Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I have a question regarding army composition. I feel I'm constantly trying to get too much stuff into my lists and that, obviously, doesn't work. You can only get so much in to any one list.
Assuming a base 2,250 point army list, how do you go about designing your armies? How many anvils? How many hammers? How much magic? How many flankers? Etc.
If I could get some advice on roughly how many of each 'type' of unit I should be looking at, or advice or opinions on what kind of proportion or total points are being spent on each section of people's armies, I think I might be in a much stronger position to be able to come up with my own happy list.
I can't tell you exactly how badly I'm struggling to design viable lists. I don't know why I'm having so much trouble!
What's our weakness?
How can we counter it?
When I made my DP list, I answered our weaknesses with, we're slow and have no ranged attacks.
I countered it by taking only cav units to make my army fast and by using a DP to sling out spells CONSISTENTLY.
Then I asked myself the same 2 questions again. What's my weakness and how can I counter it?
My weakness now was I had no static combat rez. I can get to my enemy on turn 3 if not 2, but if he has 5-6 static combat rez on me, I might have problems.
I countered it by throwing in the banner of the gods. Now I can throw my knights into the front of anyone and have something like a 94% chance of not fleeing.
My next weakness was I had very few models and very few wounds total. I countered that by adding in the dragon ogres. 12 wounds for little less than 200 points. They still counter my last problem, by also being leadership 8 and they counter my first problem of being slow by having movement 7. My anvil was born. If I take a few wounds, I'm not losing 40+ points of knights and killing-blow doesn't scare them.
My problems are slowly and slowly getting more and more minor. Now I ended up needing a secondary anvil just in case. I give my 1 knight unit the rapturous standard. If my BSB can't be near both units, I can have some security of my secondary anvil not breaking.
There you go. I started with the warriors weaknesses. We're slow and have no ranged attacks. I added some nasty ranged attacks with the demon prince. I made myself faster by only going cav. That created its only problems that I fixed up nicely. Every fix makes more problems, but the goal is to make the problems you make so minor it really doesn't matter.
Start off by making a list and be honest with yourself. What are the main faults of this list. If you go foot heavy, how can you counter someone who sits back and shoots you to death. Stuff like that. Slowly try and fix these problems.
As far as how much of what you need depends on what type of army you want. If you don't take banner of the gods, how can you make an anvil unit? ranks? Well lots of ranks on marauders means they still die fast, so you add in shield and light armor to try and save some wounds. But that still might not be enough, try throwing in an exalted to produce combat rez. Just keep going through this process, but never try to make one of your fixes break one of your earlier fixes. Then play test the heck out of the list and always be tweaking it. If you play a completely new list every week you're hurting yourself. Pick 1 list and get to know it. I have friends who win tournaments with orcs and goblins. The reason they can beat newer armies so easily, is TBH they've been playing orcs and goblins for years.
How can you create an anvil if you don't know from experience what units actually make a good anvil.
Right, some more questions, then: why spend points covering our weaknesses when you could instead spend points exploiting our strengths? This may just be one of the more silly questions I've asked, but I do have to wonder; if our strengths do not include magic, ranged attacks or speed, is it not best to focus instead on the things that we do brilliantly well, such as close-combat? I don't know quite how I'd do that. Maybe I'm talking about an all-cavalry army, or something. A list that can make full use of our ass-kicking in close-combat by getting to the enemy before they can do anything to us. Swap out the 800 points of characters for a naked Exalted general and put in 4 more units of Knights instead, for example. Or two units of geared-up Knights and two units of cruise-missiles, plus some screening Hounds. Sure, you're going to lose more models. But losing two units of Knights isn't so bad when you still have two more on the table plus six units of cruise-missiles left to smack your opponent upside the head, no?
Final note; I fully appreciate your point about play-testing. As things stand, I have a host of models and haven't played with them much; I'm still a bit worried about losing, I think, which is the wrong attitude. I just want to go into games knowing what to do, how best to do it and why I'm doing it that way. I don't like getting involved in things without knowing the ins and outs intricately, and that's a bad approach. I'll get my model-painting finished and get focused on running games and learning how each thing works.
Its really all the same. You pointed out facts on how we improve our strengths, when you also were getting rid of our weaknesses.
Weakness: characters cost too much
Weakness: units cost too much, have too few units
You countered by bringing 1 character and a ton more units. Throw in a scroll caddy for good measure and that list could be nasty.
Ok, again, points taken. I shall put all of my heads together and see what I can come up with. Using a little retrospect I have realised I tend to take a mishmash of non-synergistic units based on what they seem to offer in and of themselves, without thinking so much about how they can be used together with other units.
I'll see what I can do with my newfound ability to find and address weaknesses, and to synergise one unit with another. Thanks for all the help, Pinkus - you'll make a general of me yet!
You gain more from losing than you do from winning. Be prepared to lose, expect to lose, and more importantly want to lose.Final note; I fully appreciate your point about play-testing. As things stand, I have a host of models and haven't played with them much; I'm still a bit worried about losing, I think, which is the wrong attitude. I just want to go into games knowing what to do, how best to do it and why I'm doing it that way. I don't like getting involved in things without knowing the ins and outs intricately, and that's a bad approach. I'll get my model-painting finished and get focused on running games and learning how each thing works.
Also, when you are building your army make sure you are always looking at the bigger picture. Never look at what each individual unit can do, but rather what can they do with your army how do they function as a whole. How will this unit synergize with the rest of my army?
Strategy will always prevail over tactics.
Ya losing is the best thing you can do. And try to find good players. You wont learn much at all if you play people who arent very good. Since our list is tough an enemy with bad tactics will easily get slaughtered by your guys.
Play games and find how you play. It may be hard to find what you like exactly right off the bat but its not hard to find what you dont like. Here is a little example of what Ive been going through:
I tried magic and hated it. So I went with a full combat list with a caddy. I then found I had no ranged threat and my enemies just chilled back and wittled me and set up charges that killed even my tough warriors. So now I have hellcannons and boy are they fun.
This process took me about 10-15 games to really get through. You just have to realize that your new and you are going to suck. Not trying to be mean but if you play people that have played for a few years or more and you are on your first few games you should lose.
We have a lot of builds for this list. Heavy magic, all cav, all foot slogger, or a combo of something in between. Pick a build that you feel comfortable and happy with in theory and play it for at least 5 games. Dont change your list after every game because its good to see how the list is against different opponents. Since your learning you want to find your strategy. Keep yourself to one variable for the most part. If you change your list after every game you will have two variables and you will not know if your fault is in your strategy or your list. Pick a list stick with it for a decent amount of games and after you have played enough to really see the issues THEN make changes and repeat the process until you narrow down on a list that fits you and that you can win with.
Last edited by sdefreit; July 10th, 2009 at 09:11.
I figured I'd take everything that had been said, and re-state it as to make me sound helpful and encouraging as well.
Still not sure about wanting to lose though.