• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Toughest Armies/Weakest Armies

Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
28
#1
Okay, so I'm sure this has been posted before, and if I'm posting it in the wrong place, forgive me. If it's already up, forgive me.

Was reading a tactica that stated "Vampire Counts are one of the strongest armies, and facing O+G, which is one of the weakest armies, means that there isn't too much tactica online about them." (something along those lines)

My question is this: What do you think are the weakest armies and the strongest armies?

I personally can't really say. I feel that all armies are powerful and in the hands of the right General, any can be devastating.

I have a friend that plays O+G and completely dominates the playing field alot of the time. I've played against Lizardmen and slaughtered them, where I hear that Lizardmen are one of the "toughest."

I was wondering what ya'lls opinions were on A: the toughest/weakest armies, and B: what makes them the toughest/weakest armies?

Thanks,
Great Maw
 

Marcus Von Drac

Vampire Thrall
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
952
#2
Well For an army to be tough/weak it all depends on how a player wields it. for example, in my local GW i have seen my freinds empire army trounce a deamon army which included Skulltaker and a Lord of Change. The reason why; he was experienced, whereas the Deamon player was new to his army. however, there are armies which will forgive tactical errors more than some, and some armies which have better deadlier combinations that others. at the top of the list there are 4 I can think of: Deamons, Dark elves, Vampire Counts and Skaven. These 4 armies can all be tailored to be almost unbeatable in the right hands, for different reasons.

Deamons: Well, there just OP. Magically, in combat, even at range (flamers anyone) they can annihilate anyone. Plus there rock hard to kill.
DE: Shade Star/ Dark Riders. Impossible to close down, and will make a pin-cusion out of you.
VC: The famous GG + DB + BotB + HoC. Yeah, it hurts. And if you somehow kill some they get back up. Again. And again.
Skaven: Doomwheel and Magic. That about sums it up.

All 4 armies are very tough to counter when maximised to cause pain. however, they are not just 'better', people have just found better combinations to make them better.

As for weak armies, I personnaly don't think any army is weak. Well OK, except BoC. In the hands of a capable general, all armies can be deadly. Addmitedly, some armies do not forgive mistakes (WE, O+G, BoC) but this is more to do with how they're played than the armies themselves.
 

Master Vampire

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
2,342
#3
We might want to redefine what should be meant with tough/weak armies. We all know that armies are balanced.

Maybe we should define ´tough´ as the ability to have the most good units, equipment and magic choice. Likewise, ´weak´ armies would be the army that would have the most poor choices in units, equipment and magic choice (magic is often more a chance than a choice).

I think it would be impossible to point to an army as the best or worst just on flat out results. A good general can win with the weakest army from a bad general with the strongest army.
 

Disciple of Nagash

The Perverted One
Staff member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
27,917
#4
Master Vampire said:
We might want to redefine what should be meant with tough/weak armies. We all know that armies are balanced.
I would beg to disagree, there is no way DoC are balanced.
 

Johnny B

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
283
#5
The armies are not equal, nowhere near. For a start, VCs and DoC both ignore psychology completely, and while they do have certain drawbacks as a result too, overall it is a massive advantage over living races: No failed panic tests, no unlucky break tests or fluffed flee distances. It makes them so much more reliable. VCs pay more of a price than DoC in the form of limited marching and reliable outcomes in melee (if you beat them by lots, they lose lots more, they don't just roll instability and take 2-3 extra casualties from what should be a decisive combat).

The free re-rolls for DEs is overwhelmingly powerful, to the extent that they do shock assault better than WoC who should really be the number 1 melee army.

