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!
Hi all -- I used to play WHFB during 5th ed and 40k during 3rd ed and am considering taking the hobby up again. I've narrowed choices for a new army down to Wood Elves and Vampire Counts, and I'm hoping you all can help me out. I'll list my impressions and thoughts about WE below:
1. Some great models with a lot of conversion possibilities, including potentially converting the high elf dragon kit into a forest dragon.
2. Potentially lower model count saves money.
3. Again some gorgeous alternative models out there -- warhawk riders from Gamezone and an amazing treewoman from Ultraforge.
4. Army rewards good generalship, focus on movement and using terrain well. I could see this army being really rewarding to play, especially once I learn the ropes.
5. Interesting magic that can fill a variety of functions.
6. Excellent shooting
7. Although not a top list can certainly be competitive. Not seen as cheesy for the most part.
8. Lots of great light cavalry.
9. Good synergy between units.
1. From what I hear, this is one of the most difficult and unforgiving armies to play due to units being expensive but fragile.
2. Not a huge fan of the flammable rule. In a tournament setting it's probably fine because some armies punish fire (HE's), but in casual games it would be really easy to metagame against your trees to great effect.
3. Regular treeman and treekin models are awful. Also dislike many of the wardancer models. A few are really nice (particularly the wardancer hero) but the poses on many of the others seem really awkward and I really don't like the chest armor.
4. Complete lack of heavy cav. I do like me some heavy cav. I'm sure I'd learn to love lighter cav too, but I'd miss having that tough, mobile wrecking ball.
5. Lack of close combat prowess, particularly against armor.
6. Difficult to run an offensive magic phase.
7. Lack of powerful combos, although there are a few good ones.
I'm mainly concerned about CON #1 -- I have a lot of experience with strategy games, but it's been a long time since I've played Warhammer. I'm concerned that I'm going to find WE's very frustrating to play at first, especially since 8 years ago I ran a chaos warriors army -- almost the polar opposite of WE I think!
If any of you could comment in this dilemma I'd really appreciate it.
Welcome back to warhammer. Your list is bang on for the most part. And it is true that wood elves are very unforgiving of mistakes. That being said, if you have truely limited your choices to WE or VC, then WE would be the way to go.
To me, VC are just boring. No real strategy, no real joy in winning at least for me. When you win with wood elves you know that you played well, when you win with VC you know your magic worked well. Not really a sastifying win from my point of view.
It will take time to learn again how to play the army effectively, but once you do, I think you will gain much more enjoyment out of it.
I am right 94% of the time, why worry about the other 3%.
Thanks! For what it's worth, if I were to play VC I would aim to adapt my list to the level of competition, ie: avoid >10 PD in a friendly 2k point game, etc.
"6. Difficult to run an offensive magic phase."
-Impossible actually. We can do some wicked support magic via treesinging tho.
I don't know how viable it is in tournies, as I'm a casual gamer, but I really like the tree spirit lists. 2 treeman + BSB can bring up your overall hardiness, and Dryads can punish small arms fire, as they are high toughness skirmishers.
You can also do some crazy conversions in the Forest Spirit sprues.
I can't tell you much about the vampires unfortunately. My little bro plays them, he seems pretty content; but in the grand scheme of things, I can't tell you whether or not you'd like them based on that. :/
I have come back from a 10 year hiatus myself. First 7th ed is very different from 5th. Heroes, monsters and magic are not what they used to be.
My first few games I dint get it. I wanted to burn the army book and smash down half of my minis. But, after that, when I finally cough the rhythm of the game, I started to win (not all but most of the matches). And when you win w/WE you know that you are really the better general. And that's a feeling no VC or DoC will ever truly feel.
Good luck, whatever you choose!
Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I've been posting about this dilemma on a number of forums and I think I might just have to collect both armies -- the nice thing about them is that they should give me very different play experiences as they seem like close to opposite styles. VC have strong magic, strong SCR, good heavy cavalry, reliant on characters, no worries about psychology, and no shooting, whereas WE have weak magic, weak SCR, good light cavalry, less reliant on characters, very concerned about psychology (both in terms of using it against other armies and in avoiding it being used against them), good shooting, and an extreme focus on maneuvering.
For what it's worth, I like VC largely because of the theme, style, look of the army, and the fact that I have tended to play armies that aren't reliant on SCR in the past. The fact that they can be very powerful is nice, but not my primary concern.
Glad to hear that - it sounds to me like you're talking yourself more into VC than WE, but that's no bad thing, based on the list of things you're looking for
I personally like tree singing. :/