Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings!

I am just getting into warhammer and have decided on two armies: Dark Elves and Vampire Counts.

I love the fluff for both armies and I find both armies visually appealing. So I guess it comes down to play style.

From what I know, DE are very good at close combat, magic, and dispelling magic. VC are good at magic, dispelling magic, and static combat. Now I may be wrong.

I personally like awesome close combat abilities (whether its static or not) and good magic and dispelling abilities.

So I ask the veterans and players of both armies, which is better at doing what? Or I guess a better question would be, what are their play styles?



Thanks

D E V

No offence but threads like this are idiotic. Your choice is between two of the game's top three armies and you seem to know the basics. If you don't, I suggest visiting the Games Workshop website. Talking on beginners level Dark Elves or Vampires is pointless for many reasons but mainly because it's not like you're going to base your decision on some random internet dude's words. If you do you'll end up regretting it.

A lot of Warhammer players own more than three armies so my answer is to make both of them.

Wow, well no offence taken man. I apologize for my post, but I really wasn't sure. I also was not aware about the two armies being in the top 3. But I guess I will research into this more. Thanks once again.

D E V

Play style hmm ...

VC , lots of tar pit units , with a few very expensive but hard hitting calvaries.

DE , all the units seem to be decent at what they do , do well in sync with each other.

DE are considered one of the top 3 armies because it is the most (or at least one of the most) flexible books, and it wins with volume of attacks and/or quality of attacks. It is not an easy army to play right, but if they are they can beat any army in the game, often quite handily. Their biggest downside is their weak defensive stats, and they struggle against T4 with a good armor save.

VC is one of the top lists since it can beat the Daemon list. IMHO that is the only reason why they are considered top. Nothing wrong with the book, but it has a bad match up with DE, can be easily beaten by HE, and lizards are a very rough match as well. It loses to 3 of the other top 5 armies, but since it can beat daemons and the rest of the armies, it is considered to be top. It wins because most armies lack the tools to kill the kind of volume of bodies they have, or are weak against fear.

So all in all, the play style of each can be said to be this: VC brings questions your opponent must have answers to. DE brings answers to questions your opponent presents.

I don't know much about VC so I can't comment on them.

DE are much better at throwing punches then taking them. Most of our units are T3 with a weak save making it a harder army to work with then say Lizards. There are some undercost units/items but that happens with each new dex.

Both armies are very versatile armies. Both have some nasty almost broken units as well (DE: blackguard, hydras. VC: Graveguard with regen, cairn wraiths).

From the view point of a vc player there are a number builds are very successful. Theres the magic heavy spawn spamming list (makes more models then the enemy can kill and does alot of damage with magic and 1 or 2 hammer units) and serveral deathstar lists (whether its grave guard, blood knights, or, my favorite, dire wolves). My wolfstar list can and has won numerous games without getting any magic off, winning purely in CC.

So the choice is yours to make. I would start looking for advice on what units to get as some are less then effective.

What are the top 5 armies in Warhammer

ernshmagl wrote:What are the top 5 armies in Warhammer

1-3 is easy
1) Daemons
2) VC
3) DE

Rest not so much

Lizards, HE, WoC all compete at about the same level, Skaven could be thrown in as well once their new book comes out.

OK waht do you think of dwarfs

ernshmagl wrote:OK waht do you think of dwarfs

They are like space marines of fantasy ( i think? )

Dwarfs have huge hurdles to overcome to be taken seriously. They move slow, they have no cav, no magic, and their guys are a bit pricey. They do have powerful shooting and a couple of unique units, but that just forces them into a gunline. Their best list depends heavily on a special character and his war machine. So over all I think they are boring army to play, and to play against.

IMHO these are the top armies of fantasy:

1)Daemons by a landslide
2)VC by being able to beat daemons and non top 5
3)DE by being very flexible and able to beat any army if configured and played well
4)Lizards by virtue of their amazing stats, and monster are nice too
5)HE since they have powerful magic and decent shooting and combat combined with the nice army wide ASF

I would say the old skaven list should be in the T5 over VC (by quite a margin) but hardly anybody plays the old book correctly it seems, and they aren't that popular.

I don't rate warriors very high since they pretty much have 1-2 viable builds, and those are very one dimensional (though powerful). They are popular, so even though they aren't the greatest list, you should be prepared to face them.

IMHO these are the top armies of fantasy:

2)VC by being able to beat daemons and non top 5

I've seen you write this nonsense in another thread if I'm not horribly mistaken.

You're claiming VC are unable to beat any other top 5 armies in Warhammer except Daemons?

What the heck is that 'argument' based on? VC are not auto win against Daemons, and they most definately aren't auto lose against any army in the game. I'm willing to say 95% of the best Warhammer players in the world play each year at the ETC and VC do very well there despite the heavy comp restrictions placed on them. Manfroni Andrea of the overall winner Team Italy didn't lose a single game with his VC. Not a single Dark Elf player managed to do the same (24 teams of 8 players each).

