PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else find wood elves boring?



Peachy
08-06-2006, 13:15
Not sure why but I can't get excited about wood elves. Their models are quite nice, they have a fair amount of variety and some of the units are just plain cool (eg wardancers). However, something just doesn't appeal. Maybe it's because a lot of people around here take similar lists (ie lvl 4 mage or a noble, branchwraith dispel dice generator, 2-3 glade guard, 2-3 dryads, 1-2 war dancers, wild riders/glade riders, treeman), or because of their hit and run tactics.

Does anyone else feel the same or is it just me?

metallegion
08-06-2006, 14:07
I feel the same of about 90% of lists in both 40k and fantasy. The cry of cheese forces everyone to make these "balanced" lists.. all these balanced lists are the same.

I like Rat ogre... and who cares if the aren't that good!
I like WE WW .... who cares if it's risky!
I like HE spearmen... but they are not good enough.
... ect....

The game is more fun when you don't care about winning and play with what you want!

Xavier
08-06-2006, 15:08
I like most lists that are made since that add a great deal of variety, Fantasy and 40k would be rather dull if all armys worked the exact same way.

Keller
08-06-2006, 15:21
The game is more fun when you don't care about winning and play with what you want! I agree, as long as you are being reasonable about it. You might like the SAD army, but no one else does, and will lament to play it.

But I do agree its better to just have fun than worry about being competative. Take some units cause you like the idea or the models, even if they aren't the most efficient choice.

Thranduil
08-06-2006, 15:29
Uh wow... some players need to learn to be a bit risky. I run a WE list and go for the gusto: I do not take a mage lord, nor do I take a treeman. I don't take glade riders either - nearly every other WE list I've seen takes them. I DO take Waywatchers (love 'em... killing blow arrows = what???). I take a dragon too, and most of the time field two units of wildriders, and NO wardancers. What I'm trying to say is that not everyone plays these standard lists. I have, in fact, tried using such a list (mage lord, glade riders, lots of shooting, etc.) and I did find it boring... Problem is, lots of players view WE's major weakness as a vulnerability to magic, and so go a bit magic heavy. This severely limits a list, imho, when meanwhile there are so many other options: why not take a treeman ancient, or a wardancer/wildrider highborn? WE have the best character/mage/warmachine hunters in the game (alters, warhawks, eagles, waywatchers, scouts, and yes, glade riders) so there's not much need to go magic heavy. Treesinging and support magic is nice, but personally, I like using the WE list moreso for close combat.

I think that certain players go for these "standard" or "balanced" lists because they like to be "tournament ready." Tournament lists are a bit different from friendly game lists because, in a friendly game setting, the guy across the table is usually playing the game in order to have fun, not to win a place in a trophy heirarchy. I would think that if you play friendly games with a few of the same players most of the time, then your list should be tailored to face those opponents... But that's just my humble opinion :)

L-Train
08-06-2006, 15:29
I find the lack of fluff in the book a bit boring.... most other army books that I have looked at seem to have a lot more.... rushed maybe?

Otherwise.. I like all of the units... I want to used them all (except for treekin, but maybe in the future...) so I will try them all.. and my list will be different all the time. Thats what makes it fun..

Alathir
08-06-2006, 15:54
I dont find them boring at all, I play Wood Elves and have found almost all army combinations fun and challenging to play with.

Jedi152
08-06-2006, 16:18
Fantasy and 40k would be rather dull if all armys worked the exact same way.
What do you mean 40k would be dull if everyone plays they same army? 40k is dull because everyone does play the same army.

:p

But anyway: I agree with L-Train on this one. The only thing i find dull about the new WE is the book. The 5th ed. one had so many excellent pieces of background and wonderful fiction, which the new one is totally devoid of.

althathir
08-06-2006, 16:23
if its the hit and run tatics that bores you, then really they are going to be boring to you there really isn't a way around.

As far online lists go I might post one but I don't go out of my way to look at others unless its new player looking for help or sounds interesting. I actually think that sometimes forum sites contribute to people thinking that there is a certain build they need to use when building a list.

edit: like they have to have a LV 4 wizard, or a branchwriath with the dispel dice sprite

Trunks
08-06-2006, 18:11
I think that there is an army that each person doesn't find appealing for whatever reason.

