Topic: W0lfs Crusade army, a band of heros V 1.0

[Lord Quiran de Lancastre]

anyone have a link to pics and previews of the new VC stuff?

[phillyt]

Current VCs are ok, and can do some serious power builds, like all zombie lists, black knight armies, wolf form circus lists.

Basically lots of cheese, so W0lf will be right at home.  However in the new book, bloodlines have been removed [by all accounts] and vampires made feral [not good IMO]

Whats this about feral?  I am surprised they would remove the bloodlines, they were some of the most interesting things about the book.  I happen to like VC WAY more than TK... just something more interesting about them, plus the TK model line is vomitous (some of the VC stuff is as well).

Phil

[Crimsonsphinx]

Have a look in the new VC thread in Counts Tavern Philly

The new Manfred is very feral looking, not at all refined.

[Elector Ted]

to be honest, we're all into playing a game that involves people riding monsters that don't exist, magic (that doesn't exist) and priests that can kill people by thinking (etc)...

...who cares if it's unlikely that all those characters will be in one place at a time??? The whole thing is unlikely, and to argue otherwise seems to me to be trying to justify different shades of grey. GW write the rules, so everything within those rules is valid.

If you like that list then good for you, go with it mate. It's not my cup of tea, but I see the appeal of special characters, they're the glamour models after all.

[phillyt]

HEy those new models look good Crimson.  In that link there was this thing they labeled as a Daemon Prince (from a new box) but it looked more like a titanic Strogii to me.  Now thats the flavor of Vampire I would roll with.

Elector Ted:  Lets not encourage fluff annihilating list construction.  We all play in a pretty little world of make believe but I just like my make believe to have as much reality as possible.

Phil

[Crimsonsphinx]

My number one rule of list design is as follows.

Would I like to play against it without crying cheese or beard?

I personally dislike special characters.  I find people who use them tend to do so because they are less tactically astute, relying on fancy powers/rules not normally associated with the army they are in.  However I appreciate people do like to use them, W0lf does like them and it is his army so with that in mind I can only advise him on what I would do.

Then again my group essentially plays for fun, with winning being something that occasionally happens.  Draws are the norm in my group, as if someone wins by a huge margin, they tend to tone down the list for the next encounter so it is more of a equal match up.

I suspect none of that appeals to W0lfs group though

[phillyt]

Then again my group essentially plays for fun, with winning being something that occasionally happens.  Draws are the norm in my group, as if someone wins by a huge margin, they tend to tone down the list for the next encounter so it is more of a equal match up.

My group is a bit more competitive, mainly because we only get one game each per week.  But we do try to help each other, even if we are playing to win not so much to draw.  Its evolution.  If a player cannot develope without the opponent throwing soft lists at them then we take them aside to tutor them on whatever they are missing.  That being said we do NOT play special characters, and genuinely field fluffy lists with storylines and balanced attacks (nothing like GT style).

I like the idea of your group though Crimson.

Phil

[Crimsonsphinx]

We still play to win Philly, but when designing lists we take into account our opponant. 

For example, if I was to use chaos, I would declare my god in advance [always slaanesh], and if it was mortal, daemon or beasts, as courtesy for my opponant.  If he was picking say Dwarfs, he could field a huge amount of shooting, but knowing the army I was picking, would probably only include a couple of shooting units but tool up for combat.  When setting up I go "these are chosen, they have a musician, no other command etc" as we do not mislead or confuse people.

Generally we field lists with the aim of not exploiting weaknesses.  We used to have a terrible player who would pick lists designed to beat the army he was against, rather than general lists.  So you would see Nike lizards with can openers vs chaos, mage priests vs high elfs etc. He no longer plays with us any longer though.

I would be interested to see how W0lfs group play?  Any input W0lf, this is your thread?

