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.

For over a year now I've really wanted to start doing a miniature game...there's been that hole, since I stopped doing Heroscape....I first wanted to do 40k, but painting is a large part of the hobby for me and, tbh, I find painting a 40k army mind-numbing, while WHFB has all those large areas of metallics, skin, fur...ooooh, such fun to paint. Plus I've always had a soft spot for fantasy & medieval stuff in general, since watching LOTR.

Anyway, I browsed through everything and quickly discovered that BFSP was a good way to get started, but unfortunately I can't stand the redundant poses of the miniatures (as I said, modelling/painting is half the hobby for me!)

My brother and dad are both interested in playing too so I thought I could collect two different races and let them use whichever one I don't.

Anyway, the armies that interested me were....









So....

Which of these is tactically easiest for a new player? What's the approximate points in each of those battleforces? Would one of those and an HQ unit make a legal army (just to get started with). Besides the armies, dice and the rulebook, do I need anything else?

Welcome to fantasy fella. there are no “easy” armies in fantasy. All have their strong points and all have their weak points. Generally the battle forces plus a character is enough to start. But points wise you will need the armies book plus it would depend on how you arm them.

"Which of these is tactically easiest for a new player? What's the approximate points in each of those battleforces? Would one of those and an HQ unit make a legal army (just to get started with). Besides the armies, dice and the rulebook, do I need anything else?"


Tactically easiest? Well that depends on what you mean. The ease at which an army is played depends on whether you're playing against experienced opponents or not. I will here summarize the strengths and strategies of the armies. Any ratings of "difficulties" are purely subjective, and reflect my opinions on grasping an armies core strategies and strengths.

Beastmen- Their new rulebook just came out and greatly changed the make up of a Beasts force. Their strategy revolves around being fairly fast moving (lots of chariots and cavalry) while also being able to control large parts of the board with the ambush rules. I'd rate them a medium difficulty army to learn how to play correctly with.

Skaven-Also had their armybook re done recently. Tons of options for army strategies. There's several very competitive strategies to play with and with the vast range of models they have, a general could have a good time crafting armies to play against any skill level. However, they do have a ton of models and rules, so its a lot to process/assemble/paint. I'd rate them Medium to Low difficulty to learn to play.

Warriors of Chaos-The strength of WoC comes in learning what their strengths are. This is easily summarized as such; Warriors demolish face at close combat. As soon as a general realizes this and aligns his strategies to maximize this strength, he will do very well. I'd say Low difficulty to learn how to play.

Dwarfs-Dwarfs are similar in that they have one core strategy that is there only real option for competition. Shoot. A lot. Lots of shooting, and waiting for the hopefully depleted enemy to make contact with your slow, hard to kill blocks. Low difficulty to learn the core strategy.



Now, on the other hand, their competitiveness varies a bit more. These are also very opinionated and will vary from gaming group to gaming group. Also, if your opponents are very practiced or skilled, or possess a distinct lack of experience, this will alter the relative powers of each army. I'm rating the "power" of the army based on its effectiveness against somewhat seasoned opponents and I'm assuming you've grasped the core strategies of your chosen army.

Warriors are probably the "strongest" out of these four choices. Their combat effectiveness is second to none in the whole of the warhammer game, and this makes them a dangerous army to play against. If you learn quickly on how to best maximize their hittiness, then you'll do well. Conversely, they also can have a very strong magic phase, so if you decide to mix it up you can easily catch some armies off guard.

Skaven are doing very well for themselves now too. They have a very strong selection of special and rare choices that give a lot of armies the fits. (Doomwheels anyone?) however, they have a high level of randomness to much of their special weapons/magic and so many people rely on their hordes of cheap basic troops. This strategy can also be very effective if played well, as Skaven have gobs of support for their footslogging infantry.

Beastmen by most accounts are on the lower end of middle tier when it comes to power. While they have a lot of mobility, their army suffers from some weak core choices and poor leadership across the board. They don't have near the support options of Skaven and thus rely on a general that has a true grasp of the movement phase to get the best matchups possible.

Now Dwarfs, poor Dwarfs. They suffer from the lowest movement values in the game. Also, they have to invest a great deal in ranged options and magic defense, so they are usually left with only a few outnumbered infantry blocks that are hard pressed to hold flanks/not get overwhelmed. It takes a skilled player to win consistently with dwarfs, as many dwarf games come down to rolling well in the shooting phase.

If you have any more questions that I might be able to apply my completely biased opinions to, feel free to ask.

