WHFB - Armies I hate the most

[Derick]

It may be that you don't hate to play against any one army, but what do you consider to be your toughest opponent

[Simon]

most hated army and toughest army is not the same. not everyone dislike to play against challenging armies.

Ogre Kingdom, becuase it is one of the weakest army book out there. no challenge to play against, so i hate to play against it.

but the toughest opponent will probably be DOC or Lizardmen, but i don't "hate" to play against it, becuase i like challenging games.

[Lezle]

I agree with Simon.

I voted for DOC. I have faced a Daemon army twice; both against Simon. They were both good challenging games. I don't hate to play them, but Simon did build his army to win the mini competition a few months ago.  Tough wasn't the word. Haha.

-Lezle

[Fujin]

I voted Wood Elves but I'd likely have voted Tomb Kings if that had been an option 

[Derick]

Well I voted Dwarfs.
Its not that I hate them, its just that I have always found them hard to take points off.
If the terrain is right and they castle up, its like beating yourself.
They rarely run across the table at you. Kinda boring really.

[dave grant]

Ogre Kingdom, becuase it is one of the weakest army book out there. no challenge to play against, so i hate to play against it.

Depends who the general is   Pretty sure I could give you a challenging game with the fat lads.



I like all armies although I seem to have "issues" vs banshees - rest of the VC book is fine, but I HATE banshees.

[Josh]

Dwarfs, then Wood Elves. Dwarf gunlines are just so pathetic and WE's are just annoying to play against typically.

[Glenn Patel]

Voted Daemons... but Simon has a point with 'challenging'.

Thing is, even /beating/ (or tying with) Daemons isn't fun. If you have magical dominance, your best strategy is to not fight, but disengage and slow them down while nuking (starting with their shooting).

If you have shooting domance, the same applies, but you need to hamper their magic first.

If you have HtoH dominance, may god have mercy on your soul

[Vaul]

No Tomb kings on the list, eh?  Must be because they are too awesome.

[Simon]

Voted Daemons... but Simon has a point with 'challenging'.

Thing is, even /beating/ (or tying with) Daemons isn't fun. If you have magical dominance, your best strategy is to not fight, but disengage and slow them down while nuking (starting with their shooting).

If you have shooting domance, the same applies, but you need to hamper their magic first.

If you have HtoH dominance, may god have mercy on your soul

I REALLY think u r a little over the top here and a bit bias against DOC, what u mentioned above can be done with any other armies and not only with DOC. I can easily make a high elf or dark elf magic heavy army better than if not as good as DOC, or a shooty dwarf gunline that can out shoot any DOC.
DOC r very tough, but they r definitely not unbeatable, and they do have some weakness. I used my dwarf last year in guardcon and I have beaten both DOC armies and poped both great unclean one in combat.

I think ppl hate DOC and VC so much becuase they simply focus on their strength and ignore their weakness.

[Fujin]

...or a shooty dwarf gunline that can out shoot any DOC.
DOC r very tough, but they r definitely not unbeatable, and they do have some weakness. I used my dwarf last year in guardcon and I have beaten both DOC armies and poped both great unclean one in combat.

Wow really Simon? You can build a Dwarf gunline that can outshoot some Flamers? Nice work - truly you are the new god of army list creation.

Dwarfs are one army that has considerable advantages (although I use that term lightly) when it comes to Daemons. Strong anti-magic, a decent shooting base, toughness/static res/armour up the wazoo. Hitty and/or survivable characters. A march-disabling "warmachine". And a basic leadership of 9 across the army. They grind well and usually force their opponent to react quickly or get shot to pieces. It's army that requires incredible skill to use and master. Not.

I have difficulty seeing all armies present as much of a challenge to a skilled Daemon player even if they try and go the Dwarf route (and who would want to anyway? Only the 40k players I'd wager).


It's been mooted recently that the introduction of Daemons has heralded the influx of Elven armies with their generally awesome shooting capacity, decent reliablility/leadership, potentially excellent magic phase and often excellent maneouverabili ty.

