# Armies you'd never collect



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Having seen the amazing response to this question when asked about 40k, I feel it's only right to ask the same thing for warhammer. So the question is this, which armies would people never choose to collect and why.

For me it is undoubtedly Orcs & Goblins, while some of the models are nice, the army as a whole seems childish to me, lacking the cooler aspects of their 40l counterparts.


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

This is going to sound like a rediculous answer, but when I create an army, converting characters, thinking up paint schemes, etc, I write a story behind them. I DO NOT make an army if I can't create fluff for it; I actually got rid of my 40k Necrons because of the lack of character to them. Therefore I would only play armies that I could come up with good stories for. And that also means mindsets I can understand.

That said, I avoid the more 'monstrous' races. Orcs/Gobbos, Skaven, Beastmen, Lizards, Ogres. It also doesn't hurt that I find those races less asthetically pleasing when it comes to building, converting, painting.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

For exactly the same reasons as Xabre, I don't make an army if I can't go for Character - of which IMO, Daemons have none - they are the faceless evil that were awesome for Chaos, until GW Cashcowed them to make them an army. Daemon Princes, such as Be'lakor, fucking awesome. But a Daemon? No.

So Daemons are out. Lizardmen are a similar thing as well, but they have some Characterful things about them, and their history is more than just Destroy this because we want to (Billie Piper moment? Just imagine Daemons going DESTROY!!! Because we want to; because we want to! *Shudders* Hideous). They have the unfortunate thing of being antithesis to Daemons, so are naturally hard and cold and faceless, hence very little character.

Vampires - these literally are faceless. Skeletons, Zombies, Grave Robbing Necrophiles, that's the personality of a Dead man. Harhar. No seriously. Characters maybe, but there is little motivation behind them either. Other than because they want to.

Chaos Dwarves, but purely because of the amount of work that's involved in collecting them, and my hatred of only beating them twice in about 3-4 years of competitions.


----------



## Syph (Aug 3, 2008)

Skaven, Lizardmen and Daemons are the only armies, really, I'm not overly fussed with. I dislike them for several reasons, mainly for the reasons Vaz mentioned. I have enough on balancing my Dark Elves and the beginnings of my High Elves so I really don't want or need to collect any more armies anyway, but if I did, it'd involve either Vampires or (shock) Wood Elves.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

elves in general, theya re just too weak for my liking


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Interesting topic!  For me it is all about aesthetics, I can make a back story for pretty much any race and I can get excited about most armies but if I don't like the models or the way the army looks on the table... no chance.

That said I like O&G, WE and DoC lots, I don't like OK, VC or TK much. This is purely a personal preference thing, so it might seem rather arbitrary to some. I just don't like the undead models much and the Ogres well, they are blurgh as far as I am concerned and look naff on the table in my opinion.

I can't see myself ever getting excited about DE, LM or Empire either really, though I could probably bring myself to play them at some point *IF* I ever had the money to own a large army of every race that is!


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

I've never got High Elves, and I don't really know why. Same in 40k, never been drawn to the Eldar. Must be an ear thing!


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

For me its the models which draw me in. If I like the models of a race I will then look at fluff. After that I look at the army book and see if there are any good lists I can make themed around things I liked in the fluff.
So i can play most armies if they have good models and fluff.
I would play any army but Vampire counts,brets, High elfs and finally wood elfs. I like the models of all of them but Vampire counts. But I just did not enjoy their fluff or characters.


----------



## Wiccus (Jun 2, 2008)

I am the same way as many of you. I have to be able to make a sweet back story in order to play an army. That said I do play daemons and you cant really personalize them but I got them because I loved the models and I love chaos so very much and I will play BoC in addition to my WoC and DoC when they come out with the new book.

Armies that I couldnt play though would be OK as they just kind of suck and the models are very meh.

Brets as they are either knights or knights with wings! boring and not much desire to paint them

The one I would absolutely never play is Dwarfs. I love the stunties back story but their play style and models are just really really boring. I would like to have a movement phase when playing.

I would probably never play VC as I'm not too keen on the models and I dont want another army that everyone refuses to play against because its op (curse my daemons)


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Empire: newer models are crap, only the new plastic greatswords and archers are any good
Beasts: ugly
Wood Elves: the lazy players army
High elves: too much reliance on elite units
Lizardmen: crap models
Tomb Kings: rubbish
Ogres: who really wants to?


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Whilst obviously people's opinions of the various armies naturally differ, I can't see how you figure Wood Elves to be 'the lazy player's army' Stella. They are one of the armies that takes the most finesse to play in my opinion. You can't just charge like Brets or DoC, you can't rely on ASF or armour saves, you don't just point and click like VC or Empire and Dwarf gunlines.