I would have to disagree on WoC being the strongest of the choices. They don't really have much going for them. Their block units are all really slow, ranging from too expensive but hard to kill (but never make it to combat against things that know what they do) , to cheap enough but don't do anything since they are slow and get cut down by faster opponents. So that leaves the fast cavalry option being the most viable. Their special choices are all really expensive, but the knights are so much better than the monsters it isn't even funny, so knights are only special worth taking. In the rare slot there isn't much to choose from either. The available options range from too expensive (shagoths, giants), to random (spawn, hellcannon, shrine). Of those choices the shrine has the highest chances of making the rest of the army viable, so it is the best option. Since WoC lack much choice in magic defense, but low model count leaves them exposed to certain lores, it means that sorcerers must be taken for defense. Since 1 wizard isn't enough, it makes sense to just bring powerful magic of their own. (especially since the combat characters cost so much, and WoC lack ranged ability, wizards are the best choice (especially since they aren't terrible in combat).

I guess what I'm saying is that WoC are pretty much stuck in mono build rut like most of the old books. They have the illusion of options with all the monsters and seemingly powerful units and characters. But everything is just too points intensive and you can't spend anything on units that aren't optimized. That and they lack any decent shooting, only a couple of units have any ranged attacks at all.

I would say the armies competitiveness in order are this:

Skaven
Beastmen
WoC
Dwarfs

There is a big gap in between WoC dwarfs though, Dwarf have the problem of being an army that can only compete in one aspect of the game. They can't move and force the enemy into combat, which means they don't contest or win the movement or combat phases. They lack magic of any kind, but can bring some magic defense, so they can't win the magic game offensively but contest the defensive magic part of the game. They have a large selection of shooting units, but how many of them can move and shoot? So their vaunted shooting can be negated by concentration of force and speed. I don't recommend dwarfs to anybody other than people who just like playing and don't care about winning (even then dwarfs don't do much and can be boring to play)

Skaven are easily the best shooting list right now, and they do horde better than the main horde army does (O&G are handicapped by their awful animosity rule). They don't have a full suite of options as an army, but they have enough and most of them are strong enough to justify taking depending on the list.

I would rate beastmen higher, except they are really difficult to play correctly, with lots of list building and tactics traps that can trip up players. (they have some ooh shiney units that look good, but distract from what the army is supposed to do). They don't have much in the way of effective shooting, but they do have skirmishing and potentially ambushing archers that are really cheap to take. They make up for lack of shooting with extremely effective CC units, and the ways and means to deliver the units intact. Their biggest flaw is leadership, but that isn't as big a hurdle as other would lead you to believe.

Thanks everyone for the quick and informative replies!

@ Daemon Dave...sounds good. Forgot about the army book, doh

@ seriousbizzle--just easiest to pick up in go. I.E. for 40k everyone says Marines rock as a beginning army....wanted to see if there was a Marine equivalant in WHFB.Thanks for the extremely helpful reply, that's pretty much what I was looking for.

@ notabot187--thanks to you too! Overall it seems Skaven are pretty decent. I think I'll go with them for my army, not sure about the second one yet...will require some thought.

It's a shame the dwarves aren't the greatest, I really really really liked the look of them.

I'll say this- I'm currently pulling a winning record with my combat Dwarves. 3 war machines, a gyro and the rest combat characters and blocks. I've had fun with it, but there are definitely match ups where I'm hoping the other guy makes a mistake.

Most of my wins come from running into newer players, or armies not built super-aggressively, though I've done alright against the hard ones too.

So, depending on who and how you play, all hope isn't lost on the Dwarf front.

RZ

That's good, because I couldn't stop thinking about how fun a Dwarf army would be to paint....

Looks like it'll be Dwarves and Skaven....classic opponents!

Skaven require a special sort of insanity... I mean, dedication to paint. I've been working on mine for three full editions, and now with the new release I've got more stuff I need to paint...

Expect to paint a LOT of cheap infantry - and I mean a lot, as in 5+ units of 20+. This is true even for the more elite options of Stormvermin and Plague Monks. If you're sticking to a horde feel... 8-10 blocks of slaves and clanrats, backed up by a single unit of Vermin/Monks is not terribly unusual. And both builds will depend upon the special and rare killy units to deliver punch.

The good news is that Skaven infantry is cheap enough to take in such mass, and still have enough points left for those special and rare killy units.

I recommend choosing one where you are playing in every phase of the game - movement, shooting, magic, and combat.

WoC seems to do so, and you can easily change up the army by marking units differently, adding magic-users or using more mounted units.

