A philosophical question

For discussion about all the lesser races of Warhammer. Talk about armies, tactics and lists to take on the Druchii here...

Moderator: The Dread Knights

Bitterman
Beastmaster
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:08 pm

A philosophical question

Post by Bitterman »

So we had a friendly mini-tournament in our gaming group today (lengthy report in the Battle Reports section if you're interested) and in one of the games, they rolled up the Death or Glory scenario, which is based on the number of banners in the army.

Now, one of the players in that game was a Wood Elf player - and he didn't have any banners in his army list - so instantly lost. Fair enough, the point of the mini-tournament was to get some experience in the new rules, so they simply re-rolled and played a different scenario instead.

That's just fine. We're a friendly gaming group, if someone's accidentally picked an army list that doesn't work in one scenario, it doesn't matter, play a different scenario instead. (And all of your responses should take into account that this is a friendly gaming group, not tournament-style).

What I strongly disagreed with was that, when I suggested that next time he should take a list with some banners in it so he can at least contest that scenario, the Wood Elf player refused, saying:

"Why would I spend 12 points on a banner for a unit of archers that I don't want to be in combat?" - how about because it allows you to contest that scenario? I took a banner on my RXBs to give me better chances in that scenario, that's 10 points 'wasted' in other games, what's the difference?

"It's unfair on Wood Elves because most of their units don't have banners". Right, but some do. It's not that WEs can't play that scenario - he's just choosing to pick a list that can't play it.

"I don't see a reason to make my army viable for all six scenarios when we could just reroll" - well, I'm not sure that my Bretonnians are particularly looking forward to the Watchtower scenario. I don't particularly expect to enjoy playing against a Dwarf or Empire gunline in Battle for the Pass and have to endure five or six rounds of artillery fire because they're starting 48" away from me. Some armies struggle in some scenarios - tough!

Am I being out of line here? It seems to me that for future games (like I said, today was a learning experience anyway) he's simply decided that his army won't be very good at that scenario so he won't even try. I don't think that's particularly sporting - I think it's taking advantage of our friendly gaming group's friendly nature, in the knowledge that we will reroll the scenario in such circumstances, instead of claiming the win. When I write an army list, I write one that can deal with anything - by flatly refusing to contest one specific scenario, isn't that player giving himself an unfair advantage?

OTOH - alternatively, is my opponent right, that WEs are always going to be so bad at that scenario that it would be pointless playing it, and probably not fun for either party? In a friendly gaming group, is it reasonable for a player to say that he won't find a scenario much fun so won't play it? Is my morality sensor out of line and the important thing is that a game is played and fun is had?

I think the fact there are now six scenarios is intentionally to encourage people to take flexible army lists. I think that even in a non-competitive environment, refusing to play one scenario because you know it doesn't suit your army is against the spirit of the game. But he thinks in a friendly environment, pressing ahead with one scenario in which one army is at a disadvantage just isn't going to be much fun. What do you think?
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

As I replied in your batrep thread, the autoloss is his choice, but it is reasonable to consider that your autowin is worth only a half victory; then you'd start immediately another game, halving whatever the result is reached, adding it to the WE auto-half-loss.



I played against my son's Brets in the watchtower scenario, he was utterly frustrated.
Sure, now cavalry can dismount and attack the tower, but with BG inside, there was nothing he could really do.



If the first 6 scenario appear to grant obvious advantages for some armies, would you consider the other many fluffy scenarios, closer to the end of the BRB (Can't give page number, I don't have it with me)?
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
Minsc
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Glade of Kings or Ghrond.

Post by Minsc »

he's just choosing to pick a list that can't play it.


Not entirely true.
Wood Elves can't really make a good list for B&G because they do lack good places to put their standards.

Glade Guards, Glade Riders and Glade Guard Scouts are all fragile shooty units with T3 and no armoursave. Putting a banner on them is for all intents and purposes a waste of points and free bonus VP for the opponent.

This leaves Wild Riders (wich are overpriced fastcav that dies as soon as someone farts in their general direction in 8th Ed.) and Eternal Guard who most WE generals don't field because of obvious reasons.

When you are forced to make your army worse and take tactically idiotic upgrades just so you don't automaticlty loose in a specific scenario, something is wrong.