Lizardmen and High Elves both have one build that makes the compete with the top tier lists. When that build is used and played competitively they're very strong. Nothing can still beat the DoC army book in sheer reliability.

Therion: Are you trying to troll? Both of your posts on this thread are inflammatory, and the first one is not particularly helpful. If that is just how you are, well suite yourself.

Perhaps my first reply to this topic was overly broad. When I say a army "loses" to another, I mean that it has an unfavorable or very unfavorable match-up. I don't believe anywhere I said anything about auto wins or auto losses. If I did, I certainly retract that. (I sometimes use hyperbole) As for the part you quoted, I believe I said ABLE to beat daemons.

VC are able to beat any army in the game. Their match-up vs non top armies are very favorable due to the power of dice spamming and fear. Among the top armies they have the best chance of beating daemons. That being said I personally (opinion) believe that VC don't have favorable match-ups against DE, HE, or lizards for that matter. If you disagree... well whatever, opinions are what they are.

I do not contest that daemons are the best army. GW lost their head when they wrote that book.

Of the current armies, VC has the most tools to be able to challenge the DoC, hence why I rate them higher than I normally would. (which would be 4-6ish if daemons were not a army) Still a good book, but not broken like people claim they are. I consider them a fair, but reasonably powerful army.

Personally I think any tourney where comp is a factor is suspect when it comes to debating how good an army book is. The heavier the comp, the more suspect. Also is suspect is your statement of opinion that 95% of the best players show up to the European Championship Tourney. I am 95 percent sure that there is no way to prove that that is the case, especially there is a complete lack of real organized play like there is in chess or even MTG. The players who showed up were all very good, but there is no way to prove that they represented the top 95 percent of the best players.

I applaud Manfroni Andrea for his great showing. A tourney that long against a large a field of good players shows his skill and knowledge of the game.

I also looked at the break down of DE to the rest of the field. Of all the armies, DE was the most represented of the armies, with only one country that I know of not bringing them. If most of the best players brought DE for their team, does that not say something about how the best players regard them? Of course that is also suspect because of the comp rule of that particular team tourney. Because DE were rated as a B army, they got to play with more points. That encouraged more teams to field them, and they averaged out to be one of the higher scoring armies in the tourney. Sure they didn't go undefeated, but having a very good average score has to say something doesn't it? VC did not average out as well, but I can't really say much about that since this was not level playing field event.

I Apologize to the OP, since I have gotten way off track on the topic.

As an attempt to tie this post to the topic at hand:

Tourney VC tend to be a points denial army. They try to get as many points from the enemy as safely as they can, and deny the opponent a chance to rally by making endless tarpits and the like. If things go badly they can often salvage a draw or a even a minor victory.

Tourney DE tend to take many risks. They don't have endless numbers or a good save, so they have to engage the opponent and often take calculated risks that sometimes don't pay off. They often end up with a large number of massacres, but they are more likely to also drop a match where other armies could at least play for a draw.

I do not contest that daemons are the best army. GW lost their head when they wrote that book.

Lost their 'head' how? Something is always the best army.

Of the current armies, VC has the most tools to be able to challenge the DoC, hence why I rate them higher than I normally would. (which would be 4-6ish if daemons were not a army) Still a good book, but not broken like people claim they are. I consider them a fair, but reasonably powerful army.

Again with your strange opinions. We all know by now they're not based in reality and you've certainly not even tried to back them up in a single way.

Personally I think any tourney where comp is a factor is suspect when it comes to debating how good an army book is. The heavier the comp, the more suspect.

So if a book gets nearly all of its most powerful combos restricted and plays with a 250p handicap against DE and Lizards and a 500p handicap against weaker armies than those and still manages to go undefeated, it's somehow suspect? All results are suspect theoretically but if anything the ETC VC results tell us more about them than for example UK GT results would.

Also is suspect is your statement of opinion that 95% of the best players show up to the European Championship Tourney. I am 95 percent sure that there is no way to prove that that is the case, especially there is a complete lack of real organized play like there is in chess or even MTG. The players who showed up were all very good, but there is no way to prove that they represented the top 95 percent of the best players.

I'm sorry where are you from exactly? The European scene is very well organised thank you (and by far the largest and most active community of Warhammer players in the world) and many of the participating countries held national qualifying tournaments/leagues for their team. Additionally, the tournament isn't restricted to Europeans, for example the Australians were present this year and next year atleast the Canadian team is coming as well.

I applaud Manfroni Andrea for his great showing. A tourney that long against a large a field of good players shows his skill and knowledge of the game.

Why would you applaud his results here to me when neither him or any of his teammates are even reading this forum? Very strange.

I also looked at the break down of DE to the rest of the field. Of all the armies, DE was the most represented of the armies, with only one country that I know of not bringing them. If most of the best players brought DE for their team, does that not say something about how the best players regard them? Of course that is also suspect because of the comp rule of that particular team tourney. Because DE were rated as a B army, they got to play with more points.

