# What makes a competitive army?



## Darksider (Nov 18, 2009)

being on this forum has opened me up to the terms competitive and friendly armies, but what makes an army competitive to you?

is it the general army composition of having more rares and specials maybe?
or the idea of focusing on one phase and ruling the game from there?
or may it be particular unit combinations that cause your opponent to sit in a corner and cry? (any skaven ones would be fantastic to point out btw)

so, heres the oppurtunity. to you, what makes an army competitive?


----------



## 5tonsledge (May 31, 2010)

I think what makes a list competitive is when you throw the fun aspects of your army out the door to field a more durable and cut throat army. 
Me as an example. i love chaos terminators and terminator lords. They look absolutely awesome. I paint them up got them decked out and admire them from my computer desk every day. But the sad thing is i never field them, and the reason being is because they suck huge black dick when it comes down to point efficiency or unit effectiveness they just dont make my standards. Often time Terminators never kill anything more points then themselves. And when playing a good player they will often time target them and destroy them before you get a chance to use them. Its sad.
Thats what i believe makes a list competitve sacrificing your favorite things in your army to field a more competitive army.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

I'm not the most experienced warhammer fantasy player, but I've played quite a few games in 8th edition, and I've found 8 things you can definitely do to be competitive, regardless of what army you play:

1. Don't panic and run off the board. This usually means having a general with a good leadership, and a BSB. Also, be sure to keep your infantry blocks within range of both.

2. Have two wizards in your army. Two seems to be the best number. That way if you fail a roll, you can still cast/dispel with the other. I usually use a powerful lvl 4 wizard, and then a cheap and expendable lvl 1-2 wizard.

3. Equip characters to balance their unit's weaknesses. If they're with rank and file infantry, then give them a great weapon. If they're with a small elite unit, then armor them up well, so they can absorb damage for the unit. If your unit doesn't have enough attacks, than equip them for anti-horde.

4. Use at least three units of close combat focused infantry. The numbers in each unit should be: 30+ for lightly armored infantry, 25-30 for the better armored, and 15-20 for only the most resilient units.

5. Either dominate the shooting phase, or ignore it. War machines are still very good, but 1-2 small units with bows don't really help much anymore, unless the majority of the army shoots. 

6. Use at least two fast units: one resilient and one expendable. The resilient one is to help flank your opponent's infantry blocks while your infantry units attack their front, and the expendable one is to hunt enemy war machines.

7. If there's a really overpowered and cheesy unit in your book, you should use it. Your competitive opponents certainly will.

8. Finally, be mindful of what spells your opponent has. Some of them (like Dwellers Below, Pit of Shades, Purple Sun) are VERY powerful, and you can easily lose if you aren't mindful of them.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that it comes down to minimising your armies inbuilt weakness while maximising their strengths.
By cutting out the fluffy and less useful units you'll make your army more competative.
I don't think you can say take x amount of such and such as each army has different focusses. I don't use wizards in my Empire army but have a reliable counter measure meaning my opponent gets little use from theirs, you've got to love long rifles, and my preists as well as cutting out some of the magic they also enhance my combat units.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l petty much would say the same thing as mynameisgrax has said about a competitive list.

The only difference between a competitive and a friendly army list, is the friendly army list most of the time doesn't take any overpowered and cheesy unit's or spells.
For example if you are vsing a new OK player and if you Pit of Shades and Purple Sun all game and win the game by turn two. Sure, you won and its fine in a tournament but if its a friendly game at a club you will find most people don't want to vs you ever again.


----------



## unixknight (Jul 26, 2010)

Q: What makes a competitive army?

A: A good player.



Seriously. Too often players rely too heavily on their list to being them victory and don't spend enough time thinking about their tactics and the best ways to make use of their army. The truly challenging opponents aren't necessarily the ones with the most "competitive" list, but rather the ones who know their army well and how to use it to the best potential.


----------



## Blackhiker (Dec 28, 2007)

unixknight said:


> Q: What makes a competitive army?
> 
> A: A good player.
> 
> ...


