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.

Nearly everyone posting in this thread who agree about needing a sticky are the regular "crew" on the WHFB board that actually take the time to help people with there army list.

Ive seen cheesesteak,Aeethan,squash and the shadow (sorry If I forgot anyone but you know who you are) all take the time to help people sometimes making very long post offering good advice.

All we want is to have a damn sticky giving the most basic rundown on the armies possible so we can get to the good stuff instead of coughing up the same thing over and over again.

 The Shadow wrote:
These are good, but the problem with them is that each I imagine is promoting their corresponding army. Certainly the people on the links are likely to be slightly biased. Someone posted before about why can't you link to the GW pages on them. It's the same concept - GW are trying to sell you the army, so will usually only list the positives.

It's not the Moonies.

And besides a lot of people play more than one army, and are a member of more than one site. The advice on this sort of thing is isially about the same as is offered here - which figures do you like? which would you like to paint? which army most appeals to you? The only real difference is that the opinions tend not to be so general or based on 'tiers'.

Aerethan wrote:So we need a cynical thread about every army to balance things out? DIBS!!!!

No, not at all. What we need to refrain from is (using high elves as an example): "High Elves are really good because they have awesome Magic and very powerful combat units that ASF. They're also really cheap to buy because of IoB". We need to make sure we mention the flipside, i.e "However, High Elves are very frail and often have poor armour saves, making them relatively easy to kill. In addition, they'll almost always be outnumbered on the battlefield."

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:I don't believe sending people to other websites as a matter of procedure is how you run a discussion forum. In fact, it's rather nonsensical.

>This is a discussion forum.
>I would like to discuss.
>Cool. Leave.

You're missing the point. It isn't that we dislike the "Need help picking an army" threads or don't want to discuss those subjects. Heck, I love helping people pick an army and going over armies' traits, styles, etc. It's just how redundant and wearisome they are. I can only give so many half paragraph summaries of WoC and Lizardmen before i just want to say "try checking one of the exact same threads." OP in this thread, and others including myself, are simply asking for a Stickied thread that would make things better/easier for the regular suggesters and the new "need help picking an army" posters.

QFT.

marielle wrote:
It's not the Moonies.

And besides a lot of people play more than one army, and are a member of more than one site. The advice on this sort of thing is isially about the same as is offered here - which figures do you like? which would you like to paint? which army most appeals to you? The only real difference is that the opinions tend not to be so general or based on 'tiers'.

If the advice on these threads is non-biased then that's great, perhaps we could include them in the sticky.

Here's how this would work in my perfect world.

One thread. The Super Duper Army Choosing Thread. It has essentially what I put together in the earlier link, only more up to date and generally better. The key is that it's not just a description of all the armies, but suggestion for the process of how you go about picking an army, and helping you determine what your priorities are, what your own personal hierarchy of needs is.

Then, if someone still doesn't know, if for instance I'm still stuck between Ogres, Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (because I love monsters and want as many monsters as I can), then they post it in that same thread. And of course, regulars will keep up with the thread, because honestly these questions are fun. And I'm sure someone will point out "You can make an awesome Trolls army with Warriors of Chaos." "Have you considered Wild Elves? They don't have many monsters, but their tree models sure FEEL like monsters".

As a result, we'll get two things
1) People will know what questions to ask, and ask the right questions.
2) Conversations will stay interesting, rather than it being a rote exercise every time.

Just my $0.02.

Agreed. We need to get someone to be put good descriptions of each army, it's stregnths and weaknesses, what works, how best to start etc etc.

One person just starts the threads and gets info from the other contributors. I'll happily do Dark and High Elves.

 Squash wrote:
Here's how this would work in my perfect world.

One thread. The Super Duper Army Choosing Thread. It has essentially what I put together in the earlier link, only more up to date and generally better. The key is that it's not just a description of all the armies, but suggestion for the process of how you go about picking an army, and helping you determine what your priorities are, what your own personal hierarchy of needs is.

Then, if someone still doesn't know, if for instance I'm still stuck between Ogres, Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (because I love monsters and want as many monsters as I can), then they post it in that same thread. And of course, regulars will keep up with the thread, because honestly these questions are fun. And I'm sure someone will point out "You can make an awesome Trolls army with Warriors of Chaos." "Have you considered Wild Elves? They don't have many monsters, but their tree models sure FEEL like monsters".