You answered your own question so why did you post it?

Tourney VC tend to be a points denial army. They try to get as many points from the enemy as safely as they can, and deny the opponent a chance to rally by making endless tarpits and the like. If things go badly they can often salvage a draw or a even a minor victory.

Tourney DE tend to take many risks. They don't have endless numbers or a good save, so they have to engage the opponent and often take calculated risks that sometimes don't pay off. They often end up with a large number of massacres, but they are more likely to also drop a match where other armies could at least play for a draw.

Like you said VC are more reliable and will very rarely lose games. You should've added that so far DE have not truly proven to be a stronger contender for unrestricted tournament victories than VC and you have yet to even start explaining why in your opinion VC have an advantage over Daemons (the strongest and perhaps even most versatile army book in the game) but not against horribly more one-sided DE/HE. The general perception is that DE/HE do very well against DoC because of their ability to whittle down Flesh Hounds with missile fire while playing points denial and letting the Black/Star Dragon destroy a unit or two, while the VC can be built to not allow any easy victory points at all, and Wraiths making a terrible mess out of Elves.

Therion:

Strange opinions? You say it is not based in reality with nothing to back it up... well I did not realize that I was required to satisfy you...

I have no problem with there being a best army. The degree of advantage unrestricted daemons have is what I have issue over.

As for the tools VC have, ItP models that can be healed and/or brought back or even created from scratch? VC have it, other armies don't. (TK don't count) Daemons have a problem when their relatively low volume but high quality attacks don't break a unit, but just cause a few wounds that can just be brought back. Then they get flanked or just held up till the game ends. But against armies that can bring high volume of attacks like DE, or can shut down a magic phase as well as HE, or can bring hard to stop core and powerful magic like Lizards, the rather poor stats of VC blocks start to show.

DE also had some of its powerful combos restricted, including its most popular items and its ability to roll tons of power dice. Whoopee. Undefeated Is great, but didn't margin of victory matter also in this tourney? If it didn't feel free to correct me. VC can win most games just being hard to kill. But you don't always get max battle points that way.

Sorry, I am from the US. Yes, Europe has a very active and competitive warhammer scene. The US has virtually nothing but a few independent events and virtually no GW support. It doesn't change my statement any at all. The level or organized play is good in Europe, but it hardly is in the depth as you had made it out to be. Qualifying for an event doesn't prove you are among the best players of a game. Heck I qualified for the US nationals in MTG at the first tourney I ever played at... because I chose the right list and I got the right matchups. (not because I was actually good, as my later 7- 7 at nationals showed) Besides, some of the countries sent players that weren't as good as players who got eliminated in the better counties. If they just had qualifications based only on lifetime rating then I might agree with those numbers, but that is not how it was done.

You mentioned him first, my next few statements could be seen as somewhat dismissive towards the event his team won. By applauding him I had hoped to show all but the most socially tone deaf that I wasn't denigrating his accomplishment.

I mentioned the fact that DE did better at that event than most other armies. In fairness sake I also had to disclose that DE had a comp advantage that MAY have contributed, thus tainting in my or anyone else's eyes ANY data that could be gleaned from this event or any event with such harsh comp.

The meta game is defined by the strength of the daemons book. I have personally found that DE do not have a favorable match against the most common daemons builds. (favorable being better than 50/50) They can do better than most other armies, but it still is an uphill battle. VC have proven that they can win a respectable number of times against a daemon heavy meta. (certainly better than DE do, I do believe there are facts to back that up somewhere) My personal opinion, which has been clearly stated, is in the absence of the daemon meta, that VC would not be as highly regarded. Heck even though I don't really think highly of them, they are a proven army that at the moment deserves the number 2 slot which I have put them.

To the OP:
Both VC and DE are quite versatile armies that are fun to play. I'd advise you to choose the one which models you happen to like better.

Chaoslord wrote:To the OP:
Both VC and DE are quite versatile armies that are fun to play. I'd advise you to choose the one which models you happen to like better.

I agree, after all its you thats going to be painting the army and playing with it.

So VC, great magic, no psycology, staying power, and cool units.
DE: awesome shooting, great combat, ok magic, but weak when taking a hit.

Both win tournaments, both are hard as nails, and have awesome special rules. When it comes down to it though take the army that you like the look of best.

Thanks for the help guys. I originally thought my post was dumb. But I appreciate the help and advice from you guys.

I have chosen to side with DE. I looked through both codices and I did not like the reliance of the VC on their general. I like the hatred ability the DE have and their models look sick. The attack power they have is great and they have some very nice items than can make them good at defensive magic as well. The only down side they have was mentioned earlier: they have low toughness. But IMO the other stats and benefits they receive more than make up for it. I really like the models too. The manticore and COK models are amazing. I have already purchased the battalion, the codex, an extra COK set, 5 dark riders, a bolt thrower, a dragon, a hydra, and a manticore. I am a very competitive player and plan to participate in many tournaments and hopefully win some.

Thanks once again

D E V