Wood Elves aren't the only army who suffers from bad balancing in the scenarios (you mentioned Bretonnia+Watchtower and a Gunline on Battle for the Pass yourself), however they are the army that suffer's the greatest.
With that said, Wood Elves suck at pretty much everything now, so this is just one more thing to add in the "Why WE needs a new AB" pile.

The Scenarios in the BRB are all except for Battle-line unbalanced in some way or another depending on the matchup.
I myself dread the day my Wood Elves will face Dwarves or Warriors of Chaos in a Watchtower scenario - I might just give up right then and there.

alternatively, is my opponent right, that WEs are always going to be so bad at that scenario that it would be pointless playing it, and probably not fun for either party?


I've played B&G with my WE once (vs HE) and I managed to win. I had a fortitude of 4 (yey!) and put them in the same unit - If I'm gonna loose I might as well loose big. I did win that game out of pure luck though, since I first managed to IF Dwellers below on a unit of PG with a Archmage & BSB in it (12/20 dead PG, dead BSB, dead archmage), and in the final combat (EG with BSB + Highborn vs Spears + Prince) I managed to break him wich made his Standard autodie so I won. He had a fortitude of 7 vs my 4 in that game.

Your opponent should consider remaking his armylist however, so he at least can play B&G without autoloosing before you even begin. Fortitude of 4 won't make it easy to win, but at least you have to odd chance of doing it.

Edit:

I took a banner on my RXBs to give me better chances in that scenario, that's 10 points 'wasted' in other games, what's the difference?


Did you buy a Banner for your RxB's because you a) were afraid of rolling B&G and bought them 'just in case" or b) knew you we're gonna play B&G?
Bitterman
Beastmaster
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:08 pm

Post by Bitterman »

Thanks for the responses guys. Interesting to learn that WEs are perceived as "that bad" nowadays, I realise some of the 8th Ed changes won't have helped them much but I thought they were still a solid middle-tier army?

I'll wait for more feedback before responding further, but I'll just clarify one thing - the game the WE player "auto-lost" (so rerolled and played something else instead) wasn't against me, and as it was accidental and today was all about exploring the new rules, rerolling is fine by me anyway; it's more about 'next time' when the auto-defeat will be intentional.

Finally:

Did you buy a Banner for your RxB's because you a) were afraid of rolling B&G and bought them 'just in case" or b) knew you we're gonna play B&G?


Definitely a "just in case". I ended up playing Dawn Attack, Battle for the Pass and Watchtower today - I've still not yet played B&G myself, with any army, but I make sure that any list I write has enough standards to at least be able to contest it, and preferably several more so they've actually got a realistic fighting chance. In the same way, I will often (not always) pick an army with a Core infantry unit of 20 models, to garrison a Watchtower if required, and so on and so forth. It just seems like the way you roll for a scenario means you should at least be able to contend any of them, even if (as you guys have noted) some of them inevitably favour some armies over others.

Edit (so "finally" wasn't that final):

If the first 6 scenario appear to grant obvious advantages for some armies, would you consider the other many fluffy scenarios, closer to the end of the BRB (Can't give page number, I don't have it with me)?


Oh, absolutely - sometimes we'll do that, for sure, just like we often play games of up to 6000 points. But we usually plan such things ahead of time, and the "standard" match-up will still probably be a random Pitched Battle at 2000 points (or we may go up to 3000, it's under discussion - 3000 may make for a better game, but I only have 2000 points of models for some of my armies, and I'm buggered if I'm spending another £100+ per army just to go up to 3000 points).
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Red... »

Hmmm...

I suppose a quick, practicle solution might be to allow each player a scenario mulligan.

You could agree within your gaming group to each have the option to refuse to play one particular scenario. So, as a wood elf he could refuse to play the death or glory scenario (which, to be honest, I do think is a pretty poorly worked out scenario, they could have come up with something much more intelligent for the breaking device than optional standards), while you could refuse to play a different scenario that you didn't like.

Might not be the moral solution, but it could help reduce friction and provide a fair and workable stop-gap measure.

Alternatively, if you ever play against him and he rolls the death or glory scenario, thus autolosing, just pack up your miniatures and refuse to play a second game. Congratulate him on an interesting battle and find another opponent :P But the first solution is probably more harmonious :P
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
Minsc
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Glade of Kings or Ghrond.

