Welcome to Librarium Online!
I am just wondering about this because I have seen in several places that apparently quite a few people (many of whom don't play WoC) consider WoC to be a lower tier army.
I personally haven't found them to be as such. I mean sure we have our weakness but every army does and we still have ways to compensate for ours. Is it just the ramblings of poeple that haven't actually played a WoC army or people that have played bad WoC generals?
Or is it that I have been getting lucky and we really are a somewhat lower tier army?
"I am the architect of fate!"
We're a close combat army, if they can keep us out of combat then yeah I'd say we're weak, but not many armies can afford to stay out of combat. Since the new year I'm 4-2 and that counts 3 tournament games and 3 games against the better people in our club. I'd argue that they're balanced. After every game I play with them I love them more and more. Sure they're no daemons, but who is?
I'm excited to try my DP list that has no model under the speed of 7 in it this week. I guess I can leave it at:
1) They're fun.
2) They murder in close combat.
3) Every game I've set my army on the table I haven't felt under gunned.
4) Unlike my ogres, there's a TON of options. I can think of a bunch of completely different army builds.
5) So far this year WoC has won Seattle GT and Conflict GT, both respectable tournaments.
Okay, let me put it this way: A GOOD general can do very good with this army, a bad general can't. Take your basic OP DE list or DOC and a monkey can do good. Maybe that's why people think they suck?
The WoC have been pulling down GT wins. I'd hardly rate that as lower tier. Like Pinkus has said, our weaknesses are very obvious. If an enemy fields a list tailored to exploit them, we'll have a hard time. However, in a "take on all comers" situation, like a tourney, I'd say we rank pretty high.
On paper, we look easy to exploit. Naysayers underestimate our ability to mitigate our reliance on foot slogging close combat. All it takes is one game against a competent general with a balanced, halfway decent all-comers list and they change their tune.
Personally, I'm happy to field an army that won't be subject to cries of "cheese!" and "OP!" every time I book a win. Balance is nice, thank you.
Last edited by Dfred; January 26th, 2009 at 20:03.
The Blessed of the Four
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.
Well in the current metagame if its not a DoC army than players instantly classify an army as "weak." I think current top level tournament armies are DoC, vampires, and dark elves, if reports on GT's are accurate. However, Warriors are defenitley in the top of the middle tier.. So here are the power rankings, just straight book to book, as I understand them
Tier 1: Demons, vampires, dark elves
Tier 2: Warriors, HE, empire, WE, (probably the new lizardmen in this tier)
Tier 3: everything else (IE non-7th books)
However that just based on powerful choices that can be made straight out of the book. Skill is still the true factor in gaming. Its just easier with some skill with heir tiered armies.
Anyway all my point is that warriors are NOT weak, but choices don't necessarily just jump out of the book as competitive and winnable choices is all.
"Dare to be Naive"
If someone helps you, or you just like what they say, rep them
i wouldn't say they were weak at all. There are always some builds that are better than others, but the overall options make for a good book. I would put them at the top of the middle tier. I don't know about Dark Elves being up in the same catagory as VC and DoC (these guys are in their own stratosphere) but then I don't necessarily play super hard-core lists anyway.
Hey to add to this post I was curious if WoC can run competitive heavy magic lists. The only problem I see is it costs a lot of points and that can take away from our strength by allowing for less CC units.
Is our magic strong enough to compete with other armies or should we stick to magic defense.
There's currently a few nice daemonprince lists being discussed in the army list section. They are all magic heavy. On top of that, the 2 armies I saw this year winning GTs were magic heavy. If you want to go magic heavy and are afraid of being too small an army, just add a few marauder units. For alittle over 100 points each they sure give you bodies.
Its good to know others are with me in thinking that WoC are a nice and strong army (though not OT like DoC and VC).
As for magic heavy or not, I tend to think that going heavier on the magic is a bit more competitive. Like Pinkus said you can still fit a good amount of close combat elements in a magic heavy list, and with the magic you are able to offset some of our armies weaknesses.
"I am the architect of fate!"
I always find that people who complain about one army being far more competive than another are just wanting to hide that fact that they have not figured out there army. I play Skaven a decent amount and have had victories over the all powerful VC. Granted VC and Deamons have a very clear game plan that anyone can see well the rest of us have to use our brains to figure out and test a variety of lists before we find one that fits our play style. I have seen Deamons and VC win and lose enough that it does not make me think that these armies are god like. I am sure whatever army gets the next book will be considered all powerful etc.
"Ah, but the truth is like an expensive whore, Jerek. She comes in many dresses and will bend over for any with the money to pamper her." ~ Konrad von Carstein