no magic, funnily enough this came after a period of intense scribbling on what appeared to be their list after asking what I'd be using...

The bearded one
28-02-2012, 10:30
As for me: never. They suck.

Ever seen the high elf anti-dwarf items?

both of them are quite absurd, especially for the cost.




come to think of it, there's a godawful amount of anti-dwarf items/characters, many of them actually very nasty as well.... sigh, fantasy's punchingbag..

Oogie boogie boss
28-02-2012, 10:40
I think we'll see a lot fewer race-specific magic items as more books are updated, and those we do see will be toned down considerably.

Harwammer
28-02-2012, 10:50
Ever seen the high elf anti-dwarf items?

both of them are quite absurd, especially for the cost.




come to think of it, there's a godawful amount of anti-dwarf items/characters, many of them actually very nasty as well.... sigh, fantasy's punchingbag..

I don't think Urgat meant they 'suck' as in 'are ineffective'.

There does seem to be a lot of anti dwarf items. I guess part of the reason is dwarfs can create items to fit against opponents. That said there are such a wide range of common items I don't think this argument really sticks anymore.

Edit:
In 7th edition I'd tailor my Beasts of Chaos to be able to cope with ASF High Elves/dragons (as this is what gave me most trouble) and then use that army as an all comers list.

What do 'all comers' list advocates think about that?

Urgat
28-02-2012, 11:01
Ever seen the high elf anti-dwarf items?

both of them are quite absurd, especially for the cost.


I don't think Urgat meant they 'suck' as in 'are ineffective'.
Yeah, sorry, I mean I dislike the concept. I actually like themed items, but to just be over effective against just one army is something I just can't stand.


What do 'all comers' list advocates think about that?
I do all comer lists even though I don't play against that many different armies, so I'll reply: well, HE are included into the "all" of all comers, right? If you take elements you know you'll need against them lest it's a uphill battle, it's all fair. I play a lot of things with high saves, that's why I always have my trolls, for instance. I need them against brets or chaos warriors. They're not necessary against other armies, they're a tad pointless against skavens or elves for instance, but I'll still keep them. They're my anti-big save unit, well, but they're part of my all comer list, because my list is meant to take on those hard-as-nail units as much as anything else. If I felt I realy needed a Death wizard (ignoring the fact I can't have one anyway) because it's the only way I could deal with, say, VC, well, one of my mandatory slots would be one of those, regardless of my opponent. Because I might face VC one day. Even if I also might face a goblin army with a bazillion big bosses where it could possibly be a subpar choice.

Oogie boogie boss
28-02-2012, 11:05
I think changing your army depending on who you're playing means that you actually get more out of your army, as you learn to use it in different ways. As another case in point, against Dwarves it spurred me to try a combat heavy Skaven force, or a shooting heavy one, whilst against WoC i might try an army designed for magic supremacy. If you play the same list against everyone, and never change it for fear of being seen as 'unfriendly', then surely both you and your opponents get bored quickly?

Artinam
28-02-2012, 11:07
I'm also not a complete fan against list tailoring. Still I can imagine situations where it can be interesting. Lores are for me on of those things that do not matter. But race specific items are. When I see this on the Bretonnian fansite where someone takes the special Squable shield to fight against Orcs I always remark about it.

Urgat
28-02-2012, 11:20
I think changing your army depending on who you're playing means that you actually get more out of your army, as you learn to use it in different ways. As another case in point, against Dwarves it spurred me to try a combat heavy Skaven force, or a shooting heavy one, whilst against WoC i might try an army designed for magic supremacy. If you play the same list against everyone, and never change it for fear of being seen as 'unfriendly', then surely both you and your opponents get bored quickly?