Post by Minsc »

You could agree within your gaming group to each have the option to refuse to play one particular scenario. So, as a wood elf he could refuse to play the death or glory scenario (which, to be honest, I do think is a pretty poorly worked out scenario, they could have come up with something much more intelligent for the breaking device than optional standards), while you could refuse to play a different scenario that you didn't like.


I like this idea.
That way neither parts can claim that they got an "unfortunate" scenario. ;)
User avatar
Dalamar
Dragon Lord
Dragon Lord
Posts: 9675
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 6:42 pm
Location: Designing new breeds of Dragons

Post by Dalamar »

Are you saying a unit of 30 Glade Guard with bows, banner and musician would be bad?

Deployed 10 wide, 25 can shoot every turn, they can fast reform into 6x5 and hold up for dryad countercharge.

Make two of those, that's 2 banners already.

BSB is a must, no matter the army, in 8th edition.

That's 3 banners.

Add a banner on Wild Riders (because they can be deadly on the charge.

I don't remember if Wardancers can have a banner, but if they can it's another really good place.

Wood Elves really don't lose much by actually having banners.

And yes, Eternal Guard are actually useful in 8th, so there's another spot for a banner.

Next time just help him out improving his lists.

At 2000 points, he needs 1 banner (hey, why not a BSB?) to not auto-lose the game, then just make sure his general and the sole banner bearer remains alive... Avoiding being hit is what Wood Elves excel at.
7th edition army book:
Games Played: 213
Games Won: 114 (54%)
Games Drawn: 33 (15%)
Games Lost: 66 (31%)

8th Edition army book W/D/L:
Druchii: 36/4/16
Aerrone
Shade
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:54 am
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Contact:

Post by Aerrone »

If the WE player's intention is to deliberately avoid making his army capable of even playing in that scenario then I think some harsher measures are called for, friendly gaming group or not.

He's simply trying to avoid a scenario that he sees as a bad match-up for his army and abusing the friendly nature of the group with an unfriendly action of his own.

My suggestion is this: if he refuses to make an army capable of even playing the scenario and the scenario in question is rolled, then he has the right to decline to play it, fine. However, his opponent then chooses the scenario that will be played -- giving his opponent the opportunity to pick a match-up that favours his own army moreso than the WE army.

If he loses enough games where his opponent gets to pick the scenario, he'll start to find places in his army to put a few banners.
Bitterman
Beastmaster
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:08 pm

Post by Bitterman »

Red... wrote:You could agree within your gaming group to each have the option to refuse to play one particular scenario. So, as a wood elf he could refuse to play the death or glory scenario (which, to be honest, I do think is a pretty poorly worked out scenario, they could have come up with something much more intelligent for the breaking device than optional standards), while you could refuse to play a different scenario that you didn't like.


Realistically this is probably what we'll end up with, to avoid arguments if nothing else. I'm not sure it's the perfect solution (having already put a lot of thought into how each of my armies could contest each scenario, I don't personally feel the need to "take a Mulligan" on any of them) but it seems 'fair' on the surface so probably what we'll end up with.

Are you saying a unit of 30 Glade Guard with bows, banner and musician would be bad? ... two of those. ... BSB is a must, no matter the army, in 8th edition. Wild Riders ... Wardancers .. really don't lose much by actually having banners. ... Eternal Guard ... At 2000 points, he needs 1 banner (hey, why not a BSB?) to not auto-lose the game, then just make sure his general and the sole banner bearer remains alive... Avoiding being hit is what Wood Elves excel at.


Those were pretty much my arguments. He was trying to claim that WEs can't feasibly do it, I think they can and he's just choosing not to. Sure, with a general and one banner, losing either of them will lose him the game: well, that's what the scenario is about! Play to protect them, then, or take more.

(The counter-argument, I suppose, is that with TLOS and the devastating nature of magic in 8th Ed, if your opponent really, really wants to take out one particular model or unit, he can probably find a way; which I think is what this WE player was getting at, that he could indeed put a banner on his Glade Guard and play the game, but 2000 points worth of the enemy would concentrate on that one unit, and nothing could survive that for more than a turn or two).