Thing is, even /beating/ (or tying with) Daemons isn't fun. If you have magical dominance, your best strategy is to not fight, but disengage and slow them down while nuking (starting with their shooting).

Erm... in which context exactly is it best when you have magical dominance to not not fight/disengage/nuke?

EDIT - oops my bad. When you are a VC play with 10PD and bounds. I keep thinking of magical dominance as being able to throw out a bunch of magic missiles which is just so silly when really the spells that buff units or move things around are often so much more dangerous in the long-term. Looks like I need to take a long hard look at what magical dominance really means.


Anyways... I voted Woodies because I find their shooting, counter-attack and manouever options to be frightfully effective and Tomb Kings because their magic is awesome and they are ultimately an incredibly reliable army.

[Derick]

No Tomb kings on the list, eh?  Must be because they are too awesome.

Sorry Luke, knew I'd forget something.

[Simon]

Wow really Simon? You can build a Dwarf gunline that can outshoot some Flamers? Nice work - truly you are the new god of army list creation.

I used my organ gun to pop those flamers. and so far it worked pretty well.

Dwarfs are one army that has considerable advantages (although I use that term lightly) when it comes to Daemons. Strong anti-magic,

again, u r only looking at where their strength is and totally ignore their weakness.
true, true, they have the best anti magic in term of dispel dice, but they DO NOT have any magic at all. they can do ZERO damage in magic phase.

a decent shooting base, toughness/static res/armour up the wazoo.

Yeah, good toughness and good armor, but i don't think there are anything in the list which can move more than 6" a turn (excluding the gryocopter)

Hitty and/or survivable characters. A march-disabling "warmachine". And a basic leadership of 9 across the army.

tomb king and VC don't even have to worry about their leadership

They grind well and usually force their opponent to react quickly or get shot to pieces.

i didn't use a gunline army, i used my semi-combat army.

It's army that requires incredible skill to use and master. Not

personally, i don't think any of your armies are THAT hard to master either. Good on you if u like to use fluffy armies, but it doesn't make u a better general.

I have difficulty seeing all armies present as much of a challenge to a skilled Daemon player even if they try and go the Dwarf route (and who would want to anyway? Only the 40k players I'd wager).

Dwarf are definitely NOT the best army against DOC. It is really funny how you talk about all this when u never used a Daemon army before. How much do u know about DOC? how many games u had against them?? I guess not a lot, becuase u r too worry about getting smash by them.

Dwarf is probably the best army to survive against DOC but will be hard to get a win from  a skilled daemon player.

[Philfy]

Dwarfs are one army that has considerable advantages (although I use that term lightly) when it comes to Daemons.

Glad you used it lightly.  Wood Elves, Vampires, Dark Elves, and I have little doubt Lizardmen will also be able to deal with daemons.

Realistically guys...  how many daemons have you played against in a tournament environment?  How many VC's?  And I mean under the new/current current books?

Hard to get a win against a daemons army in the hands of a skilled player?  Yes - but in my own experience...  thats the case regardless of the army they are using...

[Xander]

I voted for TKs because their incantations are a pain to try and stop, and there's always 3+ spell casters, then the hierophant is protected by the casket. And there's these really annoying things that are pain if someone can roll 6s (Scorps). And their uber unit causes KB, and they're all ItP, which throws using the Lore of Slannesh out the window, and to top it all off the kings and princes can have some niffty gear and the curse can kill those who killed them. Did I mention incantations? . . .

[Lezle]

I hate the Tomb Kings thing that let's 'em spin around for free. E.g. You get behind the mega-unit with big boss with your boss on flying beasty, as I did, and next thing the turn around! :'( Grrr...

But... I still dislike Daemons more.

-LP

[Vaul]

I voted for TKs because their incantations are a pain to try and stop, and there's always 3+ spell casters, then the hierophant is protected by the casket. And there's these really annoying things that are pain if someone can roll 6s (Scorps). And their uber unit causes KB, and they're all ItP, which throws using the Lore of Slannesh out the window, and to top it all off the kings and princes can have some niffty gear and the curse can kill those who killed them. Did I mention incantations? . . .