No, because I have more than one all-comers list :p I build my armies around believable themes, that's how I like my Warhammer. I can pop up with an all night goblin list one day, then an all common goblin list another day, and if I really want to **** off an annoying guy who thinks he's seen it all, I come with an all orc army (that, they usually don't expect :p). The variations are countless too because I have so many choices in my OnG book. Squig heavy NG? Magic heavy NG? Forest goblins only? Charriot army of doom? Dance with Wolves no footmen common goblin wolf army? None are tailored, some turn out disastrous, but I don't think anybody would be bored with facing me (excepted competitive players who will most likely ground me hard - some will just love that, others will dislike the lack of challenge, I guess, as much as I will dislike facing a meatgrinder I can do nothing against).

Oogie boogie boss
28-02-2012, 11:28
No, because I have more than one all-comers list :p I build my armies around believable themes, that's how I like my Warhammer. I can pop up with an all night goblin list one day, then an all common goblin list another day, and if I really want to **** off an annoying guy who thinks he's seen it all, I come with an all orc army (that, they usually don't expect :p).

Lol, fair enough. The thing i liked about Skaven was the fact that there were such a variety of lists you could choose, and themes you could follow. It's the same with OnG, though, unlike with my Skaven, which were a very versatile force, i've chosen to go all savage, all the time. So, when it's finally up to a playable level, i suppose the theme will make it an all comers list.

And more people should take all Orc armies. Though i'd be interested to see how an all orc force would do against an all goblin force......

Urgat
28-02-2012, 11:32
And more people should take all Orc armies. Though i'd be interested to see how an all orc force would do against an all goblin force......

I'd love to face an all orc army, sadly none of the people I know want to deal with animosity (or I'd gladly lend them my own green gorillas). That's sad, coz it would be epic (or it would be a mess... but it would be an epic mess :D)

Azaine
28-02-2012, 11:48
I play an O&G army and i try to build an all rounder list. As i play different armies I miht go "hmm dont actually have an answer to units of type A" and adjust my list to give me options, but thats more on the lines of "i dont have anything to deal with high armour stuff so I'll take a doom diver" as opposed to a specific item, etc.

The Low King
28-02-2012, 11:50
You have to take things to deal with your specific weaknesses.

Dwarfs struggle agaisnt skirmishers so i take an organ gun.

If im building a list that works a certain way, it will have weaknesses. If its an army that relies on outnumbering its opponants (or grinding them down) then i will suffer agaisnt a skaven army or a VC army. Therefore i will take tools to deal with those two armies.

still a balanced list

Balerion
28-02-2012, 12:31
I build my armies around believable themes, that's how I like my Warhammer.
If that's truly your primary concern then you would have no problem with the concept of list-tailoring.

I'm often surprised by the amount of people who are against it in all its forms. In reality, there's no such things as an "all-comers" army. It bashes the fluff in the face, and is purely a tournament-oriented conceit. Generals wouldn't be assembling a 2000 point army and then just wandering around the world until they happened to run into another army of identical proportions that felt like duking it out. Battles are massive logistical undertakings, so unless you're playing Daemons, Undead, or possibly Skaven, you have to imagine that there are a bunch of invisible components running around behind your army, grooming your horses, lugging barrels of salted meats, repairing your dented suits of armour, etc. The idea of two self-sufficient, jack-of-all trades armies teleporting around the planet to fight perfect pitched battles for no reason is completely dissonant to me.

Like everything there are limits, and if you take an army that's so finely-tuned it offers your opponent little to no chance of victory you're kind of a dick... but the same sort of armies can also be made with an all-comers format in mind, so it's not like tailoring ruins games all by itself. As ever, it comes down to the discipline and sportsmanship of the individual players.

Oogie boogie boss
28-02-2012, 12:37
If that's truly your primary concern then you would have no problem with the concept of list-tailoring.

I'm often surprised by the amount of people who are against it in all its forms. In reality, there's no such things as an "all-comers" army. It bashes the fluff in the face, and is purely a tournament-oriented conceit. Generals wouldn't be assembling a 2000 point army and then just wandering around the world until they happened to run into another army of identical proportions that felt like duking it out. Battles are massive logistical undertakings, so unless you're playing Daemons, Undead, or possibly Skaven, you have to imagine that there are a bunch of invisible components running around behind your army, grooming your horses, lugging barrels of salted meats, repairing your dented suits of armour, etc. The idea of two self-sufficient, jack-of-all trades armies teleporting around the planet to fight perfect pitched battles for no reason is completely dissonant to me.