My suggestion is this: if he refuses to make an army capable of even playing the scenario and the scenario in question is rolled, then he has the right to decline to play it, fine. However, his opponent then chooses the scenario that will be played -- giving his opponent the opportunity to pick a match-up that favours his own army moreso than the WE army.


I actually quite like this idea. I will suggest it next time this comes up.
Hjiryon
Slave on the Altar
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:43 pm

Post by Hjiryon »

Hey there. I've been lurking these forums for years; decided to actually register with 8th edition out and whatnot. I've had much the same problem with Wood Elves; to try and help out your friend a bit:

Eternal Guard are not viable at present, he's right. They almost manage to narrowly tie with High Elf spearmen in equal amounts - costing 25% more.
They beat dark elf spearmen, in all justice, especially after the first round of combat - they cost twice as much. Comparing them to units of comparable cost in either of the other elf list gets depressing really fast, so I'll refrain from doing that. To some extent, this is to be expected, given what wood elves are, but it means we're left with a sub-par unit suffering from old codex blues - there's very, very little point in taking them nowadays, especially when you compare them to Treekin.

Banner on Wild Riders: Sure, I buy the banner out of habit - but Wild Riders are no longer "Devastating on the charge" by any means. They take hits back, and they die pretty quickly - and unless you spend 400 points on them, they no longer deny ranks in the flank. In other words, if this is what you intend to use them for, they're far and away worse than they were. Still, with LD 9 and a decent ward save, I have used them with some success to tie up a unit for a few turns (White Lions - I was really lucky on my ward saves!); the banner helps with this, at least.
That said, they make good warmachine hunters. I put the banner there because, well, it has to go somewhere.

Glade Guard: I consider taking 10 with a banner a waste of points. Worse still, it's giving away 37 WP to your opponent, for no good reason.
But I've been toying around with 20 with banner of eternal flame... Going by RAW and being an evil git, it means you get 20 attacks with flaming on bows (obviously), but it also means that the Hail of Doom Arrow, fired by a character in that unit, will also have flaming attacks. Putting 3 wounds on a hydra in turn 1 really makes it less threatening - and this holds true against regeneration in general. That's 2 banners.

In the same unit, put a BSB with the Hail of Doom Arrow (and Aysiendi's Bane so he's allowed to shoot it). This will be less silly when Wood Elves are allowed to field a BSB with items. But it's still decent (alternately, put an eagle rider in this unit in turn one, have him fire the HoDA, and then go on his merry way, warmachinehunting or picking out a flank. 3 Banners.

Toss in a general, and you're looking at Fortitude 5. That's the most I've been able to justify (to myself) bringing in 2500 points so far.
Problems arise from this as well, of course. 20-man units of GG are not, contrary to what one might expect, good bunkers for characters; they're also not too good at avoiding combat anymore, especially not in such a bit unit.
Are they worth it over 10-man MSU units? Eh, go to asrai.org and follow the religious discussion on the subject over there.

Finally: Someone asked if WE are really that bad this edition. The short answer is "yes". The long one adds: "They're not unplayable, but old-style skirmish wood elf lists are dead and gone with 8th."
User avatar
Dalamar
Dragon Lord
Dragon Lord
Posts: 9675
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 6:42 pm
Location: Designing new breeds of Dragons

Post by Dalamar »

Eternal Guard are not viable at present, he's right. They almost manage to narrowly tie with High Elf spearmen in equal amounts - costing 25% more.


I doubt any Core infantry unit can currently compete with High Elf Spearmen because High Elves are heavily favoured by the ASF changes in 8th.

"They're not unplayable, but old-style skirmish wood elf lists are dead and gone with 8th."


I disagree strongly. You can base an army on Glade Riders, Warhawk Riders, and Waywatchers, backed with Level 4 wizard with Lore of Life and scout heroes and hide outside of your opponent's front arcs. They can't march block you anymore. And as soon as you get rid of their war machines and ranged units, then heal your own units with Regrowth, they're sitting ducks.
7th edition army book:
Games Played: 213
Games Won: 114 (54%)
Games Drawn: 33 (15%)
Games Lost: 66 (31%)

8th Edition army book W/D/L:
Druchii: 36/4/16
Hjiryon
Slave on the Altar
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:43 pm

Post by Hjiryon »

Dalamar wrote:
Eternal Guard are not viable at present, he's right. They almost manage to narrowly tie with High Elf spearmen in equal amounts - costing 25% more.