As a result, we'll get two things
1) People will know what questions to ask, and ask the right questions.
2) Conversations will stay interesting, rather than it being a rote exercise every time.

Just my $0.02.

this is something I would support

Do you reckon we go ahead with this then? Even if getting it stickied is not a possibiltity?

Okay, unless someone objects I'll open a new thread and organise people writing descriptions

 Squash wrote:
Okay, unless someone objects I'll open a new thread and organise people writing descriptions

Excellent idea. Dibs on writing the descriptions for pointy eared beings that don't live in woods, if that's alright with everyone.

So should we all follow this template for writing the descriptions:

Army Name
'Tier'
Advantages and Disadvantages
Recommended Ways to Play
How best to kick start collecting

Or something like that, let me know if I've missed something.

 Squash wrote:
Okay, unless someone objects I'll open a new thread and organise people writing descriptions

edit: found it


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401561.page#3403640

Good memory. The project was different, it was to make a comprehensive tactica for every army here on Dakka. It was an incredible disaster.

It was an disaster because you wanted to claim a thread ( a hub if you will ) and have others submit their work into yours. I knew it wouldn't work since the start.
It'll probably repeat again unless you have enough supporters to share the burden.

With that said, do you have any examples done?

Wow. Okay, not sure what I did to offend you but I'm sorry. I meant it was a disaster because I had to move extremely unexpectedly. Notice how my flag changed from Australian to American. I was offline for like two straight weeks, it was nuts.

Anyway, on second thoughts, I do have a busy week for work travel, so somebody else should spearhead this if they want it done.

I wasn't offended or anything, so Im sorry as well if I sound offended? But I was been realistic, I know it has been a long time since November 2011, but are you going to pick up the last project? Since I have no idea when to when you were moving.

No, I'm out, if someone wants me to help, I'll help, but you're right, someone else should organise this.

I'll spearhead it, but I agree. We should gather those who'll sumbit info, make sure we've got one for each army and get their submissions in, and THEN make the thread.

See if you like the lay out of this http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470806.page

 LunaHound wrote:
See if you like the lay out of this http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470806.page

I definitely like that, LunaHound.

A couple things:
- I think it should be in the General Discussion forum, since that's where the majority, if not all, "I'm new and need help picking" threads are

- not sure if all units should be listed. Seems spammy (even though it's hidden as a spoiler). Maybe something more of a summary of the strategic categories? i.e.
Army X
close combat - Formidable, high str for core, very good characters
shooting - solid. Unit Y brings lots of shots for cheap. Unit X is overcosted, but can be very powerful vs. specific army lists
magic - mediocre. Overcosted magic items, nothing special about their unique Lore.
monsters - excellent. Cheap, powerful monsters in both Special and Rare
cavalry - non-existent
speed - very fast army. lots of scouts and high movement. Ini is high as well
misc - low Ld, but extended Banner rerolls/General inspiration
etc, etc

Of course, the problem w/ this is that it could reach the point of subjectivity (I know me and Jubear have debated HE units effectiveness ad nauseum). Also, some areas cross over (cav/monsters, speed/cav, etc) and could potentially be confusing. But the summaries are there for a reason, I suppose.

But I think having the tactic categories explained for each army would be more thorough and still easy to understand for new players.

edit:
also, posting this same reply in that thread.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can do a spoiler within a spoiler ( inception? zomg)

Basically maybe a general layout like you said for the beginners, and one more to click to display the detailed tactica right behind it.

 LunaHound wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can do a spoiler within a spoiler ( inception? zomg)

Basically maybe a general layout like you said for the beginners, and one more to click to display the detailed tactica right behind it.

also, since I suggested it be in the General forums and not Tactics, perhaps I should suggest the title should be changed as well, in order to attract the new players to click on the thread. Something along the lines of like "New players' guide to each army" or "Army summaries/tactics compilation for new players". ...maybe even "How to pick your Warhammer army"?

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can do a spoiler within a spoiler ( inception? zomg)

Basically maybe a general layout like you said for the beginners, and one more to click to display the detailed tactica right behind it.

also, since I suggested it be in the General forums and not Tactics, perhaps I should suggest the title should be changed as well, in order to attract the new players to click on the thread. Something along the lines of like "New players' guide to each army" or "Army summaries/tactics compilation for new players". ...maybe even "How to pick your Warhammer army"?

