# GW Sample Armies: Are they any good?



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

So its a simple enough question.... Are the sample armies that GW posts on its website actually any good, or just some sort of ploy to get you to buy more units?

The ones just posted yesturday for Fantasy here : Fantasy sample armies:at first glance to me do seem well built and rather usefull... But what are other peoples opinions?

And for that matter, their opinions on any army list that GW has ever published?

Sales ploy, or usefull guidelines?


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

They're ok if your not thinking about entering tournies, They do tend to be used as adverts for less popular/ effective units and never really maximise the potential of magic items like in truly effective armies.
If all you want is a good mix of different units then these armies are generally ok but you'd be better off building a force that suits your play style.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Some of the lists can be kinda fun, but like neilbatte said I wouldn't call them overly competitive. They can be good starting points for a good list with some tweaking.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

I can't comment on that one, as I don't play O&G, but usually they are quite poorly written, some even illegal as I recall!


----------



## MadcapCH (May 13, 2010)

Masked Jackal said:


> ...but usually they are quite poorly written, some even illegal as I recall!


As a starting player, I'll chime in on this. When I read this sample army list for Prince Althran's Command, I thought it would be perfect. It is made up of the Island of Blood (IoB) and the High Elf Battalion. That is an easy investment for 1,750 points.

The problems:
1. Lord in a 1,750-point army is illegal. My bad. Forgot, new edition. Army book still implies 0 Lords at under 2,000 pts.
2. Their math is off by 15 points (if my Excel-fu is correct).
3. Magic items are not optimized IMHO. They could get the same or better results using better or different versions of magic items.

On a bright note, with some tweaks and a second IoB set of High Elves (easily traded for the IoB skaven) you can turn that bad list into a viable, if casual, 2,000 point list.

My advice is take their lists with a big grain (bag?) of salt. GW isn't keen on handing out tourney-winning lists for general consumption; otherwise every tourney would become Clone Wars, plus certain minis just wouldn't sell anymore. But with some tweaks and such, you can turn it into a decent casual list to start with.


----------



## Cheese meister (Jun 5, 2010)

you may want to check your rulebook on rmy composition you can take a lord at any points value now hell empire can take 1 at 320pts


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

Cheese meister said:


> you may want to check your rulebook on rmy composition you can take a lord at any points value now hell empire can take 1 at 320pts


Army composition is a maximum of 25% points in Lords. As I recall, a bare-bones Empire lord is 80 points. The issue with the particular list that was mentioned is that it goes *over* that allowance.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

> The issue with the particular list that was mentioned is that it goes *over* that allowance.


How?!?! The Lord is only 396 points that is less than 25% of the total army cost. Unless Caladris is a lord too.


----------



## MadcapCH (May 13, 2010)

Cheese meister said:


> you may want to check your rulebook on rmy composition you can take a lord at any points value now hell empire can take 1 at 320pts


My bad. New edition.


----------



## saintevil (Dec 15, 2010)

As I'm a 40k player just starting out with fantasy, I don't trust the GW lists. Every 40k CSM list they ever used is idiotic. I also don't rely on White Dwarf as the prime example of idiotic CSM list was in the Blood Angels release issue (don't have it nearby so can't give the date).

So, that's why I'm rather stalking this forums, leeching ideas for my WoC army that I'm starting. The people here have more sense.

My $0.02.

Ps. Sorry for the negativity.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

WD and GW lists both suffer in that they're trying to give a well rounded feel to the army, sell stuff or are based on the whims of random people... they will almost never be a 'competetive' or balanced army (balanced and well rounded are different: having lots of different units from different places in the codex tends to make GW lists piecemeal rather then balanced).

Basically those lists are sales tools, and as such I would ask for advice from real people (like here on heresy) then mindlessly copying them... however it isn't t the worst idea ever to start from a GW list and alter it to suit your style (and fix some of their problems)... then you can gradually keep adapting the army as you play it and find you need more/less of certain aspects/units.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

Most of the time my reaction to GW lists is "Gee, I never thought of doing it THAT way." Usually it's for a good reason (the idea sux), but on a rare occasion I get the germ of an idea that I can work into a viable list or unit.

Most often the WD lists are limited by what the studio has painted (no "realistic" armies of bare metal/plastic or primered models that are the norm on most game nights) shoehorned into an "army".


----------