This is something that I have found to be quite true in fantasy. With the randomness for charges and the magic phase, plus the formations of the units, the level of the player will determine the outcome of the battle much more than what list they are using.

Of course there are lists that are just nowhere near competitive such as an all cavalry army.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

It's very true for both 40k and fantasy, but a little more true for fantasy. If a good player is playing against a mediocre player, then the good player will win at least 9 times out of 10, regardless of what armies they have, or how they're set up. 

The 'competitiveness' of your army is, however, what will most likely make the difference if both you and your opponent are equally good players.


----------



## Gromrir Silverblade (Sep 21, 2010)

I agree, I absolutely love Slayers for Dwarfs but I never use them because they just don't cut the mustard against poison or high strength units. Yeah...tactics...I don't really have tactics, er stand and shoot?


----------



## unixknight (Jul 26, 2010)

Blackhiker said:


> Of course there are lists that are just nowhere near competitive such as an all cavalry army.


As a Bretonnian player, this makes me sad.


----------



## Blackhiker (Dec 28, 2007)

unixknight said:


> As a Bretonnian player, this makes me sad.


It might still work for Bretonnia, but my experience is with empire for cavalry.


----------



## unixknight (Jul 26, 2010)

Blackhiker said:


> It might still work for Bretonnia, but my experience is with empire for cavalry.


Well the problem is that while we still get the ranks and disruption even at only columns (Lance formation) the knights have always relied on breaking a unit through winning combat and getting the first hit from the charge. Knight stat lines aren't that great so having to stick around for extra rounds of combat is not good.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Brets still seem to do well with all cavalry armies, thanks to their lance formation, especially at higher point levels (where they can afford the best knights). At last year'd Ard Boyz, I was watching them tear through large blocks of infantry like tissue paper.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

How about actually getting an army painted?

Please note how all Tourney armies have to be fucking painted?


----------



## Blackhiker (Dec 28, 2007)

Orochi said:


> How about actually getting an army painted?
> 
> Please note how all Tourney armies have to be fucking painted?


"painted" tournament style is just three colors and colored bases. I actually saw a tournament army with just three different colored lines on each model with black primed bases. :laugh:

But in general I have found that an army will be either very competitive in one aspect of the game, or moderately competitive in all aspects.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Orochi said:


> How about actually getting an army painted?
> 
> Please note how all Tourney armies have to be fucking painted?


well .....
when l vs someone with very poor or unpainted model's it does make me want to play them less no matter how good the army is. I understand not everyone wants to paint or likes painting up model's but if that's the case ask one for your friends to do it or get one done by commission. 

back on the main topic.
I will say when it comes to winning a game the list is %40 and player %50 and luck is %10. sure army's like Bretonnia can win a game its just much harder. ~Desu


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

unixknight said:


> As a Bretonnian player, this makes me sad.


I've been having some decent success with my Bret Cav lists. Well Cav plus trebuchets. You just need those Fabled double charges and Flank movers.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Certain armies are built to be competitive - and it's those who have units which have good stats, and good rules which are constantly in effect.

For example - Empire Greatswords - they have 1 ASL S5 Attack each, with T3 and a 4+ Armour Save. Not very good - the standard S4 opponent's attacks will hit on a 4+, wound on a 3+, and not be saved 2/3 times - meaning that a 22% chance of dieing to every attack coming towards you (and when you have often multiple attacks or higher strength attacks at higher initiative against you), they appear to be at best mediocre.

In 7th Edition, that was why they were a poor choice. Expensive, and they had two special rules which made them useful - Detachments (Handgunners in particular), and Chargers Strike First.

They still have detachments, but they lost Chargers Strike First. However, in response to that loss, they now have Step Up, and Supporting Attacks. They each only have one attack, so no points are being wasted on attacks which aren't used, and Step Up means that ASF isn't a problem - especially thanks to stubborn, meaning that they can even go into Horde Formation if they so wish. 