[W0lf]

My group plays more like this:

theres around 12 regulars.
1 lizardmen, 2nd gen slaan.
1 chaos mortals (tzeentch, my own)
3 boc (one Tzeentch, one khorne, one undivided)
1 dwarf list, hes got 6k and rotates lists.
2 skaven (both SAD skyre)
2 Tombkings, defensive builds
1 black orc heavy list (one of my old lists)
1 wood elf list

one of the skaven, one of the beatsmen and the two TKs are GW staffers.

We promote no list tailoiring, as such we all right one list and stick to it all games. This means lists need to be versatile but as strong as possible. Our group has a 2nd gen slaan list, 2 Tzeentch lists, 2 SAD and 2 defensive TK lists, therefore we tend to be very magic heavy. To put it lghtly 2 lvl 2's with a scroll each is about as useful as.... well nothing.

As lists are magic heavy or magic defense heavy you have to pick one. We also need lists that are tough to shooting (SAD, TK, Dwarves) and good in combat.

Tbh i reckon i could write almost exactly what 10 out of 12 of us field @ 2k (which we play almost exclusivly).

2k, no list tailoring, magic/magic defence heavy, resilent, good CC fighting lists are the order of the day.

Thats how we play. No one cried cheese or whines about imbalanced lists, it is a game.

The idea is to create a good army that isnt cheesy (becoz as individuals we dont want to win with cheese lists) that can stand a good chance against 10+ other lists.

Its cool.

For example, if I was to use chaos, I would declare my god in advance [always slaanesh], and if it was mortal, daemon or beasts, as courtesy for my opponant.  If he was picking say Dwarfs, he could field a huge amount of shooting, but knowing the army I was picking, would probably only include a couple of shooting units but tool up for combat.  When setting up I go "these are chosen, they have a musician, no other command etc" as we do not mislead or confuse people.

we basically know each others list of by heart, hell ask anyone in the group and they will let you read their armylists/army book with no issues. We often swap armies or races for fun, i typically love to steal the dwarf army and play some games (played and won 3 games yesterday with a dwarf list i made).

we are competitive and play to win, but not win at all costs. Hell i play the dwarf player pretty much every week and encourage him to take thorek ironbrow (which he usually dosnt do).

My arguement is that id use him, so he should feel free to. I dont try and write a list thats cheesy but i certainly dont ever ask/expect a player to downgrade a list, i often point out improvements thou!

[Fandir Nightshade]

Hmm about special characters...I start to evolve my own fluff around them and use their rules...so no Karl Franz leading my army but Killian von Greifenfels a brilliant General with a nice armour and a two handed hammer. So nobody can complain that Karl is leading every single battle of that company.

Same Problem with the War Altar....well there is only one of those but hey how many Chaos Dragons are around the old world? And Treemen seem to plunge out of the soil every day or two.

I think...there should´t be any fluff excuses.

(And if I want to stick Caradryan the leader of the Phenix guard in a unit of white lions by teclis pink string tanga I will do it)

On the other hand the List doesn´t seem to be to strong (except that Kurt can take on a fully ranked unit on his own on a good day) As philly said bait is the rule of the day....I would have tried to kill the cannons after that all the characters would have left their units and run around on their own.

[Crimsonsphinx]

Fandir,  Putting the captain of the Phoenix guard in the White lions is fluff abuse of the highest order!

Its not like an army made from cheese and beard hairs needs to exploit the fluff even more...Shame on you!   

I like designing lists, so I can't say I have ever used the same list ever although I could probably roughly write down what I would use with any army.  More or less.  Its mostly character options and items that I swap around.

My group has the following armys

3 chaos [my slaanesh, mortal tzeench and then a mortal undivided/khorne mix]
1 Empire [mine]
1 DOW
2 High elfs [one mine]
1 Skaven [mine... see how many armies I use]
2 Dwarfs
1 Woodelfs [mine...]
1 Ogre Kingdoms
1 Tomb Kings
2 Vampire Counts
1 Orcs
1 Dark elf
1 Lizardmen

I think im only missing a regular bretonian opponent.

