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.

So, I've been wanting to get into Fantasy, but I'm a little hesatant. I really want play a Empire Gun Line, but given the large number of comments I've read about how overwhelming cannons and mortars are in 8th edition, I'm kind of wary.

Ideally I'd like to be able to play a gunpowder themed army with lots of cannons, mortars and hand gunners. But I'm I'm concerned that people might see that I've got six cannons and four mortars in a 2000pt list and think that I'm some sort of WAAC monster.

I like the idea of an army that fields exclusively gunpowder units, and looks down their noses at all the uncivilized foes still hitting things with sharpened sticks.

Is there any way that I could still create the sort of gunline I want and avoid being TFG? Are there Core or Rare choices that are sufficiently awful that they could balance the list? Ideally I want to field an army that has a good chance of losing, so that the game is still a challenge. Would the opponent look at me weird if I intentionally screwed myself over in the deployment phase?

You can only take 3 cannons and 2 mortars in a 2000pt list. You can go 6/4 in 3K.

If you really went all gunpowder/range, you will indeed be rough to some players. Other players will rape your face. If you spent a bunch of points on Master Engineers, which would match your fluff, it could also ease the hurt.

But go full shooty if you like. When/if the enemy gets in melee, the tables will turn and they likely won't be so upset. If you cream 'em before then, they will be.

Honestly a gunline is not TFG material in my mind. I mean theres alot of lists that laugh at gunlines. I would say build the list and try and make it fluffy, if they complain say its part of your fluff!

TFG is more of an attitude than the list you run, i wouldn't mind seeing a gunline across from me, it'd be a tough fight sure but once i get into CC the gunlone would dissolve, plus skink priests have blizzard

Well... I'm going to go slightly the other way and say you can get a pretty black powder themed army without going 100% all out.

Cannons and mortars without a steam tank takes some of the pressure off. Characterful heroes, or engineers taking some of the sillier options (hello mechanical horse!) also will help ease some players' pain.

Basically, commit to an *actual* theme and I don't think anyone can complain too loudly. Now if your theme, is Hans, the arch-lector, who likes taking out the war altar to go watch his steam tank race around, while shooting off 3 cannons and 3 mortars for a fireworks display, it gets a little iffy.

I'd be up for running at that list, but you'd have to be honest about bringing it because its hard, not because it fit a theme.

Your idea, however, has plenty of opportunity to be "friendly", though it will depend on some of the local players you run with.

I love fighting gunline armies it give my great eagles something to do. One advantage of using a take all comers list is I dont cry/whinge just because my opponent has x amount of a certain unit.

This everyone has to hold hands and braid each others hair approach to gaming is getting old real quick. Aslong as you are polite to your opponent I dont see a problem with fielding what you want to field.

Red_Zeke wrote:Now if your theme, is Hans, the arch-lector, who likes taking out the war altar to go watch his steam tank race around, while shooting off 3 cannons and 3 mortars for a fireworks display, it gets a little iffy.

Sigged

TFG isn't so much the list design, it's the way you play.
TFG is more the kind of people that line giant units of Zombies infront of their VC army to cause 'wounds' for the Purple Sun to get endless powerdice.
I'd have no problem with playing against an Empire Gunline as long as I can put up a TAC list and you aren't a complete dick about it.

Yeah, a gunline or other SAD (shooty army of death) list isn't impossible for most armies to deal with. However, if they optimized for close combat (or worse, an infantry Deathstar) they are gonna get creamed. On the other hand, a maneuver or ambush army is going to cream you instead. So it depends on how rock/paper/scissors you want your games to be.

Personally, I think you should go for a more balanced list. But heck, it's your army not mine, do what you enjoy.

For friendly games spend points where you normally wouldn't - command on shooting units, mechanical horses etc. You could also take units like Pistoliers/Outriders, things that fit your theme but usually are not seen in a tournament environment.

When you go to a tournament on the other hand the gloves come off - bring whatever you want.

