# Over-Specialization - The Devourer of Noobs



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I love to specialize in my armies.... Be it 40K and my Mech Eldar or Mech Sisters of Battle, to Fantasy and my Bloodbulls of Khaarg, specialization is where it's at. Or, at least, it would seem that way....

In other games, such as WH40K, specialization is actually pretty good, as the game allows for more flexibility even when ignoring the majority of your army's options. In WHFB, this is not the case.

My Bloodbulls of Khaarg has 6 units that can move at 12 inches on the march and lay down 16 Str6 attacks at full strength. The army also boasts a unit of 8 Furies, an Exalted Daemon, and a Doombull, and is surrounded by Chaos Hounds and Chaos Spawn. Now, generally, this is not a bad thing, as I have more variety in my unit choices than would your typical Bretonnian force (and many other armies). The problem here lies with my chosen specialization...

Chaos armies have very little shooting, and my army has none. Chaos armies have pretty good magic, though still, my army has none. Chaos armies also have access to great heavily armored units, while my army has none. Case in point, I have built an army that can hit very hard, but cannot take a hit, and will usually suffer tremendous losses before ever delivering that fatal blow. The army has no shooting, no magic, and no staying power. Thus, against more formidable generals with properly 'balanced(1)' lists, the Bloodbulls don't fare very well at all.

All of this I learn only after having painted 2500pts worth of converted Chaos. WHFB is not as forgiving a game as WH40K, and army unit selection is half the game.

Now, don't get me wrong... I still love my Chaos army, but I now know that while I can stomp all over newer players and can give veterans a good game, I'll always be at a disadvantage when versing top tier players simply because I over-specialized.


(1) Balance is quite a relative and subjective term in all tabletop wargames. Please take its use as intended.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

i agree almost totally. i would say that 40k is more a of a foregone conclusion list wise. A well engineered list is practically unbeatable in 40k regardless, games can be over before they have begun.

WFB is more about generalship and manoeuvering, tactics and strategy than 40k.

i have a one hit wonder list, i play bretonnians. it doesnt manoeuvre much, and it loses as much as it wins...


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

no game is a foregone concusion, even in 40k i have fought against some of the cheesiest armies known to man (the lothern sea guard spring to mind as does the beast of chaos morghor army that can create 10 spawn on turn 1 for free) and thanks to an unnatural ability to roll good dice and a little bit of skill you can always win through in the end. ive even taken speed freaks against a nidzilla and won


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

i belieave fantasy is more tactical than 40k have done for 4 years now. I play hordes of chaos khorne its pretty tricky to get the hand of seeing there is no shooting and no magic but on the other hand i have so mamy dispell dice my opostion may as well say they have no magic too:biggrin:. My pure khorne army can give anyone a run for their money even veterans (nearly beat a veteran of 10 years with it). i'm also starting a 40k pure khorne army and when that is finishe i can compare. My prediction is the fantasy army will be easier to use than the 40k one because 40k is more based around shooting and having friends you use guard i'm not expecting to win...by much


----------