[phillyt]

We still play to win Philly, but when designing lists we take into account our opponant. 

I see.  I wasn't implying you weren't trying to win, I guess I was getting images of a bunch of Empire players running through a field of flowers beneath a rainbow.  Then I remembered that Britian has neither fields nor flowers.   

For example, if I was to use chaos, I would declare my god in advance [always slaanesh], and if it was mortal, daemon or beasts, as courtesy for my opponant.  If he was picking say Dwarfs, he could field a huge amount of shooting, but knowing the army I was picking, would probably only include a couple of shooting units but tool up for combat.  When setting up I go "these are chosen, they have a musician, no other command etc" as we do not mislead or confuse people.

I see.  We do the same thing.  How do they do it at other clubs?  We usually call it "Spiking" when a player uses an army TOTALLY different than is expected.  Like when I made an all shooting Chaos Marine army against Tyranids because I normally played a horde of bezerkers and daemons.  I always declare my chaos god and army type before hand (Khorne or Slaanesh, mortal daemon or beast).

Generally we field lists with the aim of not exploiting weaknesses.  We used to have a terrible player who would pick lists designed to beat the army he was against, rather than general lists.  So you would see Nike lizards with can openers vs chaos, mage priests vs high elfs etc. He no longer plays with us any longer though.

So you bring an all comer list?  We know who we are playing an plan accordingly.  I mean I am not going to slug it out in an empire vs dwarf match.  You are more in favor of general lists?  Maybe we need to try that.

Phil

[Crimsonsphinx]

No no, not necessarily an all comers list, but there are certain items in some list that would be no brainers and are essentially super cheap against that army. 

For example in one game, rather unsportingly, I was borrowing my friends Khorne army, against ogres.  I had a Hellfire sword on my lord on a dragon.  He killed the entire army on his own.  It is that kind of thing we normally try to avoid.

Perhaps a better example would be when I normally line up against high elf's, I know that mortars and helstorms are my best units, but I will at most field 1 of each, as more than that would normally result in me winning by a huge margin.  Does that make sense?

We do what you do though, in that each player tends to adapt lists to beat each other, but with the slight difference that if someone wins by a huge degree they should probably change that list for the next encounter.

[W0lf]

We do what you do though, in that each player tends to adapt lists to beat each other, but with the slight difference that if someone wins by a huge degree they should probably change that list for the next encounter.

when i say we right one list i mean we have our list before we know who we are playing, if a player wishes to adapt his list before he knows who hes playing then thats a-ok. If a player goes 'im playing high elves so ill have 2 mortars' then we generally conider that cheating.

[offroadfury88]

when i say we right one list i mean we have our list before we know who we are playing, if a player wishes to adapt his list before he knows who hes playing then thats a-ok. If a player goes 'im playing high elves so ill have 2 mortars' then we generally conider that cheating.

Isnt that kind of the same thing?

I guess Im confused

[phillyt]

I find it is a self balancing equation personally.  If you are taking 2 mortars you aren't taking more than 2 cannon.  This means that you either have a ton of shooting or some fast cavalry.  If you go all out with 2 helstorm, 2 mortar, and 2 cannon you had better hope you get some good shooting because you don't have alot of options when the game gets in close by turn 3.

I am not in the school of thought that multiple mortars is a sure fire win, it essentially requires that the enemy play a specific army style.  If they go dragon heavy and load out on cavalry and thelike then you are in trouble.  That being said what options are feasible against HE other than taking a couple 5" templates (I prefer Helstorms for this purpose in 7th) in order to reduce the elites prior to getting to combat (where we have nothing that can concievably stop them).

Crimson: The helfire sword is a must play against ogres, as any multi wound item is generally.  That being said we rarely drop a dragon in my group (again the self correcting 'soft' environment we play) so that sort of thing happens.  The irony here?  I was just given a 4000 point Ogre Kingdoms army (unpainted) in return for painting my friends 8000 pt HE army... both of which will now reside at my house.  I guess I know what I'll be doing for the next year...