I could never, ever, play Dwarves.

god octo
08-06-2006, 19:45
it may be that you have only seen the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. with woodies, you can do a themed army from any season, forest spirit or no forest spirit..... there are thousands of options. on this site, you may encounter thousands of begginers lists, who take only the most killy units, ignoring fluff completely.

gorenut
08-06-2006, 20:00
Agreed on the "certain armies appeal to certain people"

I'm not a fan of the Wood Elfs simply because it doesn't appeal to me. So I think they're boring. I'm not a elf hater either, I like the concept of Dark Elfs and High Elfs. I usually build an army based on the models that I like. My philosophy is that you're paying for the models, so might as well pay for things you like and enjoy putting together. Only reason why I don't run a high elf army is due to their models being less than aspiring (with the exception of the new heroes ofcourse).

Cacodemon
08-06-2006, 20:40
What's not to like? WE are very versatile, and as said can be themed in many ways. Same thing for the Empire which is another favourite of mine. Versatility and customization are the life blood of the hobby for me. If I get fed up with the Provincial troops, then how about fielding a religious Sigmarite army? I have a Wood Elf army in the making that will someday become part of the Wild Hunt of Orion.

Wood Elves are strong, but not in a cookie cutter way, like the Bretonnians for example. And with the new armybook, they make more enjoyable opponent also, because the unit sizes, immune to psychology units and the stronger emphasis on hand to hand combat.

Alathir
09-06-2006, 02:01
I definatley agree that there are some armies that everyone just doesnt like. Myself for example could never play Skaven.

I'm a fan of the Wood Elves simply because ever since I was a kid the Elves in everything have been a favourite of mine, and the new wood elf models really went to the traditional 'elf' (ragged cloak, hood etc.) which was a good step away from those awful, awful Wood Elves of the last edition.

samw
09-06-2006, 02:26
Wood Elves are strong, but not in a cookie cutter way, like the Bretonnians for example.

You see, it's this kind of cheap shot that irritates me. Brets can be and are just as varied as any other army. I'm sorry but barely an army discussion thread goes by without an ignorant and flawed anti-bret statement.

Krusk
09-06-2006, 02:44
As if anyone actually seriously takes peasant hordes :) The main strength of a Bret army is Knights, and more Knights.

samw
09-06-2006, 03:41
As if anyone actually seriously takes peasant hordes :) The main strength of a Bret army is Knights, and more Knights.

Yeah, thats why there are five types. They're all the same? Oh I am sorry, I must have missed the massive tactical difference between all the main thrusts of the other armies.

I mean take dwarfs. You have your basic warriors intended to hold the enemy in place and grind them down, then you've got your ironbreakers designed too...er...well there's the hammerers with stubborn who...um...

And yet the same abuse never comes their way. You use peg knights as rock-hard flyers, Errants against fear/terror causers, basic knights against basic infantry, questers in sustained combats and grail knights to smash that enemy anvil.

Why is an infantryman carrying a different weapon an entirely seperate choice and testament to diversity, but knights with different weapons, different stats and different special rules are all the same?

StormCrow
09-06-2006, 04:24
I think people dont like playing brets because you can usually predict exactly whats going to happen with little variation in strategy or execution, and thus they attract the "cookie cutter army" sentiment....that and their grail knights are just plain nasty. I agree there can be decent variation between brets lists, but most of that variation comes in what type of knights you use so that insiders will realise your tactical genius and variety, but people will little knowledge of the army will be left thinking "oh great, another all knight bret army". With dwarves it is much more apparent what the strengths and weaknesses of each troop choice is, whereas bret knights usually have all the same weaknesses, and an extra special rule for each jump in points they make. It all just adds up to make bret's a fairly more predictable force than say dwarves, in my opinion at least.

As for w-elves being boring, I've played Alathirs elves many times and can assure you that even with a 'standard' list with mage lord etc., there have been many varied results in our games, and for the most part they have been very entertaining and enjoyable. And if you find their hit and run tactics boring then I'm afraid you will never like w-elves. I think the list was well exectued as there are many variations that can be made for balance and theme within the army, and some of the special rules elves get can make them a very surprising and entertaining force to fight (I will never forget the first time i was charged by wardancers with their extra attack dance and a highborn *shudder*).

on a side note, i would NEVER play as skaven. How does a rat manage to build a gatling gun!?

Lord Anathir
09-06-2006, 05:32
i like the mobility of the elves. it suits my playing style. even after aquiring 5 very cheap dwarf warmachines (which i still have if any one wants them) i cant play them cuz they are slooow. not my style of play.

Xavier
09-06-2006, 13:50
What do you mean 40k would be dull if everyone plays they same army? 40k is dull because everyone does play the same army.

:p


Touche.

In that case, fantasy would be boring if it was played like 40k :p

metallegion
09-06-2006, 14:59
Think outside of the box!!! Brets are no more one dimensional then Dwarfs or Woodelves.