The last update which makes Greatswords such an effective unit in this edition is that they no longer take up a Special "Slot". In the past, being limited to 4 Specials at 2000pts meant that it was often a toss up between them and another unit of Cannon, and Cannon being more useful and a lot cheaper (costs about the same as 8 Greatswords), was often more widely used.

Now however, you can have a unit of Greatswords, 3 Cannons, 3 Mortars, 3 Pistoliers, and still have points spare from your Special Limit.

The greatest thing, though, is the ability to be consistent. If I can have a consistently mediocre unit, or an occasionally powerful yet occasionally useless (but not game winning) unit/tactic etc, I'd take the mediocre one.

Case in Point - Chaos Trolls - they have Stupidity, and Ld4, yet are among the hardest Monstrous Infantry in the game, with a Magic Attack to deal with Ethereals, Multiple High Strength Attacks, a 4+ Ward Save, and an extremely useful Roll on the EotG Tables should they pass enough Ward Saves. (Well, it's Regen, but large numbers of Flaming Attacks aren't that often found aside from Tzeentch Daemons and Spells). I wouldn't take these aside from 2 Things - A Battle Standard Bearer (Reroll Failed Stupidity), and Throgg (Ld8 Trolls). With Step Up and Supporting attacks, along with Mutant Regeneration, a unit of elite infantry can charge/recieve a charge from Trolls, cause some wounds, only to have at least 2 Ward Saves Passed, they then become Stronger (+1 Attack/Strength mainly), and they then proceed to break apart a unit.

Other units are ones which are flexible - Dragon Ogres - can take both Great Weapons AND additional Hand Weapons - with Monstrous Infantry Rules, they have Supporting Attacks, and can take a few hits (thanks to a 4+ Save and T4), yet can retaliate to armour or massed infantry with their multiple attacks, and stand a good chance of winning through. If not, a unit of 6-10, despite being extremely expensive, has 24-40 Wounds, more than a Chaos Warrior Unit, more than many units out there, and often more dangerous as well than units any larger in size.

So - in short - Static Rules, not random rules. Of course, stats come into it, but reliability over randomisation is usually better. 4 S5 Attacks is better than D6 S6 Attacks.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

A competitive army requires two things: 

A) Able to take all situations at least decently. You can't really win all your games unless you can take units for warmachine hunting, or good magic, etc. 

B) List that takes advantage of the key aspects of the army. For example, a competitive Dark Elf list will focus on proper hammering, and mitigate the relative weakness of their troops as much as possible. Lizardmen will focus on magical buffs and slowly grinding the enemy down under unkillable anvils.

Apart from this, there are things that help, like underpriced units, or nasty combos, but these are the two essential things.


----------



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

A competitive army is only as good as their general.

That being said, a general needs the army to have the abilities he needs to utilize in order to win.

Adaptability: can this army adapt to changes in their opponents or the tide of battle swings against them? Can they be the ones who instigate the change?

Reliability: This has already been pointed out, but I'd rather have a C+-B+ unit in my army than some diva rockstar that is so situational, where it may perform AMAZING sometimes and fail spectacularly others. If I can rely on it, I can start to form a strategy around it.

Vision: Can you see two steps ahead while having your hooves(feet) here in the present to see what is going on around you? Can you and your army get to that point? Can your army be unique ever time and present a new and challenging threat to the enemy? One that they never expected?

Synergy: Do the lores of magic you have access to mesh well with the army and it's overall strategy? Can your troop types blend well; will the ranged properly support the infantry...etc etc.?

Competence: can the units do what you need them to do without tons of support. 

Special rules: every army has them. Some are more potent than others.

Painted Armies: seriously. Paint them. Painted armies perform better. The toughest games I've had are vs. painted armies. It's fun trouncing fields of grey.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Although I almost completely agree with Blackspine's point, there is one thing he's left out: how magic can ruin even the best general's chances of winning.