Like everything there are limits, and if you take an army that's so finely-tuned it offers your opponent little to no chance of victory you're kind of a dick... but the same sort of armies can also be made with an all-comers format in mind, so it's not like tailoring ruins games all by itself. As ever, it comes down to the discipline and sportsmanship of the individual players.

Like (ah, facebook slogans.....). :p

Urgat
28-02-2012, 13:01
If that's truly your primary concern then you would have no problem with the concept of list-tailoring.

I'm often surprised by the amount of people who are against it in all its forms. In reality, there's no such things as an "all-comers" army. It bashes the fluff in the face, and is purely a tournament-oriented conceit. Generals wouldn't be assembling a 2000 point army and then just wandering around the world until they happened to run into another army of identical proportions that felt like duking it out. Battles are massive logistical undertakings, so unless you're playing Daemons, Undead, or possibly Skaven, you have to imagine that there are a bunch of invisible components running around behind your army, grooming your horses, lugging barrels of salted meats, repairing your dented suits of armour, etc. The idea of two self-sufficient, jack-of-all trades armies teleporting around the planet to fight perfect pitched battles for no reason is completely dissonant to me.

Well, in reality (so to speak), generals couldn't really cherry-pick what they would include in their army, they'd take what is available. That a general would happen to have just the right troops to deal with the army he's facing, and then he can change his troops to fit the next opponent, is more illogical to me. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you, so I'll just leave it at that.

eron12
28-02-2012, 13:07
I'm going to go against the norm and say that list tailoring can be good in certain situations. I think this can depend on the size of your local meta game. Without list tailoring people seem to lack the chance to use their learning curve.

For example my regular opponent plays lizardmen, I play dwarfs. The first time we played I blew his stegadons away. Now he tends to avoid stegadons because of how vulnerable to war machine fire they are. If he couldn't tailor his list when fighting me he would have to "forget" this lesson each game, spend a few hundred points on the stegadon(s) he would take in an "all-comers" list, then learn it again.

Without a certain amount of list tailoring, how can you apply what you learn playing the game?

IcedCrow
28-02-2012, 13:13
I really don't care about list-tailoring. Race-specific items exist for a reason. They are no more crutches than taking advantage of the current rules and using things like death stars to deny points and tossing 6 dice at the uber spells hoping for IF.

Balerion
28-02-2012, 13:13
Well, in reality (so to speak), generals couldn't really cherry-pick what they would include in their army, they'd take what is available. That a general would happen to have just the right troops to deal with the army he's facing, and then he can change his troops to fit the next opponent, is more illogical to me. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you, so I'll just leave it at that.
Isn't the pool of "what's available" usually coming from a much vaster standing army, though?

Personally, I like to imagine the games I play are battles from long, drawn-out wars, where the opponents are fully aware of who and why they're fighting, and not opportunistic ambushes where one roving army sets upon another and both have to make do with what's available at that exact moment. I like to imagine there are greater consequences behind the fight than merely the loss of one of the two armies.

Eyrenthaal
28-02-2012, 15:06
In our group most of us Have at least two armies. We agree upon points beforehand but not which army we use.

Though i definately wouldnt consider choosing lore as tailoring..

Dreadlordpaul
28-02-2012, 15:50
I generally try to build all corners lists with every scenario in mind. For example i have in my 2k warriors list
6 fortitude points
a 20 man warrior unit which can go in the watch tower
all my units except the warhounds can work by themselves
Most of my units will happily be in combat first turn.

On the point about changing lores i run a level 2 unmarked chaos sorceror who has to pick between fire and death, so i will always pick fire as it has several advantages over the lore of death namely that its spells are longer ranged and much easier to cast for a level 2 thanks to the lore attribute

Phazael
28-02-2012, 16:08
For pickup games, no don't do it.

If you are going to a tournament and expecting to see a lot of said army (or a couple really skilled people playing said army), then thats different and taking those sorts of things is a pure metagame choice.

