# Still having trouble picking an army



## swarmofseals (Mar 2, 2009)

*TL;DR Version: trying to pick between WE, VC, and Daemons. Pros and Cons listed below, would love some help and some perspective on whether my impressions of the armies are accurate

I posted a similar topic to this a while ago and have since significantly narrowed my choices, but I'm still having trouble picking. You all were very helpful last time, so lets give this another go.*


A few days ago I was having difficulty picking between Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, Daemons, Lizardmen, Brettonians, High Elves, Wood Elves, and Skaven.

Then I pulled in my girlfriend to help choose. I showed her a large range of models for each army, and was really surprised by what she liked and didn't like. I expected her to like Lizardmen (she loves lizards), Bretts, Wood Elves, and maybe Skaven.

Turns out she HATED Bretts and Tomb Kings largely because of poorly proportioned models and anatomically problematic skeletons.

She didn't like Lizards much because she feels that the look slow and the heads are too boxy. Didn't like Skaven either as they look more like monkeys than rats (honestly, I can't disagree with that one for many of the models.)

She didn't like High Elves or Dark elves much because she generally dislikes things where you can barely tell that there is a critter underneath all that armor. I personally don't share that aesthetic value, but that's fine. Makes life a bit easier for me.

Her favorites, much to my surprise, were Daemons, Wood Elves, and VC. I like the model ranges and army lists for all three of these factions well enough, so the decision is now between them.

So here are the pros and cons of each:


Daemons

*PROS:*

1. Some fantastic models. I love the bloodletters and bloodcrushers. The new daemonettes are tolerable but the older metal ones are great. Flesh hounds are very good. Pink Horrors are metal but look really good.

2. I have some fun ideas for painting these in uncommon ways (for example, brass statue bloodletters spattered with blood rather than the traditional red skin)

3. Plaguebearers and maybe Pink Horrors can be kitbashed/greenstuffed from zombies and/or crypt ghouls.

4. Low model count cuts down costs.

5. Army is very competitive.

6. If I come into some money, Forgeworld and Ultraforge offer some GORGEOUS Greater Daemon models.

7. Army is highly modular and there are lots of thematic options.

8. Can be fantastic at combat or magic.

9. Powerful combos.

*CONS*

1. And this is a big one. Army is TOO competitive. Concerned that I'll have trouble making a fair list that will also be fun for me to play. I want to be able to play both hardcore/waac games and casual/fun games.

2. Regular Greater Daemon models are hideous.

3. Multi-god armies will be difficult to give a cohesive look to.

4. Poor shooting other than the broken flamers.

5. Army is seen as cheesy.


________________________

Vampire Counts

*PROS:*

1. Army is diverse with a lot of fun things to paint.

2. Gorgeous alternative models for Blood Knights from Gamezone. Also a solid Corpse cart alternative from the same company. Some nice alternative vampire character models out there too.

3. Lots of plastics.

4. Great magic. I love the ability to raise new units and or refresh depleted ones.

5. I have a soft spot for vampires and the undead in general. Well, perhaps soft spot is the wrong phrase, but you get the picture.

6. Mix of throwaway and hard hitting troops leads to more tactical options.

7. Army is forgiving. I'm not new to strategy gaming by a long shot nor even WHFB, but I haven't played in a good 8 years and it'll take me a bit to get back into form.

8. Army is competitive but can also be designed to be fair, from what I've heard. Having an army that can be tailored to a variety of play situations is important.

9. Tons of options for equipping characters. Powerful combos.

*CONS*

1. High model count can get expensive and takes a ton of time to paint up to a high standard.

2. I can see zombies being annoying to paint.

3. Army is seen as cheesy.

4. Army has a reputation for being "point and click." While this doesn't bother me per se, I WOULD like to play an army that rewards advanced tactics and high-level play. It's one thing to have an army where you can make mistakes and win, but it's another thing entirely to have an army that is so one-dimensional that it doesn't really reward generalship. Honestly, I don't know how much this applies to this army.

5. Nigh complete lack of shooting.

6. Not a fan of the zombie dragon (neither the model nor the idea, really)


____________________________________

Wood Elves

*Pros:*

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.

*Cons:*

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. 


Thanks again in advance for the thoughtful replies!


----------



## newsun (Oct 6, 2008)

Go WE, I think in the long run they will offer a lot of reward. Both of the others are too easy to make crazy hard lists that people will cry over. While WE can still win with, you just have to work harder. It's more of a thinking generals army because you have to be very mobile and pick your combats wisely.