There are three spells that every general has to have a plan for: Purple Sun, Dwellers Below, and Pit of Shades.

If the bulk of your army's main units (the ones that you depend on the most) have both a strength and initiative of 4 or better, than you don't have to worry, but there are few armies that can make that claim, besides Daemons and Chaos Warriors. You also don't have to worry much if you can exploit a lore of magic that allows you to bring your most important units back to life. Finally, you don't have to worry as much if the bulk of your army's strength is in well protected war machines (such as Empire, Dwarves, and Skaven).

If you don't have any of these things, however, then even the best general is going to have a hard time being competitive, unless they exploit one or more of those 3 spells themselves, to fight fire with fire.

Basically, most armies can still be competitive, although a few might have a little difficulty doing so (Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings, Brettonians, and Beastmen).

The only armies that flat out really can't be competitive (at the moment) are Wood Elves and Ogre Kingdoms. Both can do well in the right situation, but in other situations may have more or less no chance of winning.


----------



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

mynameisgrax said:


> Although I almost completely agree with Blackspine's point, there is one thing he's left out: how magic can ruin even the best general's chances of winning.
> 
> There are three spells that every general has to have a plan for: Purple Sun, Dwellers Below, and Pit of Shades.
> *and curse of the horned rat*


 That's a very good point.
I'm actually saddened by these spells. They feel like a very simplistic and unsportsmanlike way of winning. Y

However, at least they give some sort of save.
Skaven doom spell (horned rat?) gives no save of any kind (beyond dispelling...which is usually IF on cast) 

If you don't have a 'nuclear bomb spell', you're in trouble. 
You can still compete, but expect a truck ton of hurt.


----------



## Franksta88 (Nov 18, 2010)

in my opinion the spells are there for 1 reason only.

your about to get smashed into the ground and there is no way your going to win.

you use them and now your in with a fighting chance.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

I think the spells wouldn't be so game imbalancing if many armies didn't suffer so little for miscasting with them. If they have lore of life, they can just bring any casualties suffered back to life. Other armies have ways of either influencing the miscast result, or ignoring the penalties for miscasting altogether.

Many of the Skaven spells are indeed extremely powerful, but losing their caster to a miscast can be devastating to the Skaven's overall chances of winning, so they can't throw a ton of dice at spells as easily as say the High Elves, Lizardmen, or Chaos Warriors can.

EDIT

Case in point, just this weekend I had a game (my daemons vs a friend's lizardmen) that I thought I was certain to win (because of placement and initial success) go completely wrong for me when his Slaan, buried in a unit of temple guard which was locked in close combat, cast the boosted version of Dwellers below 3 turns in a row. 

I was whittling his giant unit of temple guard down, only to have the rest of my army getting picked off unit by unit, as each casting of Dwellers Below crippled one of my Slaanesh or Tzeentch units. 

I wasn't prepared for this, and I lost because of it. I greatly underestimated the Slaan's ability (combined with Lore of Life) to completely ignore the damage from miscasts, and throw 5-6 dice when casting Dwellers Below, every turn.

In retrospect, I should have either hit his Slaan's unit with everything I had at once, or failing that, gotten everything of mine quickly locked in combat so they couldn't be the target of 'dwellers below'.


----------



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

Can he cast that while in combat?


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

blackspine said:


> Can he cast that while in combat?


Yes, in fact, he even has a special rule that allows him to cast any spell as if he's floating above the Temple-Guard.


----------



## steamius (Dec 9, 2010)

every army is competitive. So on the question what make the army competitive I say the player!


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Eh...I don't think Wood Elves or Ogre Kingdoms are competitive at all, but I can see giving every other army a pass, although some are definitely more competitive than others.

As I believe I've mentioned, Wood Elves lost too many of their advantages with the 8th edition rules, and are definitely inferior to both High and Dark elves, while Ogres are especially vulnerable to the spells Pit of Shades and Purple Sun (although the Ogres did get a lot stronger overall with the new rules).


----------