If anything Wood Elves are one of the most delicate armies to play because everything needs to be done with multiple units and careful screens and movement. I don't mind you disliking them in the slightest, but how you figure they are 'the lazy player's army' is beyond me.


----------



## Apoctis (Feb 14, 2008)

I would never touch the lizard men or the dark elfs because of the popularity and commones and the unattractive armie looks. I would love to do skaven, empire, or beastmen but the models are holding me back.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

squeek said:


> Whilst obviously people's opinions of the various armies naturally differ, I can't see how you figure Wood Elves to be 'the lazy player's army' Stella. They are one of the armies that takes the most finesse to play in my opinion. You can't just charge like Brets or DoC, you can't rely on ASF or armour saves, you don't just point and click like VC or Empire and Dwarf gunlines.
> 
> If anything Wood Elves are one of the most delicate armies to play because everything needs to be done with multiple units and careful screens and movement. I don't mind you disliking them in the slightest, but how you figure they are 'the lazy player's army' is beyond me.


every time I see them used all I see is more archers than you can shake a stick at backed up by more magic than you can shake a stick at, maybe stick an eagle or 2 in, hiding in trees and annihilating enemy armies in a couple of shooting phases, boring, lazy.

plus most of the models are hideous

also I don't get


squeek said:


> You can't just charge like Brets or DoC, you can't rely on ASF or armour saves, you don't just point and click like VC or Empire and Dwarf gunlines.


I never won with brets by just charging in, I was always outmaneuvered while stuck in combat, they require thought to win with, as long as your not playing a 1 trick pony idiots army *cough* all elves *cough*

plus who would play Empire or dwarf gunlines........wait don't answer that one


----------



## melforn (Dec 15, 2008)

I would never play Orcs and Goblins, Dwarfs or Brettonnians they are all a little cliched for me. I prefer the armies with slightly more thought, slightly less stereotypical fantasy army. I like Elves because they are 3 very different and unique armies, all with their own strengths but all tempered by elven universal T3.

I find Brettonnians and Daemons particularly boring since they just advance, get in to close combat, win as far as I am concerned they are dull. But maybe that is because my low magic, mixed Asrai army is _"a 1 trick pony idiots army"_ not something that takes supreme skill to advance en masse across the table and beat your opponent with a lance or sword.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I've played and collected all the armies over the years but for me to get really interested with an army it has to have some sort of character.
I have collected Empire since before their was an Empire book( but have never used a gunline) and at the moment I have a large Empire army but none of the new models.
There are a lot of armies that I wouldn't collect mainly because I hate painting horses and the non stop drybrush fest that is Skaven is not for me.
I don't really enjoy playing as O&G but I enjoy painting them (The exception to this is O&G Vs Skaven these games are a who can kill the most of their own troops and often great fun)
Undead are not for me but for no other reason than it was my brothers army and I got sick of the sight of shambling hordes squashing my poor frail humans.
I like the look of Chaos but don't really like the Eliteness style of play( It was another of the armies I always faced and seemed at the time to lack finnesse and tactics but still be strong) although the dislike of Chaos stems from 2nd or 3rd edition hero hammer.
last but not least Elves and lizard men just don't do it for me either in game or models wise as a whole army.
But I still at some point will collect one of these armies again when I get fed up of winning with my Chaos Dwarf army and when my Ogres get dull or my current Empire force bores me I'm just that sort of player.
I enjoy building and painting a new army to much and finnd that I need knew challenges to keep me interested in gaming.


----------



## Erie Ed (Feb 21, 2009)

Empire: Their playstyle really isn't for me
Bret: ^
Daemons of Chaos: Too cheesey and it just doesn't strike me as fun to play or paint.
Orc's and Goblins/Orge Kingdoms: These armies just seem like they are geared for younger players.

I have skaven/DE atm and i'm thinking of doing either TK or VC next


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> ...plus who would play dwarf gunlines........