You will get negative feedback from most players at the table for running a gun line. You can mitigate that by running less-than-optimal options (full command in Handgunner units, characters with themed kit, etc), as people here have mentioned. Additionally, keep in mind that black powder armies did employ units of spear/halberd/pikemen to anchor lines and run off enemy cavalry. With that in mind, you should probably include a couple of units of Halberdiers or Spearmen to both A) fill some of the points in your army with with models that don't shoot, and B) work towards a proper theme and not just a power build. Attitude also goes a long way towards how your list will be perceived; if you're a fun opponent then people will be more likely to forgive any perceived issues with your army composition. Keep in mind though, if people consistently don't enjoy playing against your army, you're either going to have to find new people to play with, or change up your list.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to all that jazz about being WAAC for having a gunline anyways.

I never understood unhappiness with hard lists. Maybe it's just my enviroment I play in (3 players here were top 10 in warhammer fantasy ard' boyz finals.) but having a fun game is about the person you are playing with.

Besides, you can lose artillery pretty easily, and once they engage in melee you wont have much left to shoot at.

I guess the point of this ramble is there's nothing wrong with you building whatever theme you want, and you shouldnt have to take bad units intentionally just to "balance" the game.

Thunderfrog wrote:
I guess the point of this ramble is there's nothing wrong with you building whatever theme you want, and you shouldnt have to take bad units intentionally just to "balance" the game.

QFT

In all honesty it bugs me when players do not bring their A game, I supose if your just learning its understandable but if you and I set up a game I dont want you to go easy on me, I want a challenge!. But then again thats just me

Why should you tailor your lists so that they are:

A) Not exactly what you want?

AND

B) Just to make your opponents happy?

Field whatever you want to field, it's a hard list, but people either have to step up their game or just not play. I hate the carebear attitude so prevalent in games and now into Warhammer and 40k. Bring your A game, part of a game is winning. Who wants to lose all the time? Even unconventional builds can work well if the player plays his game well.

Because it's a two player game. If only one side ever has fun, you won't be playing for long.

I'm guessing if LeBron James is shooting hoops with some kids, he doesn't dunk on them every time, 'cause that would be boring.

I scale lists up and down all the time depending on what the environment is. If it's a no-holds barred, then I'll go for whatever. If it seems more relaxed I'll go suboptimal. If I've got a relatively new opponent, I'm not going to try to table him in two turns.

You yourself said you don't like winning by a landslide.

I'm not saying people are bad for playing as hard a list as they can. But it's not always appropriate. And I'm saying that if you have a little social awareness, you might see that there are more factors involved in the game, than simply who won at the end.

People come to the game for different reasons. Either find players who enjoy similar things about the game, or be prepared to adapt a little bit.

I had this happen at my FLGS. An Ork player offered to play me in a 1,000 point game against my CSM. He told me it was his second match. I built an incredibly bad list, but played it to it's max potential. We tied the game with 5-5 kill points. Ten minutes later I hear him talking how he has actually played many more games, been playing for a while actually. That turned me sour. I hate getting lied to like that. That scenario turned me sour to fielding crap lists, as everybody else at my FLGS plays very competitive lists and I turned it down once, just to see it backfire.

But I still don't quite get it. One bad experience soured you for good on the concept? And who cares, what's the worst that happened? You drew a game you would have otherwise won. There is no giant scoreboard tracking everyone's total win-loss.

So lesson learned with that guy. You can safely full throttle it up if you go at him again. But if a guy's going to lie about his situation to gain an edge in a game, I don't want to play him again anyway.

Just because one person lied about their intentions doesn't mean you should assume everyone does.

I think OP just needs to feel out his group, see what kind of list is still going to be fun. He might well find that the full on, max artillery list is totally cool. Or maybe its cool for most, but for a couple, he'll want to make some changes. Who knows.

Just don't understand why so many people think there's only one way to play the game. You don't have to be "fluffy" or "hard-core"... you can be both.

Meh. Most armies have ways to counter gun lines, miners, gutter runners, chameleons, harpies and so on. A balanced list should be ready for anything.

Red_Zeke wrote:Just don't understand why so many people think there's only one way to play the game. You don't have to be "fluffy" or "hard-core"... you can be both.

Amen.

When I learned Warhammer nobody held back on me, people just went full throttle. However, they showed me mistakes I made and the concept of a take on all comers list, to be able to take down anything. No mercy I tell ya, it was rough it first, but overall it was worth it. When I win I always talk to my opponent about what they could have done better and give tactical tips, I'm not an ass about it. Conversely, when I lose I ask my opponent what I could have done better, which improves my game even more. If everybody seeks a path of growth your local metagame will improve and people can enjoy even match ups more often, which are the best games.