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaat!  What idiot tomb king player would put his HEIROPHANT on a casket?  Charge it, shoot it, fire a spell at it and it's game over for your opponent. 

[Glenn Patel]

Um... Simon, I should clarify:

I don't like playing against Daemons, because against them, your best chance is to be the shootier or magic-ier army, and just try to scrape your win through by nuking the crap out of stuff, because getting into combat is generally just bad news.

That is, I don't like playing against them, because the optimal strat. for beating them (with at least a fair few of my armies) has proven to be 'don't play a fun game of warhammer. just roll some dice and hide models in the woods'.


Fuj:

Yes, magical dominance is usually best used to force through magical movement,  or combat buffs/debuffs to win fights, rather than simply being an extra shooting phase. It's not that magic missiles (or big magic damage spells) are bad, it's that buffs/debuffs and movement spells allow the rest of your army to actually /do/ something in the fight. Getting cheeky flank charges in, getting a unit into combat a turn early... I use Shadows and Beasts almost exclusively out of the corebook lores, just because I rate magical movement so highly and everything else so low.

Oh, and sure, normally I might lean on my magic phase to take out a unit or two... but ultimately, my plans involve getting into combat. Probably 'on my terms', but the plan involves combat.

[Simon]

I don't like playing against Daemons, because against them, your best chance is to be the shootier or magic-ier army, and just try to scrape your win through by nuking the crap out of stuff, because getting into combat is generally just bad news.

That is, I don't like playing against them, because the optimal strat. for beating them (with at least a fair few of my armies) has proven to be 'don't play a fun game of warhammer. just roll some dice and hide models in the woods'.

i think its really depend on what army u r using, as Philfy mentioned above, wood elves, Dark elves and especially lizardmen can deal with daemons pretty well.

like i said before, i used my semi combat dwarf army and i had 2 games against daemon, first game was against ray O connor mixed daemon, which was really fun and lots of combat. while the second game was against a pure nurgle army, which was a boring game.

In another word, getting into combat with daemon is not commiting suicide., Especially with dwarf, chaos warriors, lizardmen and vampire count which can deal with daemon in combat pretty well.

[Gratnuk Ironfist]

Dwarfs, then Wood Elves. Dwarf gunlines are just so pathetic and WE's are just annoying to play against typically.

- Aye them blimin gunlines suck (Strange that I say it as well.)

The army I dislike the most are WE honestly, its the only army I know of that hide their stuff in the woods for the whole game. Then flips around the battle field unwilling to be part of a real fight. Give me anyone else that doesn't mind gettin into hand to hand combat, but please when it comes to WE:

Burn Lothlorien to the ground!!

[nik_]

I voted DE. Mr Kitson, you are partly to blame for that
HE and WE also deserve a mention.

DE get the vote because of the obscenity that is the combination of their magic and shooting phases. Plus the hydra. And ASF banner.

@ All the WE haters out there -> I often feel guilty about running around my opponent. However, if I don't do that, I lose. Easy equation

[Fujin]

again, u r only looking at where their strength is and totally ignore their weakness.
true, true, they have the best anti magic in term of dispel dice, but they DO NOT have any magic at all. they can do ZERO damage in magic phase.

Interesting - I don't see the lack of a magic phase as a weakness. Boring yes, weakness no. If you have enough anti-magical capability you nullify the magic phase of the opposing player. I'd argue it costs a heck of a lot more for your opposition to build an offensive magic phase than it would be for a Dwarf player to shut it down. Looks like a win for the Dwarfs.

Yeah, good toughness and good armor, but i don't think there are anything in the list which can move more than 6" a turn (excluding the gryocopter)

Sure - which is why I think they're boring and don't require much skill to use (I'm talking about Dwarfs, not Daemons - you got that part right?). Even a "semi-combat" army is boredom personified.

i didn't use a gunline army, i used my semi-combat army.

An Anvil "semi-combat army"? Otherwise it's just a slow moving castle.

It's army that requires incredible skill to use and master. Not

personally, i don't think any of your armies are THAT hard to master either. Good on you if u like to use fluffy armies, but it doesn't make u a better general.