As for weak armies, I personnaly don't think any army is weak.
Ogres have been weak since the day they were released, BoC are currently suffering, OnG are weak. Dwarfs and Bretts are showing their age. Doesn't mean you can't win with them, just means they have inherently lower power level than the 7th ed books.

they are not just 'better
While this is perhaps true for the others, DoC are just 'better'.
Take the Bloodthirster: cheaper than dragon riders, but with much better killing power, better survivability, no psychology, built in magic resistance and magic attacks, ability to combine 2 weapon gifts... or you could pay 150 odd points more for a chaos lord on a dragon, who is rubbish in comparison.
Flesh Hounds? 2W, ward save, 2 S5 magical attacks, 16" charge, built in magic resistance, fear, no psychology... for 35pts? Chaos Knights are the only other cavalry that have anything near that much value for points, and even they look shabby in comparison :(
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
187
#6
I'm with DoN and Johnny B. All armies are not created equal by any stretch of the imagination.

There is some truth in the statement that, on a good day, nearly every army can win against any opponent but there are some armies which are tougher to beat than others for all opponents.

I think Daemons are undoubtedly the toughest army, on the whole. The fact that the list is almost entirely broken goes a long way towards that.

Vampires would probably be the second toughest. They're not in quite the same region as Daemons, but Vamps do have a tough army list. As Johnny said, while they do have their drawbacks they also have a hell of a lot of advantages that other armies lack.

Following that, Dark Elves would be third but again they're not quite in the same league as Daemons or Vampires.

As for weak armies, Ogres and BoC are undoubtedly the weakest. I do know several very good Ogre and Beast generals, but their armybooks suffer a big handicap against even the mid-7th Ed books, let alone the new powercrazed books like Daemons, Vamps and Druchii.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
6
#7
To mirror what many others have said Deamons are with out a doubt the toughest army out there. And Ogres, O&G, and Beats have a reputation for being the weakest. Now having said that I have taken Ogres to a tournament played only Deamons and Vamps, and I didn't do terribly though it was a harsh uphill battle every game and I only won two games out of a six game tourny. I would disagree that vamps are second and the UKGT results seem to also confirm that DE are a harder army then Vamps. As a cautionary note though it's more about the person playing then army being played.

Brett
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
187
#8
I wouldn't necessarily say the GT results prove that DE are tougher than Vamps. When looking at the GT results you also have to consider the fact that there were probably more DE players than Vamps, so it is possible that a DE army came out on top purely by dint of the fact that there were more of them.
 

Reincus

Necromancer
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
832
#9
I think Dark Elves have a slightly higher power level than vampires in most situations because they are tactically more flexible. Army wide hatred makes them extremely reliable in shock close combat. The sacrificial dagger on a level 4 in a big unit of spearmen produces an extemely effective magic phase, with many more IFs and much less miscasting then would otherwise happen. The ring of hotek is a cheap way to minimize a lot of offensive spell casting, allowing them to focus on that shock close combat that they excel at.

That said, there are match ups that Vampires will do better, and a raising list plays pretty much the same no matter the opponant. The DEs on the other hand have to be much better in the movement phase and about picking their fights, but in the hands of a skilled general I beleive that average dark elf lists will win slightly more often VC.

Of course, this is my opinion and my experience in my gaming group. I do play both armies, and it's possible that my play style lends itself to better preformance from out dark elves then my vampires.
 

Danceman

The Devil in Pale Moonlight
True Blood
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,461
#10
Tier 1; Daemons
Tier 2; Vampire Counts and Dark Elves
Tier 3; High Elves, Warriors of Chaos and Lizardmen.
Tier 3.5; Tomb Kings, Skaven(the previous book, have no experience facing them with their new book), Wood Elves, Empire, Dwarfs, Brets and O&G.
Tier 4; OK and Beastmen.

Tier 3 and 3.5 illustrates that I think the armies are more powerful but not powerful enough to warrant a whole tier to seperate them, so this resulted in tier 3 as well as sub-tier.
More or less how I rate the armies. The reason I didnt put O&G with the lowest tier is that I find them to be much tougher than OK and Beastmen.

Not a perfect list, but it is my experience in dealing with the armies of WHFB.
 
Top