We teach our new guys against soft lists that get harder and harder, as we once had this kid who started playing bretonians when 8th was in its early months and our Skaven player ran a soon to be viewed as hard list against him, and honestly it destroyed the dudes game and I have only seen him in the club once or twice after that :(

Are you looking for a 17th or 18th century style army? If you are going 17th century half your infantry can consist of pikemen (spearmen) and still be a realistic gunpowder army. In 6th edition I used to toy around with the idea of an all gunpowder army. Six cannons, 3 helblasters, and over a hundred handguns for a 3k army. My friends didn't like that idea too much.

As some have mentioned, I really don't see fielding something like that as a TFG kind of person. If you tell me you like gunpowder (I'm actually a fan of the stuff IRL), and you like to field gunpowder armies, that's fine. If it's a codex creep considered OP/Cheese/Cause-for-bitchfest I really won't mind at all. That's like being pissed off at someone who spams tanks in an IG army in 40k. Or at least that's how I see it.

The way I see it, it's not the army that makes you a TFG, but it's your attitude. Your army, worst case scenario, makes you look like a WAAC kind of guy, but def not TFG.

Get yoursef the Empire heraldry book, paint your army in the style of Nuln and say its the Nuln gunnery school out on manouveres.

It's not just a case of people thinking you're TFG - there's also an issue of how much fun the army is to play. Do you really think you're going to to find long term satisfaction in saying 'everything stands still and then I shoot' every single turn. Not only that, but you'll find against armies with enough fast elements you'll frequently get thrashed, and against armies with large infantry units you'll thump them, and there's not much on the table that either you or your opponent can do about it.

That's kind of the thing with any extreme list, it makes the game more about the match up of the two lists, and less about how you actually play on the field.

There are things you can do to change this up a bit while keeping your theme, like including pistoliers (though their effect in disrupting the enemy march is pretty marginal under the new rules). While it might get you labeled as TFG, at least a steam tank would give you a unit that isn't completely squishy in combat, that you could advance up the table to hold certain enemy units in place while you shot up the rest of his list.

I would really, really think about having some halberdiers in your list, as well as the steamtank, to at least give you some reason manoeuvre in amongst all the blackpowder madness.

Alright its annoying me now dakka wont show me what TFG stands for guys help

That f- ing guy. It's a catch all term for people who are extremely unpleasant to play against, either because they cheat, rules lawyer the whole time, run overly competitive armies in friendly pickup games, etc. etc.


Edit: Depending on your browser, if you see a term show up in yellowish on these boards, you can hover your mouse over it and get a list of common meanings.

It does... it's the second one on the hover over list.

streamdragon wrote:That f- ing guy. It's a catch all term for people who are extremely unpleasant to play against, either because they cheat, rules lawyer the whole time, run overly competitive armies in friendly pickup games, etc. etc.


Edit: Depending on your browser, if you see a term show up in yellowish on these boards, you can hover your mouse over it and get a list of common meanings.

Cheers man and all it says is double click to edit, maybe its work blocking it i don't know

I've run against two gunline armies. Both were murder on me, until I got into melee, and then everything went south for my opponents. The first army was an older list Tomb Kings with Kalida and poisoned EVERYTHING. That was hella rough on Beastmen (what's an armor save, Daddy?)... I lost about a third of my army just crossing the board. Then my opponent lost 100% of his army.

The next army was an Empire gunline army (literally the Army of the Potomac, from the American Civil War... blue uniforms, no wizard, no melee troops at all) and that one absolutely tore me up on the approach. Lost 50% of my army to that one. T4 doesn't mean much when your getting shot with S4 guns. Then I made it across the board, and the tables turned.

I say, go ahead and run a gunline army. They are absolutely great. You'll have fun mowing down your opponent for the first couple of turns, and then he will have a blast slaughtering your army in hand to hand for the rest of the game. The only people who will call you "TFG" are the ones who haven't faced a gunline army before (and thus, don't realize that the secret to beating them is to actually play against them). Of course, if you whine and complain when you lose, you'll get called it all the same, but I get the feeling you aren't one of those kinds of players. I think you'll do just fine.