I doubt any Core infantry unit can currently compete with High Elf Spearmen because High Elves are heavily favoured by the ASF changes in 8th.

"They're not unplayable, but old-style skirmish wood elf lists are dead and gone with 8th."


I disagree strongly. You can base an army on Glade Riders, Warhawk Riders, and Waywatchers, backed with Level 4 wizard with Lore of Life and scout heroes and hide outside of your opponent's front arcs. They can't march block you anymore. And as soon as you get rid of their war machines and ranged units, then heal your own units with Regrowth, they're sitting ducks.


You can make an army like that, certainly. It's legal (since Glade Riders are now core), though you'll need a fair amount of glade riders to fill up your core allotment.
With TLoS, though, they're going to be hit by shooting and magic.
If we're playing against a slow opponent with very little shooting, this may be viable, if risky (WoC and VC come to mind).
Against most others, it's just giving out free victory points to field so many so fragile units.
Also, you mention the Lore of Life... That means we're talking a spellweaver (250 points at level 4 naked). In a mobile list like this, where would you hide her?

If you seriously think this is a competitive build, I should ask: Why don't dark elves do this in 8th edition? You have the units at your disposal in the dark elf list.
The only thing wood elves have on you, modelwise, would be warhawk riders and great eagles. In return, your have harpies and hydras, both of which fit in easily.

Finally, what you describe is not a conventional Wood Elves list - it's a very specialised one at that, incidentally, suffers under the TLoS rules in 8th edition.

On eternal guard: They are a special choice, unless you field a highborn to lead the army, not core. This is reflected in their statline as well (WS 5, LD 9).
But the problem remains that they dish out very little hurt for their relatively high point cost. To take a similar unit to compare with, what happens when eternal guard get into close combat with Black Guard (admittedly, BG cost 1 point more per model)?
User avatar
Dalamar
Dragon Lord
Dragon Lord
Posts: 9675
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 6:42 pm
Location: Designing new breeds of Dragons

Post by Dalamar »

Also, you mention the Lore of Life... That means we're talking a spellweaver (250 points at level 4 naked). In a mobile list like this, where would you hide her?


Large (15ish) unit of Glade Riders maybe? One that you replenish turn by turn with Regrowth? Hey, you're almost undead now :P

Why don't dark elves do this in 8th edition? You have the units at your disposal in the dark elf list.


Good question, why not? I'm definitely going to try to do that when I have more Dark Riders at my disposal (a LOT more)

suffers under the TLoS rules in 8th edition.


TLOS only affects things in the front arc really... You don't want to be in the front arc to begin with. Hide *behind* the enemy and you're worried only about war machines, wizards, and swift reforming ranged units (and not all of them as at least half are move or fire, like dwarfs or empire)
7th edition army book:
Games Played: 213
Games Won: 114 (54%)
Games Drawn: 33 (15%)
Games Lost: 66 (31%)

8th Edition army book W/D/L:
Druchii: 36/4/16
User avatar
Tethlis
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1444
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:54 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Post by Tethlis »

The Wood Elf build in question is nicknamed "Sethayla", after the Wood Elf kindred from lore that focuses on utilizing Warhawks for fast attack.

Sethayla isn't bad, and as the Wood Elf book continued to steadily decline, it actually increased in appeal. With the gradual death of the Wood Elf "ambush" style army, which utilized skirmishing units to generate kills, fast cavalry to negate ranks, and Treemen to trouble shoot, we saw Sethayla emerge as the most competitive list incarnation for Wood Elves.

There are a number of problems with Sethayla though.

1) It's not fun to play against. It simply isn't. It's what players imagine when they think of Wood Elves: run run, shoot shoot. Ironically, this type of playstyle didn't gain tournament popularity until the old Wood Elf book had already been released for 4 or 5 years.

2) Against some opponents, it stands no chance. Skaven with Stormbanner utterly cripple this list's ability to function, since it shuts down Warhawks and denies the Wood Elves the ability to shoot anything until the Skaven have boxed them in with numbers.

Otherwise, Wood Elves have no great place to but banners. The only point of taking a banner is specifically so this entire thread conversation never arises.