- Blackbone

Blackbone wrote:I recommend choosing one where you are playing in every phase of the game - movement, shooting, magic, and combat.

WoC seems to do so, and you can easily change up the army by marking units differently, adding magic-users or using more mounted units.

I disagree. Warriors of Chaos don't really participate in the Shooting Phase. I think the Skaven are a better example of an army capable of participating in all phases of the game.

Airmaniac wrote:

Blackbone wrote:I recommend choosing one where you are playing in every phase of the game - movement, shooting, magic, and combat.

WoC seems to do so, and you can easily change up the army by marking units differently, adding magic-users or using more mounted units.

I disagree. Warriors of Chaos don't really participate in the Shooting Phase. I think the Skaven are a better example of an army capable of participating in all phases of the game.

Dark elves, lizards, high elves are also good examples that participate in all phases.

A correctly built Chaos Daemon army can use all the phases. And they are top tier, and not too expensive, and you can put square bases on and friendly opponents will let you play 40k with them too. Seems like a perfect choice to me.

scarskull5 wrote:A correctly built Chaos Daemon army can use all the phases. And they are top tier, and not too expensive, and you can put square bases on and friendly opponents will let you play 40k with them too. Seems like a perfect choice to me.

Actually you can put them on Round Bases, and then there are specialized bases that sell that you can seat the round bases in and are Warhammer legal. People love em. MAkes me wanna start Daemon armies for both.

Ragnar4 wrote:

scarskull5 wrote:A correctly built Chaos Daemon army can use all the phases. And they are top tier, and not too expensive, and you can put square bases on and friendly opponents will let you play 40k with them too. Seems like a perfect choice to me.

Actually you can put them on Round Bases, and then there are specialized bases that sell that you can seat the round bases in and are Warhammer legal. People love em. MAkes me wanna start Daemon armies for both.

Links to these bases please, and surely people won't mind playing 40k against sqaure bases it's hardly that much different.

http://www.gf9.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=103

huh, looks cool but I'm already based me daemons on squares, plus I'm from England.

what ever you do dont go with dwarves nononono 3" a turn very expensive not alot in stock nononono plus da skullsmasha (my grand warboss) smashes dem short humies squishy squishy

Plaugerat, mind stopping with your completely arrogant statements.

Dwarves aren't as bad as you describe. They can make one hell of a gunline.

Yes, I find arrogance extremely annoying..who gives a damn what "Skullsmasha" can do....I browsed your posts, seems you like to brag about your warboss...very annoying.

If Dwarves make a good gunline, that's great! I like shooty armies that don't involve pointy ears

Very reliable and such too. They're runes and stuff are REALLY cool.

Personally, I love their s7 flaming bolt throwers.

My first army was Dwarves. I love their attitude that they will fight to the last man....umm.. dwarf. They are a very resilient army, although they do suffer in the movement phase. Even their shooting is all move or shoot weapons, so your deployment is vital to your chances of winning. I also really like the fact that you can custom build your characters by the runes you give their weapons, armor, and such.
I would say the drawback for my dwarfs is the variety. Every unit is a dwarf unit I mean that all the other armies you have a chance to pick something different for the army to break up the monotony. The other drawback (not really for me, since I am not overly fond anyway) is no magic, but their defense is quite good.
I believe they are ranked so low because of their movement. IMHO movement is the most important aspect of the game.

If you like shooty armies also, skaven might work well for you....

They have a decent shooty list (im working on one i want to play now)

However you have to understand and know that things can go wrong very fast with them. If you will get annoyed by misfires and what not they probably arent the army for you. Personally I find there credo of, once it works most of the time start working on something else totally hillarious.

Generally, I think Dwarves are ranked low because it's hard to force the issue against many armies. That is, if they don't want to engage there's not a lot you can do. And I often find that I've broken all my opponents units, only for them to rally again out of reach, retaining half or all their points. So big wins turn into small wins, and small wins turn into draws. In a tournament environment that rewards big wins, this is a drawback.

@plaugerat (sic): It's fine to put up 'humorous' posts, but it's better if they have something substantial to add to the thread. Also, it is strongly recommended that you take the time to put some energy into punctuation, capitalization, spelling, grammar, and the like. You don't have to be perfect (nobody is), but you ought to make the effort. Your post here doesn't appear to have done that.

I think you'll find folks much more receptive if you take a look over the forum rules and guidelines and work within those to the best of your ability.

RZ

Yeah, I find that combat heavy dwarf armies can't really do anything if your opponent doesn't need to engage in combat.

As dwarf marching is 6", they march as fast as elves regularly move (as well, beastmen have M5)