I'm sick of this.. "You have all knights I can't beat you". "You have too much magic.. my army can't beat you".. "Your war machines don't give me the chance to win my way.. thats not Fair!"

These are the people who shouldn't be playing the "Game"... not the people who make perfectly legal list because their books let them!!

speedygogo
09-06-2006, 15:42
Not sure why but I can't get excited about wood elves. Their models are quite nice, they have a fair amount of variety and some of the units are just plain cool (eg wardancers). However, something just doesn't appeal. Maybe it's because a lot of people around here take similar lists (ie lvl 4 mage or a noble, branchwraith dispel dice generator, 2-3 glade guard, 2-3 dryads, 1-2 war dancers, wild riders/glade riders, treeman), or because of their hit and run tactics.

Does anyone else feel the same or is it just me?

I think it's just you.:p

xmbk
09-06-2006, 16:05
Think outside of the box!!! Brets are no more one dimensional then Dwarfs or Woodelves.

I'm sick of this.. "You have all knights I can't beat you". "You have too much magic.. my army can't beat you".. "Your war machines don't give me the chance to win my way.. thats not Fair!"

These are the people who shouldn't be playing the "Game"... not the people who make perfectly legal list because their books let them!!

Amen! You almost never see flexible people complain. Winners rarely cry "cheese".

JasonG
09-06-2006, 16:47
Not sure why but I can't get excited about wood elves. Their models are quite nice, they have a fair amount of variety and some of the units are just plain cool (eg wardancers). However, something just doesn't appeal. Maybe it's because a lot of people around here take similar lists (ie lvl 4 mage or a noble, branchwraith dispel dice generator, 2-3 glade guard, 2-3 dryads, 1-2 war dancers, wild riders/glade riders, treeman), or because of their hit and run tactics.

Does anyone else feel the same or is it just me?

i've been useing the woodelfs since their new book came out and i keep things fresh by trying as many different things as i can. there's so many ways to play... Tree heavy, or Elf Heavy or half of each, etc. etc. If you find it boring to play against Elf players who only try one way...then hint to them about trying a different approach.

sigur
09-06-2006, 17:50
Think outside of the box!!! Brets are no more one dimensional then Dwarfs or Woodelves.

I'm sick of this.. "You have all knights I can't beat you". "You have too much magic.. my army can't beat you".. "Your war machines don't give me the chance to win my way.. thats not Fair!"

These are the people who shouldn't be playing the "Game"... not the people who make perfectly legal list because their books let them!!

There's a slight difference between "legal" and "min-maxed"/"cheesed-out to the max"/"made for the sole reason to win" and so on.

@xmbk: Please define "winner". "Flexible" people? People who know how to use the rules, right? People who write their list with one thing in mind: How can I maximize the chance of winning and still play by the rules? A least when this dork over there looks my way...

night2501
11-06-2006, 19:32
mmm WE really can play alsot any way they want now...so i don`t know how can they be boring...with a friend (we both play WE) have been testing a line of infantry army, yep that's right a traditional warhamer army and let me tell you is rock hard...
is incredible how varied the new list can be...but I guess not everione can like every army :)

Elannion
11-06-2006, 23:06
I think the main problem that people have with them, isn't that they cannot play different ways, its just this main veer towards a bit of an annoying style that most of the units have even when playing in different ways. But also i think its the way the armys are portrayed and the way they play well in this annoying way, for instance from an outsider looking in who maybe didnt know alot about wood elves, seeing the list they might often think this is the style of wood elves and thats quite an annoying style just from the list and maybe the background and general stuff, for the same reason you get newbies picking up and playing in this way, its not that they can't play other ways its that the do veer this way heavily. Thats what i was trying to put across in my 1D army thread.

I love everything about wood elves, except this rather irritating play style of hit and run, which even people playing wood elves say you wont like wood elves if you dont like that style. So no your not alone.


As if anyone actually seriously takes peasant hordes The main strength of a Bret army is Knights, and more Knights.

Peasants are a very overlooked part of the bret army, they are actually very good troops, the humble bowman is pretty good defensive, the skirmishing one is great because of the lack of a max and the ability for command, not giving up points for standards is great, they are very good aswell as the other benifits and units. The problem is people take 6 units of knights and one unit of MaA and try and feild it like an all knight army and it doesn't work. But peasants can be very powerful in themselves, if i had more money i would field more peasants, at the moment i always field atleast 2 foot combat units and 1 skirmishing bowman unit, 2 non skirmishing bowmen to guard my trebuchet. Before the army book i remember a number of times when i feilded no knight armys.