@the original poster:
If the rulebook stated somewhere that you had to take a standard on a unit, then yes, I would fault your friend. Since it doesn't say that anywhere, the only reason to actually take a standard on most Wood Elf units is to qualify for that scenario. As Minsc stated, asking Wood Elves to take a banner just so they don't auto-lose the scenario is odd.

@Dalamar:
-Eternal Guard are too expensive to justify their fragility and lack of killing power. Also, they're not Core, unless you take a Highborn, in which case you've used a lot of your Lord allowance to miss out on the extremely appealing Level 4 or Treeman Ancient. No good.

-Wild Riders: One Strength 5 hit is laughable. If you think heavy cavalry were nerfed in 8th edition, trying playing a unit in a heavy cav role that doesn't have any armor.

-Big Glade Guard unit: Why would your opponent charge a 30-strong Glade Guard unit, when there are Dryads hanging around ready to flank? If your opponent's charging Glade Guard at all, then he already has a solution to the Dryads or he plans to obliterate the Glade Guard in one round of combat. A Glade Guard model is almost as expensive as Black Guard, with no armor, no offensive power, and no staying power other than Steadfast.

I would rather split those Glade Guard into three units of 10, run them 5x2, and use Asrai Archery to run them around the table pouring S4 shots into enemies and then fleeing charges. For that type of playstyle, there's no reason to take a banner.

-Wardancers: Sigh. Possibly my least favorite hit suffered by Wood Elves. Perhaps, if they could use all their dances (+1 Attack, 4+ Ward, ASF) at the same time, they might be close to justifying the exorbitant 6th edition point cost. As it stands right now, they're more than twice as expensive as they should be to justify their ability.

-Great weapon nerf: The only way to get anything better than Strength 5 in the entire wood elf army is to take a dragon, Orion, a Treeman, or a wood elf character with great weapon. With the nerf to charging with great weapons, Wood Elves lose the only way to give their combat characters anything resembling hitting power.

The units that are actually good for Wood Elves right now?

Treekin: Durable, effective, but sorry, there's no way I'm going to go buy 15+ Treekin to form a decent 2500 point army.

Treemen: Still stalward, just watch out for the Flaming Attacks that every army can now use.

Spellsinger: New lores are excellent.

I applaud the fortitude and optimism of the online Wood Elf community as a whole, who have tolerated the reaming of their army with a stoic philosophy that I have yet to see repeated on any other online forum. While Daemons and Vamp Counts were crying that the sky was falling, I saw a lot of Wood Elf generals trying to figure out a way to make their army work in 8th edition. Sure, VC and Daemons get the most publicity for being nerfed, but Wood Elves were already struggling before 8th edition was released. Now, they are one of the worst armies currently available in 8th edition.

Yes, one can still field a couple good army variants, but I have no interest in going out to spend hundreds of dollars to build an army composed entire of Treekin, Treemen and Glade Guard.
There is no escape from Chaos. It marks us all.


Image
Image
User avatar
Comrade igor
Daemon in Disguise
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Comrade igor »

Dal its best you drop you point, your WE proposition is nothing more than a gimmick. :(

Taking a BSB (who doesn't?) and banners on archers and perhaps a unit of WR with a banner (razor standard looks nice on them, but expensive) should sort out the B&G problem, and it doesn't involve much sacrifice. I'm sure your mate is just being a bit bitter about the general state of WE but adding a few banners really won't hurt him.

Here, i've just done a quick 2400pt list for his consideration;

Spellweaver, lvl 4, WotWE, Obsidian Lodestone = 350
Noble, BSB, Asyendi's Bane, HodA, Dragonbane Gem = 130

8 Dryads = 98
8 Dryads = 98
20 Archers, Std, B.o. Eternal Flame = 262
10 Archers, Std = 132
10 Archers, Std = 132

6 Wild Riders, FC, Razor Standard = 237
6 Treekin = 390

Treeman = 285
Treeman = 285

There, you can win some games with that and still compete in B&G.
Best Regards, Comrade Igor.

