PDA

View Full Version : Mix of things in the army?



Elannion
03-04-2007, 12:05
It strikes me that many people complain about armys heavy in one thing or another. however it seems often that in many armys its pointless to go to the middle ground on certain units, many things you have to pretty much go all or nothing.

TheWarSmith
03-04-2007, 13:56
::coughs:: high elves

sigur
03-04-2007, 15:26
This again comes down to wether or not you want to play a balanced army and in succession to that, it triggers another discussion about cheese, then people start believing that lists which are trying to reflect the background of the army are automatically opposed to cheese and so on.

TheWarSmith
03-04-2007, 19:24
certain armies were just built badly(or properly) so that having a balance of differing troop types isn't nearly as good as putting a majority of weight into one area.

High elves are a typical example, as they're very hard to play in a balanced method with an equal part shooting/magic/cav/infantry, so most players will choose 2 of the above and go all out. I think this inbalance wasn't intentional, and that's why the army suffers a bit.

Bretonnia is mostly knights yes, and playing it balanced is quite challenging, but I believe that was more of the designers intent to keep it a predominantly cavalry based army.

I personally think this is good for the most part, as if every army was 25% magic, 25% shooting, 25% cav, 25% infantry, whatever, armies, it'd start to look the same.

MarcoPollo
03-04-2007, 19:51
I agree with theWarSeer, in some armies, balance is not viable. But in others with a wide variety of units like chaos you can put together a well balanced army to suit your own style.

ZeroTwentythree
03-04-2007, 20:24
Funny you mention chaos, as the armies I usually see are usually either magic heavy (Tzeench) or fairly quick combat fiends (Khorne w/ lots of mounted, hounds, chariots, etc.)

I'm not as familiar with the current chaos army books, but the armies I instantly think of as being decent when "balanced" (in their own ways) are Empire, Dwarves, Skaven, O&G, and Lizards. These balanced armies might not be instant game winners, but should be flexible enough to do well against a variety of opponents, IMHO.

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-04-2007, 20:41
certain armies were just built badly(or properly) so that having a balance of differing troop types isn't nearly as good as putting a majority of weight into one area.

High elves are a typical example, as they're very hard to play in a balanced method with an equal part shooting/magic/cav/infantry, so most players will choose 2 of the above and go all out. I think this inbalance wasn't intentional, and that's why the army suffers a bit.

Bretonnia is mostly knights yes, and playing it balanced is quite challenging, but I believe that was more of the designers intent to keep it a predominantly cavalry based army.

I personally think this is good for the most part, as if every army was 25% magic, 25% shooting, 25% cav, 25% infantry, whatever, armies, it'd start to look the same.

Agreed.

Every army has it's strengths, and weaknesses, and every army goes heavy in one thing that others don't.

That's how the game should be.

TheWarSmith
03-04-2007, 21:20
I agree with theWarSeer!!

Cool. I AM THEWARSEER!!!

MadJackMcJack
03-04-2007, 21:39
Well it really depends on the cost of the units. A cheap-unit-cost army like Empire or Greenskins can afford to diversify and still remain effective. But expensive armies like Chaos Mortals or Elves are pretty much forced to specialise.

MarcoPollo
03-04-2007, 22:08
Originally Posted by MarcoPollo
I agree with theWarSeer!!
Cool. I AM THEWARSEER!!!

Yikes! Great!

Now I've gone and dun it. theWarSmith has a big head all of account of a stupid cold and no proof reading. Apologies to the entire Warseer community;)

Frankly
03-04-2007, 23:28
This again comes down to wether or not you want to play a balanced army and in succession to that, it triggers another discussion about cheese, then people start believing that lists which are trying to reflect the background of the army are automatically opposed to cheese and so on.

No, I don't agree with that at all, not if its a blanket statement that points the finger at all players that don't run someone else's idea of a "balanced army list" and is then some how being some how unsporting.

And then turning it into a childish game of calling it cheesy is a huge problem on these forums.

People that want to play a themed "dragoons" armylist with lots of guys on horse back with pistols and lots of knights .... let them have their fun.

People that want to play skink jungle hordes that envision a lot of jungle hunters scouting around and popping up to ambush units and filling the skies with billions of poisoned arrows ... then let them.

Its cool, its themed, its fun to play against, its not balanced, but its not cheesy either.

505
04-04-2007, 02:25
People that want to play skink jungle hordes that envision a lot of jungle hunters scouting around and popping up to ambush units and filling the skies

if they took the time to paint that many skinks then let them.;)

anyways there will always be an argument of cheese vs theme. if you can come up with some reason no matter how crazy (well half a mile down the way was a pimp-my-steamtank convention and they heard the noise so they sent all these tanks to see what was going on)

anyways I think theme is cool ...but then again any game I get to play is cool.

Az_Barag
04-04-2007, 06:54
I like having a themed army, and that depends on the army im playing with, i use the advantages to theme my armies. For example with my dwarven force i use an expedition guild, so not many units but powerful, lots of thunderers and lots of great weapons, so when i am charged, the enemy will be hit by strength 5 axes, and the hit last doesnt matter as I2 dawi dont often go first.

Az