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.

Hi Dakka.
I just wanted to ask, which force ( order or destruction) has more 'good' armies in?
Thanks for any replies

P.S. can one player control an alliance of armies for instance WoC and DoC or Dwarfs and Empire e.t.c.

Order does, but even within that you will find some darkness in just about all their armies and that there are no real "good" armies in the sense. They just aren't necessarily evil bent on ruining the world.

Triumph and Treachery allows you to form alliances between armies in the main fold of the rules. Teaming up WoC and DoC or Empire and Dwarfs like you mentioned isn't usually allowed in a tournament scene, but I can't imagine casual games in a local shop protesting unless you just were trying to cheese list build. That said, there's speculation that when the new rules are dropped possibly later this year, there will be allowances for allies.

Do you mean "good" as in nobly intentioned, or "good" as in highly effective on the battlefield?

Good as in highly effective on the battlefield

ElfHound wrote:
Good as in highly effective on the battlefield

Then both.

But since you want an answer, let's say destruction, since it contains WoC and VC while order has brettonians and wood elves.

But you know... this comes up all the time in this forum, and the general consensus is that unlike 40k, the armies are fairly balanced and the person playing has a much bigger impact on how good the army is.

I think the 9th edition should come with more rules about alliances. Games with allied armies are very unpopular, but I enjoy them a lot with my friends. Double the units, double the pleasure!

KeyserSoze wrote:
I think the 9th edition should come with more rules about alliances. Games with allied armies are very unpopular, but I enjoy them a lot with my friends. Double the units, double the pleasure!

shh, if they hear you, they'll make it 40k alliance-matrix. Just keep your mouth shut and play it as you do already.

Naaahh...If they make it worse, and I feel it ruins the game, I will still play the old rules. When playing with friends sometimes we agree to ignore the fragile alliance rule because it makes skaven/dark elves practically unplayable. We do this when both sides have 1 of these armies.

I highly recommend not using the current allies rule. It does nothing but artificially limiting the way on how you play the game.

Agreeing with Sigvatr. I play skaven and a friend plays Dark Elves. We'd basically never be able to participate in a 2v2 game.

Oh, good on the tabletop? Destruction seems to have the better armies. WoC, Demons, Dark Elves, Skaven, and Vampire Counts are all strong. Even Orcs and Goblins have good variety and solid strength. Beastmen seem to be the only Destruction army that are relatively limited on the table top, but as someone else already mentioned, the commander behind the army is way more important in fantasy than it is in 40k.

Order has some solid strength with Lizardmen, High Elves, Empire, and the newly redone Dwarfs. Wood Elves are also about to get a long overdue update, which I imagine they will be on par with their other Elf cousins. People also like to discount Bretonnia mostly for their old army book and that they likely have never seen a Bretonnian player, but they are actually very strong. It wouldn't surprise me if they are using a new Army Book before years end as well.

Top to bottom, Destruction seems to be more complete in their strength, but Order certainly has its strengths.

KeyserSoze wrote:
When playing with friends sometimes we agree to ignore the fragile alliance rule because it makes skaven/dark elves practically unplayable. We do this when both sides have 1 of these armies.

Or in the instances where I've played with my mates, every game is a fragile alliance...and by that I mean we count things like friendly fire, where my Empire's 'stray' cannonballs 'accidently' blow up a 'allied' Bretonnian lance formation.

Absolutely not on purpose


Sure, we're all on the same side in the greater campaign, but it makes for a great laugh all round to add in the chaotic elements. Who needs enemies with friends like these?

Chaos you got your dark elves, your beastmen, and of course skaven.

OP: Summit only to the will of Hashut, man.

gilamonster wrote:
Chaos you got your dark elves, your beastmen, and of course skaven.

what about woc, doc and vc

gilamonster wrote:
Chaos you got your dark elves, your beastmen, and of course skaven.

Let's clarify

Chaos = Warriors of Chaos, Daemons fo Chaos & Beastmen.

Skaven & Dark elves are NOT chaos. They're just evil.