Where there's a Whip there's a Way
Hjiryon
Slave on the Altar
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:43 pm

Post by Hjiryon »

Comrade Igor wrote:Spellweaver, lvl 4, WotWE, Obsidian Lodestone = 350
Noble, BSB, Asyendi's Bane, HodA, Dragonbane Gem = 130

8 Dryads = 98
8 Dryads = 98
20 Archers, Std, B.o. Eternal Flame = 262
10 Archers, Std = 132
10 Archers, Std = 132

6 Wild Riders, FC, Razor Standard = 237
6 Treekin = 390

Treeman = 285
Treeman = 285

There, you can win some games with that and still compete in B&G.


Hehe, that's pretty much exactly what I field for 2500 points nowadays - some of your point totals are off by a bit, though, but nothing major. Also, those glade guard need musicians, and I'd save the champion on the Wild Riders (possibly picking up the TK one, though).
Main difference: I do not bring Treekin since I think the models are horrible, and only one treeman. Instead, I include Waywatchers, Great Eagles and a highborn Alter Kindred.
User avatar
Comrade igor
Daemon in Disguise
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Comrade igor »

Aye, musicians. Had exactly the same thought as i was trying to get some sleep last night (but thinking about warhammer!). I hoped no one would read the thread and i can ninja edit it in the morning, but you beat me to it! :D

Also the Noble should be 135pts, my bad.

Spellweaver, lvl 4, WotWE, Obsidian Lodestone = 350
Noble, BSB, Asyendi's Bane, HodA, Dragonbane Gem = 135

8 Dryads = 98
8 Dryads = 98
20 Archers, Std, Mus, B.o. Eternal Flame = 268
10 Archers, Std, Mus = 138
10 Archers, Std, Mus = 138

6 Wild Riders, Std, Razor Standard = 219
6 Treekin = 390

Treeman = 285
Treeman = 285
Best Regards, Comrade Igor.

Where there's a Whip there's a Way
User avatar
Ant
Lord of the Venom Sword
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: London

Post by Ant »

The B&G scenario really shouldn't be a problem for woodies.

I have to say though this scenario is really screwing with my plans for skaven lists. I can't do an all eshin army because nightrunners can't take banners, giant rats and rat ogres can't either. The only units in the book that can have a banner are clanrats, stormvermin and plague monks.

I'm of the opinion that clanrats and stormvermin aren't worth the extra points over slaves, and monks are (relatively expensive) special choices which are specific to one clan, so I don't take them when I want a moulder/eshin army.

So I take clanrats so I can compete in this scenario. In my opinion that is handicapping myself in the other scenarios much more than this woodelf player is doing. All he needs to do is pay 12 point (maybe 24 for 2 extra banners) and not change his army at all. I have to take 2 whole units that I wouldn't otherwise take, which completely changes how the army plays so I get the option to take some banners. He already has the options, 12 points is very little to sacrifice. But I do it "just in case".

And it is possible to win death and glory with only 4 break points. I did it with my skaven on Saturday against a high elf army that had 7 break points. Sure it's tough, but played the right way it is certainly doable.

I think your mate is just being bitter. It's really not hard to get a few banners into a wood elf list. And many tournament comps in 7th forced you to take a banner or 2 anyway. If he doesn't relent I think Aerrone's suggestion is a good one.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).

(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
Warpanda
Trainee Warrior
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:58 pm

Post by Warpanda »

I think it is ridiculous that we cater to someone that is going to refuse to compete in a scenario. Nor do I support anything that potentially punishes the other player that did manage to make an army list that can compete in the scenario. I cannot recall a single tourney I have been to that would cater to this nonsense.

If an opponent is just going to take a auto lose that is his choice. No one else should have to pay for that. If he is unwilling to alter his list so that it can compete in each scenario then it speaks volumes for his lack of skill and tactics. We are no longer playing a game that is just one pitched boring battle after another. Get over it!

I play WE and I have designed multiple lists that do compete in B&G. If it were me in that tourney then I would have taken a massacre as he gave up. Then played a regular game with him to kill the time. Its not my fault he designed a poor list for a tournament.

I also dont buy this arguement that it is unfair that some armies are more difficult to play in certain scenarios. Personally I am thankful this is true. I like the challenge of playing Brets in certain scenarios. I think people are struggling to adapt to a new system and many are just plainly resisting the change.
Bitterman
Beastmaster
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:08 pm

Post by Bitterman »

Just to reiterate: we called it a "tournament" because we were playing lots of games in a day to get used to the new rules, and we figured, well, as we're playing all those games anyway, we might as well spray a Heroquest Fimir gold and give it away as a trophy. :D I'm pretty sure at any "tournament" worthy of the name, it would have counted as a massacre and that's the end of that. But that's not how we play.