I wonder if you've misunderstood what I'm saying here. I believe it's VERY difficult to get consistent BIG wins with Dwarfs (unless your opposition is an idiot and just plays right into your hands). Mastery of the army in that regard is incredibly challenging. However, mastery in terms of not losing significantly either is remarkably easy. Castle, shoot, grind. Draw.

I think my current Empire army is a difficult army to master. It's a standard tournament army - not what I would really term fluffy. And I strongly disagree - it DOES make you a better general. Hard to offer an opinion on this sort of thing if you never/rarely give the softer or less blatantly powerful options a go. I'm building a VC army at the moment and am very cagey about what it will mean in terms of growing my ability as a player - not having to worry about leadership, psychology and to a point combat resolution does somewhat mitigate major aspects of the game wouldn't you agree? Don't you think by comparison to Daemons an Empire player has more aspects of the game to consider and work into his plan? His troops might panic, fail a fear check, their armour is affected by the strength of an enemy attack. Not having to worry about this appears to me to make playing Daemons a hell of a lot easier.

Of course as you've pointed out I've never used Daemons so my understanding is only based on facing them and watching games.

Dwarf are definitely NOT the best army against DOC. It is really funny how you talk about all this when u never used a Daemon army before. How much do u know about DOC? how many games u had against them?? I guess not a lot, becuase u r too worry about getting smash by them.

Dwarf is probably the best army to survive against DOC but will be hard to get a win from  a skilled daemon player.

Agreed - but they are a good army. I guess it's kind of funny - you're right I've never used a Daemon army and currently have no intention of ever using one - but it's hardly compulsory to have experience using an army in order to forumlate an opinion and express it on a public forum    How many games have I played against them? hrm... probably only 7 or 8 all up against a variety of lists played by a variety of players.

Mate - I'm worried about getting smashed by everybody, not just Daemons 

I think it would be hard for Dwarfs to get a solid win off a skilled Daemon player. But I still maintain it's hard for Dwarfs to get a solid win off any army used by a skilled opponent.

Oh, and sure, normally I might lean on my magic phase to take out a unit or two... but ultimately, my plans involve getting into combat. Probably 'on my terms', but the plan involves combat.

I think that's the best plan Glenn - the death-blow is most games surely happens in combat so anything that gives you a major advantage in that area can only buff your gameplay and result overall. Especially things that are reliable (like always getting a 5+ ward save... for example).

Glad you used it lightly.  Wood Elves, Vampires, Dark Elves, and I have little doubt Lizardmen will also be able to deal with daemons.

Realistically guys...  how many daemons have you played against in a tournament environment?  How many VC's?  And I mean under the new/current current books?

Haha - and also glad I said "are one army" too?    As I've said - 7-8 games against Daemons but certainly not all in a tournament environment. But if not in a tournament then using lists designed for tournament play. Don't draw much distinction between the two personally. VCs... I think less... maybe 4-5?

Hard to get a win against a daemons army in the hands of a skilled player?  Yes - but in my own experience...  thats the case regardless of the army they are using...

Sorry. Harder to get a win in the hands of a skilled player. Must be some sort of reason why Daemons are a higher tier army...

[Glenn Patel]

I, personally, have played against nDaemons 6 times out of 18 in 2k+ tournaments. That's more times than I have played against any other army. I have had a win, a narrow loss, and three bigger losses in those 6 games.

Apparently this is a statistical skewing and I have been unlucky in this regard - but I'm really not going to be convinced that Daemons have been squeezed out of the NZ tournament wargaming scene.

(oh - and y'all are nice guys, Daemon dudes who have played me. Just so ya know)

[Gratnuk Ironfist]

Fujin- Why so anti-dwarf?

 I mean, seriously. I reckon that with any army you will lose if you go against an enemy player who is better than you.

The thing with dwarfs is that our strengths lie in shooting, comabt, and anti-magic. That is what makes me such an ardent supporter for dwarf armies and why I use dwarfs, because I have to take on the whole warhammer world with just rock hard warriors that give as good as they get in combat, with whatever makes it through to them after the missle troops have done their duty.