W0lf:  I find it odd that in the ridiculous environment you play in (ie power lists) people would whine about list conformations.

[Crimsonsphinx]

See I would include perhaps a rending sword but not a helfire sword normally.  I prefer a challenge, and so I do design weak lists.

Im a walking contradiction   What can the ogres do against a lord of khorne on a dragon with a helfire sword?  Nothing.  Not much fun IMO.

Normally I use playing ogres as an excuse to bring out a Keeper when at 3000pts.  He can even win combats on his own!

[phillyt]

See I would include perhaps a rending sword but not a helfire sword normally.  I prefer a challenge, and so I do design weak lists.

I agree, the Ogres aren't very flexible really.  That being siad, if the Khorne dragon doesn't manage to kill the Tyrant, the Tyrant with the Tenderiser will turn him into powder (since he isn't going to have anything but perhaps the gaze of the gods.

Im a walking contradiction   What can the ogres do against a lord of khorne on a dragon with a helfire sword?  Nothing.  Not much fun IMO.

Like I said we play fairly soft lists (or at least require that they seem plausibly beleivable) so I can relate.

Phil

[Crimsonsphinx]

I would only consider a hard list if it was a tourney or the specific rules for the game were to test out the books maximum.  Hence the dragon khorne lord against ogres, as the ogre player had been really cocky claiming he could beat *any* chaos army.  The dragon lord soon proved him wrong.

I generally like to play a fun and challenging game.  I do not want my opponant to be obliterated by my list design.

[W0lf]

W0lf:  I find it odd that in the ridiculous environment you play in (ie power lists) people would whine about list conformations.

wow how narrow minded do you want to be?

Ridiculous enviroment?

That speaks volumes about you. Just because you do something one way does not make it the right way, its a game we all enjoy how we want; so where is your right to judge how others enjoy the hobby?

And to answer your question (the one following the bit where you insult my whole playing group) writing a powerful list to increase chance of winning is all good and well. Changing a list to exploit someone elses list is plain silly and proves very little.

Powerful list vs powerful list = fair game, you both have lists to maximise your chances against all races.

Powerful list vs powerful list tailored to defeat enemy list is not the same thing, writing list that maximises effectviness against 20 or so armies is challenging, writing a list that excells against each list individually is easy.

[Crimsonsphinx]

Each to thier own group W0lf.   

I may not want to play in your environment but it is certainly valid and somewhat interesting.  I would consider it very difficult to build a list to be good against every army I was likely to come against.  Then again im no tourney player.

[phillyt]

wow how narrow minded do you want to be?

That wasn't a knock on you bud, what I was saying was the ridiculously POWERFUL environment you play in shouldn't have too much trouble with list alterations.  After all they look alot like GT army lists.  I guess if you look at that as okay but dislike tailoring thats a plus for you.

I meant no offense.

Phil

[W0lf]

lol thats kl.

the word ridiculous maybe wasnt a 'good' word to use

when your trying to field very powerful lists then list tailoring seems unfair.

Also as my group have people varying from 20k of one race to exactly 2k it seems unfair that the person with the smaller list should be penalised.

[phillyt]

the word ridiculous maybe wasnt a 'good' word to use

Ridiculous was meant to marginally derisive, but I was implying powerful primarily.

As for limiting people because some have only 2K in models my perscription for that condition is buy more models.  AN army just isn't an army without 4000 - 500 points!

Im an addict!

Phil

[Crimsonsphinx]

One of my group used to use "lack of models" as an excuse why his armies only ever fielded tiny minimum sized units of core.  We are talking 2 units of 10 skinks an a single swarm base at 2250 points for his lizardmen.

Apparantly it is not cheesy because he could not field anything else.  This is while purchasing fielding super upgraded saurus in special and rare, and buying a pair of stegadons and 6 salamanders to give him choice in those areas.