I really appreciate the feedback from this thread. I don't think I'm going to convince my friend to change his list, which I suppose is his prerogative, but I think it's clear I'm not alone in thinking it's a little bit off (even if it's also clear he's not alone in thinking it's tricky for WEs to contest B&G). So if we roll up this scenario when I'm playing against him next, I'll agree not to play it, but say that I should be able to choose which other scenario to play, instead.

Thanks chaps!
User avatar
Sulla
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:56 am
Location: Flying my manticore 'Bloodmaw', looking for prey.

Post by Sulla »

Not taking a BSB in your army in 8th is pretty much akin to failing your stupidity test. In this particular case it was the difference between an autoloss and a game. looks like your opponent rolled double 6's.
User avatar
Arquinsiel
Shadowdancer
Posts: 4987
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
Contact:

Post by Arquinsiel »

Any game which can be lost on a single dice roll before the game begins is badly designed. Your friend is not being unreasonable to want some control over winning or losing.

There's also the age-old problem of armies needing to change for new editions. It's really irritating to have to go add banners to units after playing with them for years.

I can see where he's coming from.
ImageImageImageImage
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
User avatar
Bounce
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:40 am

Post by Bounce »

If a player knows a scenario requires banners and he builds his army with no banners than it appears to me he is setting himself up to lose. its not like something prevents woodeves from taking banners and now losing a banner is only 2 points adding them in isn't really that much heartache. Scenarios always give an advantage to some armies over others. The mark of a good player is one who can overcome such challenges and win anyway.
"I will embrace death without regret as I embrace life without fear"
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Arquinsiel
Shadowdancer
Posts: 4987
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:16 pm
Location: The deepest pits in a hell of my own making
Contact:

Post by Arquinsiel »

One in six of the current scenarios require one or more banners. If having banners in the other scenarios is a less optimal use of points then having to account for that single dice roll of a 4 is a significant handicap for 84% of the time. There's a difference between an advantage and an auto-win situation. Personally I find it the mark of a bad game where a build is potentially invalid regardless of personal skill thanks to a single random event.
ImageImageImageImage
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
Sloeberjong
Trainee Warrior
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:02 am
Location: Nijmegen

Post by Sloeberjong »

Apparently taking banners isn't exactly "less optimal" since you need them in at least 1 of the scenario's. Having 2 or 3 banners for a 2k games costs about what? 50 pts max?

No real disadvantage there, especially if it means you won't auto-lose 1 in 6 games.

There are new rules, and some of them require you to take banners...I say live with it. I have to adjust my army, why shouldn't the other guy? Is he special? No...even in a friendly gaming environment it is not too much to ask to create an army by the rules...

Otherwise we can all make up rules for (not) doing stuff we (don't) like...

*fluffy friendly gaming environment*

me: Yeah, I'll give my COK's devestating charge because it's fluffy...ohw, and they're not stupid either, but they keep ItP, cuz they're badass y'know...owh, and they get 2 attacks back, because it used to be like that in 5th, which is almost 8th...so there!

Opponent: Yeah...that would be fluffy and all, but it's not in the rules...so I'd rather you didn't...because that's way too powerfull...

me: but really, cavalry has been totally *NERFED* in 8th...so I think I should get an extra benefit while you have to keep to the rules...ohw, and it's totally fluffy!!!

Opponent: Dude, this is not gonna fly....*goes home*.

Not a fun time for anyone...fluff only goes so far. It's not that hard to get some banners in a WE army ;)

Besides, did he ever stop to think that it might not be too friendly to flat out refuse to adept to the other players? I play in a friendly gaming environment, but we still have to keep ourselves to the rules...other rules are introduced sometimes and we talk about it and try them out. And when you play a single battle I wouldn't mind playing a different scenario...

But When we have a club tournament we use the strict rules. It's still friendly and nothing overpowered or anything, but everybody is equal that way. It's a tourney for a reason, to figure out who's the best in the same ruleset for everybody, no exceptions because someone flatout refuses to adjust...
Post Reply