Not always an easy task, but when I do pull of a vitory (which happens fairly often) it feels even better, because "I did it my way."- Frank Sinatra.

Go dwarfs, and burn all Wood elfs and associated parties with them.

[Fujin]

Because I spent some time using them and realised their limitations.

In a game of movement and maneouver... they can't. Lacks excitement.

[Simon]

Fujin- Why so anti-dwarf?

just ignore what he said.

I remember i talked to John Matthrew (I think he worked for GW before) in Guardcon last year and i think it's 100% correct, 

Quote: "Don't listen to other people crap, this is your hobby, and this is your game, you can take whatever you want. If you are take what someone else wanted you to take, then you are playing THEIR hobby and not yours."

I have been playing dwarf for a good number of years and i think they are really fun to play with, it is very good solid army.

[Fujin]

Simon is totally right - don't listen to anyone's advice.

Ergo, don't bother asking for advice either. Or another players opinion.


Total waste of time trying to understand someone else's perspective too. Might as well not consider the experience other people have had with an army.

I have been playing dwarf for a good number of years and i think they are really fun to play with, it is very good solid army.

Best ignore this.

[Simon]

Total waste of time trying to understand someone else's perspective too. Might as well not consider the experience other people have had with an army.

good advice, yes i will listen, bias opinion, i will ignore.

every armies have their limitations and their own style, simply saying it is a no brainer to use a dwarf army is a bias opinion.

maybe u don't mean it, but u definitely sound like it.

Because I spent some time using them and realised their limitations.

In a game of movement and maneouver... they can't. Lacks excitement.

bias opinion, that's what u "think", so don't say it like it is a "fact".

[Fujin]

Fujin- Why so anti-dwarf?

Simon, I believe he asked for my opinion. Hard to offer an opinion that won't be biased isn't it? Surely it's ok to speak my mind if I'm asked for my opinion

simply saying it is a no brainer to use a dwarf army is a bias opinion

Never said "no brainer". I said, "I think they're boring and don't require much skill to use". Compared to certain other armies they are and they don't (that is happily acknowledged as being my opinion, not a fact of course).

The skill set as I see it for Dwarfs is:

- march-blocking to get the maximum amount of shooting in (and/or using the Anvil to slow units down)
- using the Anvil to move units into combat if you have one or getting charged, holding, and angling the receivers to allow for a counter-charge in your next turn when (if) they hold
- deploying properly so that when you do get charged you are in the best position (this is the most difficult part of using the army I believe but this can be mitigated by using Slayers or Hammerers combined with BSB+Courage)
- grinding (if it can be said that is a skill)


My opinion (this is still a public forum right?) is that Dwarfs offer you a limited gaming experience. You have sacrificed your movement phase (including the ability to initiate non-Anvil charges) and a magic phase (which is a really exciting part of the game) for toughness, armour and leadership. If you are happy to castle and blast away and that is what you want from the game that's fine.

What I want from the game is to learn about cagey manouvering, redirecting, baiting/fleeing, combined arms, spoiling attacks, warmachine hunting/avoidance, accurately guessing long distance charge ranges, using magic to bolster my attack at the right moment. Dwarfs don't offer me that - hence my "anti-Dwarf attitude".

bias opinion, that's what u "think", so don't say it like it is a "fact".

As noted earlier - opinion cannot help but be baised. Yes, that is what I think. Not saying it like it is a "fact" - poor assumption on your part in interpreting the tone of the reply.

[Philfy]

I tend to agree with Fujin in regards to Dwarves actually.  I find them boring (doesn't help that the models bore me as well).

Most players are surprised when a dwarf army comes across the table at them...  given that more often than not they castle up and say "come get me".

Dwarves don't win games IMO - their opponents lose them.  And this is purely and simply due to manuevring troops.  Dwarves simply DO NOT have the ability to go out and attack as pretty much every other army does.  Its a fact. 

Ken Hay attempted to "come and get me" with his dwarves at OTT this year...  and he made a good go of it too.  Being outmaneuvred lost him the game though.