RanaldLoec
28-02-2012, 18:00
I really don't care about list-tailoring. Race-specific items exist for a reason. They are no more crutches than taking advantage of the current rules and using things like death stars to deny points and tossing 6 dice at the uber spells hoping for IF.

Exactly, GW wrote an army books and rule books for us to use.

NOT TO CENSOR!

If an opponent takes a race specific item from the book. So what its in the book their free to use it when ever they want.

13713
28-02-2012, 18:18
The only unfriendly thing about playing with specific items or an army tooled to face a specific foe is if you impose a negative or gloating attitude to the game while playing. You shouldn't have to ask yourself if it is ok to take an item that is available to you. You need to ask yourself if you are going to be a giant ass when you play and why.

DareX2
29-02-2012, 17:47
I think list tailoring is, to a degree, beneficial in small or minor ways. Picking a race-specific magic item or a lore to accomplish a certain goal against a specific foe is perfectly fine in my books. It can lead to changes in playing styles and group meta, as players react to a tailored list and counter-tailor their list over time.

Gratuitous tailoring, however, can be in bad taste. This largely depends on social factors. Are you playing against good friends? Go for it. Playing a pickup game in your LGS? Don't over do it. Do take items that have race specific conditions. Don't build a strategy around casting as many initiative-testing spells as possible against I1-2 based armies. If you expect monsters on the field, restrain yourself from taking 5 anti-monster warmachines; nobody likes watching their big, exciting monster biting it (the dirt, not the warmachine) on turn 1. Do bring a monster-hunting champion; it feels like the monster has a fighting chance.

My rule of thumb has been to ask myself two questions: "Will my opponent have fun against this list?" and, in the same vein, "Would my list knowingly frustrate my opponent?"

Jind_Singh
29-02-2012, 18:25
Orcs & Goblins

I use my Stunty basha each and every game - and sometimes I even face Dwarf players and get to use it's additional benefit!! +1 str, +1 a, armour piercing - not bad for 50pts hey!

Empire

Helm of the Skaven slayer - my back story is that my General was startled as a child by a big Rat - and commissioned an artifact hunter to find him something to help him beat his fear. Sometimes I even get to use it's effects vs a Skaven player!


So I do take race specific items - but they are in my list for fluff reasons and get used each and every game regardless of foe

zak
29-02-2012, 19:26
Never know who I'm playing from game to game so I don't take them. If I did I would consider it.

vinush
29-02-2012, 19:45
I think the point is more that he would be using lore of death only if he Plays against VC, and would use beasts vs anyone else. The lists are otherwise identicle.

THE \/ince

Sexiest_hero
01-03-2012, 05:31
they more you play against a person the more you two will adapt to each other in friendly play. My nightlords used to duke it out with blood angles to the point we were slaughtering each other with hordes of 20 tzeentch possesed vs 20 death company. we were about to do this without using cheassy things like SC or Lash princes. weapons like plasma guns and powerfists, made to kill ther space marines were a ok. You can ad things t be more effective without being cheesy.

Chickenbane
01-03-2012, 10:56
I don't see anything wrong with it, from a purely fluff point of view any self respecting mage will try to kill a necromancer or vampire by a spell that leaves him safe from getting in a fistfight with him! Also I certainly can't see any reason why an army general will think to himself "I'd better not take the Uber-psycho-chaos-slaying sword of total murderdeath against Archeon because he wouldn't want me to". Don't get me wrong I'm not a tournament player so I play for fun, but I also don't play to have my nose rubbed in dog muck because I won't take some thing that will give me the edge!

Banville
01-03-2012, 11:15
I think it's really refreshing to see so many people posting here about their "fluffy" or themed builds. I think the majority of players actually write lists along these lines and only on very rare occasions do they tailor lists to counter specific threats. I play Brets and dark elves and always take the 7 Attack HKB Lord whether or not I'm likely to face anything he can use it on simply because I like the idea of him. Similarly, I always take the Executioners Axe on my Dreadlord because I like Executioners and the whole Khainite thing really appeals to me. Sometimes these models will absolutely tear armies apart almost on their own (Ogres hate them). Sometimes they'll be a waste. I don't really mind as long as my opponent and I have fun. Similarly I have never came across an opponent who has specifically tailored a list to counter my own. A member of my club always takes that banner that stops stuff flying which really annoys my Pegasus Knights but then again he takes that against absolutely everyone.