Then again sit down and think which models you really like and what play style you are leaning towards. Do you want to be mobile and shooty, sit back and shooty, march forward and smash, get creative and combined forces, do you want really fast and all mounted, lots of flying, complete balance and mix of things, etc. There are so many directions you can go even with those 3 armies, heck even if you had one of them you could still vary quite a bit within the constrains of each book.


----------



## Darktheos (May 9, 2008)

I can say for WE personally I bought them as my first army played 12 games went crap this is a hard army to start with. I sold and offloaded them except my treeman and somether models. I played empire for 2 year, I really like Wood Elves and plan to go back once I finish my Current 40k army and the 3000 or so points of Dwarves I was given for free.

SO basically it comes down to how much effort you want to put into winning. Also WE are the only ones that have to break out of the 3 armies.


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Couple of quick additions to your thoughts:

Daemons are due a second wave of models (though it has been postponed a month or two according to rumours). This should lighten the damage to your wallet a little with a plastic DP that could be converted to a GD, plus almost definitely plastic horrors and plaguebearers. Currently DoC are probably the most (possibly 2nd to BoC) expensive army to collect due to the high metal content.

Vampire Counts are great, they are forgiving for a newb and allow clever play for a tactical wizz, they are a little point and a shoot as you say, but they can be more than that. If you are considering them, make sure that the look and the painting is something you can get excited about otherwise you may end up hating them. Don't base your decision on the zombie dragon, most players don't even consider using it until 3k games come around.

Wood Elves can be just as nasty as DoC and VC actually, all you need to do is mention dual treeman with the ancient decked out as anti-character with CoR and people start to shout cheese. The nice thing for me about Wood Elves is they allow a lot of different approaches to the game, have loads of core plastics and don't require a bank loan to start up. If you can get the knack of treesurfing with a WE list then your opponents will look at you with a mix of awe and hatred generally!


----------



## Tha Tall One (Aug 16, 2008)

swarmofseals said:


> *
> 
> 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.
> 
> *


*

Wuah! Wait! I've seen this a couple of times, but now I'll comment on this right away.
I guess you are referring to Dragon Armour etc (and probably to some items other armies have) which say immune to 'flaming attacks'. This does only work for Pure flaming attacks, such as dragon breath, Fireball spells and Flame Canons. If you get hit by a flaming arrow, you are still hit by the arrow. The arrows are still dangerous, only the fire isn't. The same with Schreaming skulls and such.
Don't know if you really meant this, but I've seen others. (Sorry if I now break the rules by going off-topic, but I've seen this mistake many times and wanted to express my frustration )

Anyway, it's a difficult choice you're about to make, but in my opinion, VC are the most awesome of these, closely followed by Daemons.*


----------



## swarmofseals (Mar 2, 2009)

Tha Tall One said:


> Wuah! Wait! I've seen this a couple of times, but now I'll comment on this right away.
> I guess you are referring to Dragon Armour etc (and probably to some items other armies have) which say immune to 'flaming attacks'. This does only work for _Pure_ flaming attacks, such as dragon breath, Fireball spells and Flame Canons. If you get hit by a flaming arrow, *you are still hit by the arrow.* The arrows are still dangerous, only the fire isn't. The same with Schreaming skulls and such.
> Don't know if you really meant this, but I've seen others. (Sorry if I now break the rules by going off-topic, but I've seen this mistake many times and wanted to express my frustration )
> 
> Anyway, it's a difficult choice you're about to make, but in my opinion, VC are the most awesome of these, closely followed by Daemons.



Can you back this up with a FAQ or a citation from the rulebook? I know what you are saying makes logical sense but I have never seen anything in the game that differentiates between "pure" flaming attacks and other flaming attacks, and unless GW has specifically explained somewhere that the rules work the way you suggest I'm inclined to think you are wrong.

I've heard numerous tournament players describe how Skulltaker is really bad vs High Elves because he can't scratch dragon armor due to his attacks being flaming... yet under your interpretation this would not be the case.


----------



## Tha Tall One (Aug 16, 2008)

Dang, I had seen this in a FAQ once! Wait, I'll try to find it on GW's horrid new website...
And nothing states lighting attacks as "Lighting", yet Dragon Ogres are immune for them.

Nevermind, damn!
In the new High Elves FAQ it states it is immune to the whole attacks (which I still find hard to believe).
But I swear I read the contarary in the Old Tomb Kings FAQ... =(


----------