11 Dwarf Organ Guns in 5th! Hell yea baby!! KABOOOOOM!:laugh:

I'd never make a ratarsed army(Skavens). Some players see O&G as the comical relief. Those players haven't red up propperly on the rats, and defo never red the Gotrek and Felix books:no: I mean cmon Warlord Gnawdwell? Lord Sneek (Nightlord of Clan Eshin), very ninjaish...
I'd probably never make a Bretonnian army either. Knights Knights, more Knights backed up with the worst idea GW ever had: the My Little Pony Cav:sarcastichand:

I'd probably not make a WE army, though this is only out of respect of the opponent. WEs are a 40k army in WHFB who's sole tactic for winning is making the game drop dead booring for the opponent(I know I'm stretching it a bit, but its not far from true).
_"The most booring army, any game included, is always WE, regardless of everything"_ immortal quote of a successfull Swedish WE player, so damn true:scare:
I'd probably not make a HE army either, but I can consider playing it now and then(my ex neighbour plays em), mostly only to laugh at the imbaness of the S/M elves


----------



## Nemesis-The-Warlock (Jun 10, 2008)

I have a deep dislike for empire and always have, and they are one of the few armies I would never play with.

I used to have a high elf army in the 90's and really didn't like them after awhile as their tactics at the time weren't the right type for the way I liked to play so I would probably never play with them again


----------



## Vaul (Dec 29, 2008)

Daemons of Chaos, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves.... because out of principle, I wouldn't want to play an army that opens you up to accusations of choosing them just to win. When you field an army from one of those races you just have cheesy powergamer written all over your forehead. 

To be fair though, it's quite possible to make lists from those races which are not cheesy or powergamerish at all. I just like to avoid them out of principle though.


----------



## arachnid (Nov 17, 2008)

Orc(k)s of any type.

Ogres are unappealing, period.

Tomb kings.. well the army itself seems nice, but the models.. ugh.

why do gw insist on releasing skeletal models that look like they're made out of pipe-cleaners and straws ?

Empire just feels uninspired to me.

Daemons have character, but a prepackaged one, so theyre out.



Sneaky "evil" armies are the bees knees, which is why i started up Dark elves.

My second choice would be either skaven or VC.

VC mainly to be able to recreate the final scenes from army of darkness :biggrin:


----------



## 666Snoopy666 (Jun 1, 2008)

I've not really collected much fantasy but with whatever I get I'm always looking for interesting fluff. However models can sway me too.
I wouldn't play as High Elves... They're the only elves I wouldn't collect. They're just too heroic and goody goody (Though saying this I don't mind Bretonnia because at least they don't all look like girls). The Beastmen models are ugly imo, same goes with Lizardmen (I expected a few better looking, less weathered lizards from the new edition) and I hate big armies like Skaven and Orcs, simply because they look crowded and all too monster like. Anything else I could collect without a problem.


----------



## Syph (Aug 3, 2008)

I thought about this thread not long after I posted, and in reality, the _only_ armies I'd collect are DE/HE/WE, VCs and TKs... at a push, BoC/WoC. Everything else I'm not fussed about. Really can't stand Empire or Brettonian armies actually, purely on a model basis.


----------



## HorusReborn (Nov 19, 2008)

I have a huge dislike for elves. Always have, but in particular HE. DE are antithesis to them and for that I love them. Would never play them, but man... I love my Daemons. The people here who are stating they are cheesy and over powered have never thought to tailor a list to beat them because they aren't as tough as everyone thinks, and are far less cheesy than say LM. I love the Empire. I started out in 2nd ed with the burly halberdiers who stood in place diagonally all looking like they were statues. The models have come a long way from that, and is a main reason I'm redoing the army!


----------



## Azure Rathalos (Mar 2, 2009)

High Elves: got them, love them. Why, everything is faster: they move fast, kill fast and die fast, plus I like the models.

Dark Elves: the models are ok (quite like the cold one knights), but meh...

Wood Elves: purely awesome models IMO, but they have a bigger beard than a dwarf!

Brettonians: meh

Empire: Can't win games! and I don't like gunpowder in warhammer

Dwarves: they're dwarves, beardiest army out! (plus the gunpowder thing)

WoC: ok models and make good "bad guys" if thats what you're after

DoC: Hate comes to mind... stupid GW fail on this one!

BoC: like some of the models, but they suck, sad realy...

OK: Can't win games unless they take vast amounts of knoblars

Skaven: Funny army

Lizards: I've got nothing against them, love the carnisaur model

TK:like the story, don't like the models and they have the same problem as VC

VC: relying on summoning more dead stuff (say hello to drain magic and cry toothy)

Orcs/Goblins: amusing(ish), too easy to beat 

Well thats my thoughts, I'll stick to 40k and LotR for now, lol, so the army I'd never get is demons of chaos.


----------



## karlhunt (Mar 24, 2009)

Ha! Can I even post here? I have collected atleast 3k of every fantasy army. Well, I take that back. I only have about 500 Kislev and I don't have any Chaos Dwarves because the're not really an active race as far as I can tell. Personall fluff is that Be'lakor ate them all because they sucked that badly.