Yowzo
01-03-2012, 11:17
I don't generally take race-specific items in any games.

Whenever a play a friendly it's:

a) To try out new builds, regardless of the opp.
b) To have fun.

If I tailor a list to beat my opp that would fall into the WAAC territory, which I'm not a fan of.

However, I've tried race-specific builds for my O&G against Empire and WoC and been generally successful, just to encourage those players to try a more diverse approach than the empire gunline of doom and chosenstar/wocstar everyone is fielding these days.

Telling someone not to be predictable is always good advice.

quietus1986
02-03-2012, 05:45
I would raader see thet lore of that than a friend I played go made a empire "all-comers" list against my vampire's strangely he used lore of light something you don't really Se allot and a **** lode of mortars ( last time I played him he din't in his "all comers".
but on the items I use the OnG Stunty basha allot even againts WoC +1A 1St Armour piercing a god bless in a all goblin army. the big question is whats tailoring Im playing a fluff list at the moment its oke all around. But put it against a TK construct army or a OK army and it shines.( strigoi army allot of poisen attacks in that army.

sulla
04-03-2012, 00:14
Empire

Helm of the Skaven slayer - my back story is that my General was startled as a child by a big Rat - and commissioned an artifact hunter to find him something to help him beat his fear. Sometimes I even get to use it's effects vs a Skaven player!


So I do take race specific items - but they are in my list for fluff reasons and get used each and every game regardless of foe:D I'd expect him to dress up as a giant rat and beat up the criminals of Altdorf at night using an array of steampowered ratarangs. Call himself... The Ratman or something. Obviously he would have to be phenomenally rich. Perhaps he lost his parents to an attack by a chaos cultist when he was just a boy?

Seriously though, like Jind says, if you use the item, use it all the time, not just against that foe.

Liber
04-03-2012, 13:17
As for me: never. They suck.


Eh, no. Not at least for a Dwarf player(me) who has a regular High Elf opponent :cries:

Urgat
04-03-2012, 14:06
:D I'd expect him to dress up as a giant rat and beat up the criminals of Altdorf at night using an array of steampowered ratarangs. Call himself... The Ratman or something. Obviously he would have to be phenomenally rich. Perhaps he lost his parents to an attack by a chaos cultist when he was just a boy?

Seriously though, like Jind says, if you use the item, use it all the time, not just against that foe.

Nah, Ratman is a japanese highschool boy :p

Treadhead_1st
05-03-2012, 19:42
The way I view it, is that it depends on the situation.

For example, I am a High Elf player, and have access to 2 anti-Dwarf items (the Cloak of Beards and the Pendant of Vengeance). If it suited my force, and I felt I had a weakness to Dwarves specifically with my army, I would take one or both of these items. This means that my all-comers list is always paying the points for them, regardless of who I fight. It may seem unfair if I face a Dwarven army, but then I am down a considerable chunk of points if facing, for example, Lizardmen. I see nothing wrong with doing that myself, nor with others doing the same thing.

However, were I to turn up to my local store, and be asked for a game from a Dwarf player (who is using the same list he uses against everyone else), and then I sit down and re-write my standard Army List in order to include both of the above items at the cost of something useless/vulnerable to Dwarves in particular, then I do not view that as fair. I have specifically tailored my list to face a specific opponent at that specific time, rather than taking the items anyway and paying the penalty against opponents with different armies.

As it happens I don't use them, nor do I typically switch-out Magic lores (because, forgive me if I am wrong, you have to have it written on your army list don't you?). So I do not begrudge a genuine all-comers force taking race-specific items, but I do take issue with an army that grabs them only when facing said army.