In all seriousness, I collect everything but Empire is my one true love, the rest are just so that I can learn their tactics by letting friends borrow the different races.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Azure Rathalos said:


> Empire: Can't win games! and I don't like gunpowder in warhammer


not entirely true, I won 1 game with them out of 70+ when I had them....and that was without gunpowder weapons at all...............but yeah there crap


----------



## karlhunt (Mar 24, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> not entirely true, I won 1 game with them out of 70+ when I had them....and that was without gunpowder weapons at all...............but yeah there crap


Then you didn't play them right. Empire is really easy to loose with if you only use them once in a while, but when you learn how they are meant to work they end lives! Especially against Undead and Daemons! My Empire record sits at about 28:3 not counting the games I built to loose to drag people screaming into the game.

Oh, and I don't use Gunpowder other than mortars.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

karlhunt said:


> Then you didn't play them right. Empire is really easy to loose with if you only use them once in a while, but when you learn how they are meant to work they end lives!


I know how there meant to work, there basic infantry is designed to die in droves while doing no damage at all, there cavalry is supposed to hit like a soggy tissue and then die, and there Cannons and handgunners are supposed to be taken in large numbers so you have an army that looks and plays exactly like everyone else's so you have no individuality.


karlhunt said:


> Especially against Undead and Daemons! My Empire record sits at about 28:3 not counting the games I built to loose to drag people screaming into the game.


what are undead and daemons?, if you don't play Chaos your labeled a loser and don't deserve to play.....thats the impression I got from when I used to play IN GW


----------



## karlhunt (Mar 24, 2009)

I never use hand gunners, My cavalry is kept to units of five with no command, I bring one mortar for every three to four units of infantry and let my foot sloggers do all of the real work. Mortars are just there to deal with the hoard armies, S3 won't do much damace to most forces.

Undead = Vampire Counts or Tomb Kings

The only armies I have any real trouble with are WoC and Lizards

My inspiration comes from
www.remanlegions.com/
I didn't think it would work as well as it does but WOW!


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

karlhunt said:


> Undead = Vampire Counts or Tomb Kings


I know what they actually are, but you won't see them, ever, not even the new book made 1 person do them
same with daemons, nobody does them here, nobody will touch them
thats why I said what are they


----------



## Ascendant Valor (Jan 3, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> [Undead]... you won't see them, ever


If I'm taking your message out of context, tell me (sarcasm doesn't convey well through type), but I disagree whole-heartedly.

Check out the GT Profiles and what armies are present at them. Daemons, VC and DE often tend to be the most-widely adopted on the competitive level; hence, they are likely widely used elsewhere on the non-competitive ring. Don't believe me yet? Check out which armies often overtake the Warhammer Fantasy Army Lists section on this very site.

Now, I do agree with you, Stella, when you say there's a certain amount of pressure that GW pumps out to take up their new armies. That's just a by-product of them preferring to function as a business. They opt for a hard-sell approach to its players for some absurd reason, and use the "newest, best" releases as fodder for its players.

I'll have to disagree with you when you speak against the Empire, though. They are a horde army, and die in droves, but they are no less effective than most other armies out there. I made the mistake to argue against them, only to have them stomp my WoC army. They create mass-amounts of Combat resolution, and any extra wounds they pump out is just an additional slap in the face. Odds are, you're already down by 5 points of Combat resolution even before any blades are swung. That's hard to overcome. Really hard. [Take it from me, I've sent my Sword Masters into a block of Swordsmen with a detachment; my Sword Masters, of all units, could only tie them].

I can do some Math-Hammer if you'd like some proof, but I hope you get my point thus far.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> I know how there meant to work, there basic infantry is designed to die in droves while doing no damage at all, there cavalry is supposed to hit like a soggy tissue and then die, and there Cannons and handgunners are supposed to be taken in large numbers so you have an army that looks and plays exactly like everyone else's so you have no individuality.


You slay me, Stella. :laugh:
_________________________________________________________________

*Beasts of Chaos*
Only one good looking model, and they're all metal. I wouldn't touch this army with a ten-foot pole.

*Dark Elves*
I hate this army and all they represent with every fiber of muscle in my body, and take great pleasure in beating them in-game. Whenever they beat me, it's just because they're overpowered. Lol.

*Skaven*
I have to admit I like the concept, but not the models. Plus, I enjoy killing them too much to actually every play them.

*Orcs & Goblins*
Too wacky for my tastes, but that appeals to some people. I just don't like the look of this army.

*Empire*
Again, I like the concept, but I don't like playing horde armies. Honestly, the only one of the "good" armies I like are the High Elves.

*Tomb Kings*
Too much white.


----------



## Azure Rathalos (Mar 2, 2009)

Rock on High Elves, lol, my sword masters paist empire (well most things), I have 3 on the combat res before blades are swung and then my 11 ws6, str5 attacks does the rest, before my enemy realises they're in combat! (saw off a blood knight charge too!) 

The only 2 armies you don't see at my local GW is tomb kings (some one has them, but plays 40k) and I haven't ever seen a beastmen army "in the flesh".

Still I stick with my hatred of the Demons, it gets on my nerves that they are now emune to magic items that are from the demon wars in the fluff....

Ah well, I've not lost to them yet! (the joy of tactics!)


----------



## Stuntiesrule (Mar 22, 2009)

I would have to say Beasts and demons only armies i have never even had a slight thought of playing


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

Empire or Bretonians-I just don't like the look of them <_<


----------



## Ascendant Valor (Jan 3, 2009)

Aside from my ubiquitous rantings (Literally, I have difficulty staying on track...), I'm not too sure on which armies I wouldn't touch. There's reasons as to why I would or would not pick them up, but I don't really have many clear-cut "I hate those guys" armies.

Maybe Lizardmen, since I don't like the concept too much. The models seem okay, and their performance is admirable, but I just don't like the idea.

I wouldn't mind Demons of Chaos, but I just don't like how they're pure evil and let every facet of their form express it. I still think it would be fun to have a Hello Kitty themed Demons army...

I don't like Beasts of Chaos. I'd prefer either Demons or Warriors of Chaos, not the middle ground between the two. In fact, I'd prefer if Hordes of Chaos was just one army. Condensed, for sure, but of the like. Maybe.

Dark Elves are too evil for me, too. Maybe it's because I love my High Elves that I hate them. Hm...

Wood Elves are okay. I just don't like the play style. The Forest Spirits are amazing, though!

Empire and Bretonnia aren't so bad. I just don't want to play the Humans in a Fantasy game.

Orcs and Goblins would be fun. The past couple games I've had against them were really funny. Fanatics especially!

Vampire Counts are decent, but they seem like they need to put all their points into their leaders/vampires. I'd rather see my points in my footsloggers, personally. That's just my opinion, of course, which happens to be very biased.

Tomb Kings, at least to me, would likely get mixed up with Vampire Counts. The Skeleton models seem to be mix-and-match. I like the idea, though. If I were to get another army, they'd probably be it.

Now for my High Elves. I love my setup. The models are decent (I just don't like the Silver Helms models), and the play style is awesome. It's nice to mix up between Cavalry and Elite Troops setups, and from Pure Combat to Pure Magic, and anywhere in between those.


----------



## zoidberg2100 (Jan 22, 2009)

In all honesty the only army I would NEVER play is OK. I don't like the fluff, don't like the models, and don't enjoy the play style. There are some armies I love the idea of but hate the models. For instance I would play skaven if they looked like rats not monkeys. BoC are cool until you get to the minotaurs and the fact that pretty much everything rulewise is broken. The other thing is that since the people I am playing Fantasy with are fairly new I wouldn't pick a power gaming army, just because getting steam rolled your first game is discouraging.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> I know what they actually are, but you won't see them, ever, not even the new book made 1 person do them
> same with daemons, nobody does them here, nobody will touch them
> thats why I said what are they


Remember Folks - the world revolves around Stella. So if noone plays them round him, Nobody in the World plays them. Ever. Nowhere Never.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Ascendant Valor said:


> If I'm taking your message out of context, tell me (sarcasm doesn't convey well through type), but I disagree whole-heartedly.


I mean just round here, I just forgot to say round here.

and I don't say it because I believe the world revolves around me like some people believe, no names mentioned of course


----------



## Ascendant Valor (Jan 3, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> I mean just round here...


Ah, my mistake!:victory:

Still, most armies seem to be represented on this site. You may have to dig around for a decent army list or tactical advice or something, but it seems that most everyone has their own preferred tastes in armies. Of course, that's to be expected; I wouldn't assume any people who post here are very much one-in-the-same.

Take my experience as an example: I wouldn't have though it based on a lot of the talk running about that people would even consider Ogres or Tomb Kings, but there are a few people around here that can't seem to get enough of them! I have to admit, too, that after hearing about some of the shenanigans that these armies and ones like them invoke, my interest had been piqued!


----------