I'll definitely change the title and the forum section later . Right now Im not too worried about attracting any viewers because its incomplete :'/
I would feel bad for anyone that clicked it and be disappointed.

 LunaHound wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can do a spoiler within a spoiler ( inception? zomg)

Basically maybe a general layout like you said for the beginners, and one more to click to display the detailed tactica right behind it.

also, since I suggested it be in the General forums and not Tactics, perhaps I should suggest the title should be changed as well, in order to attract the new players to click on the thread. Something along the lines of like "New players' guide to each army" or "Army summaries/tactics compilation for new players". ...maybe even "How to pick your Warhammer army"?

I'll definitely change the title and the forum section later . Right now Im not too worried about attracting any viewers because its incomplete :'/
I would feel bad for anyone that clicked it and be disappointed.

haha, right I got ya. Also, I edited my post a couple above to add to the "Summary".

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can do a spoiler within a spoiler ( inception? zomg)

Basically maybe a general layout like you said for the beginners, and one more to click to display the detailed tactica right behind it.

also, since I suggested it be in the General forums and not Tactics, perhaps I should suggest the title should be changed as well, in order to attract the new players to click on the thread. Something along the lines of like "New players' guide to each army" or "Army summaries/tactics compilation for new players". ...maybe even "How to pick your Warhammer army"?

I'll definitely change the title and the forum section later . Right now Im not too worried about attracting any viewers because its incomplete :'/
I would feel bad for anyone that clicked it and be disappointed.

haha, right I got ya. Also, I edited my post a couple above to add to the "Summary".

Yep! saw it now. Maybe change the later edits into that thread ( so its just the 2 of us posting anyways )

but that raised a question Im worried about though. Simplifying it is nice and such but on what bases will people believe me from?
If I were to just say "skinks are very good at shooting" ? wont people need examples to be convinced?

 LunaHound wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can do a spoiler within a spoiler ( inception? zomg)

Basically maybe a general layout like you said for the beginners, and one more to click to display the detailed tactica right behind it.

also, since I suggested it be in the General forums and not Tactics, perhaps I should suggest the title should be changed as well, in order to attract the new players to click on the thread. Something along the lines of like "New players' guide to each army" or "Army summaries/tactics compilation for new players". ...maybe even "How to pick your Warhammer army"?

I'll definitely change the title and the forum section later . Right now Im not too worried about attracting any viewers because its incomplete :'/
I would feel bad for anyone that clicked it and be disappointed.

haha, right I got ya. Also, I edited my post a couple above to add to the "Summary".

Yep! saw it now. Maybe change the later edits into that thread ( so its just the 2 of us posting anyways )

but that raised a question Im worried about though. Simplifying it is nice and such but on what bases will people believe me from?
If I were to just say "skinks are very good at shooting" ? wont people need examples to be convinced?

well, I think the key is that this is a guide for new players. I assume most would give a stickied guide thread the benefit of the doubt of being accurate. I know if I was a new WHFB player and I came to DakkaDakka, saw the new player guide thread and it said "DE magic is some of the best in the game", I would assume it's true. If I had any specific questions, I could ask in that thread, or post a new thread in the general forums.

Like others have said, these are discussion forums, so maybe we don't want to explain everything in detail off the bat. Maybe just enough to pique a player's interest enough to ask questions/discuss the more detailed things.

So in that same DE magic example, if, in the summary, it's already explained "DE magic is some of the best in the game. They can sacrifice cheap core to add to their cast and basically auto-generate additional Power Dice. They can also learn additional spells past their Wizard lvl and have access to the deadliest lores, including their unique Dark Magic", then that wouldn't leave much up for discussion, right?

But, I am ok w/ more detailed summaries of the tactics categories. Speaking of which, is there anything else I'm forgetting? Close combat, shooting, magic (including magic def), monsters, cavalry, speed, misc.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:


So in that same DE magic example, if, in the summary, it's already explained "DE magic is some of the best in the game. They can sacrifice cheap core to add to their cast and basically auto-generate additional power dice. They can also learn additional spells past their Wizard lvl and have access to the deadliest lores, including their unique Dark Magic", then that wouldn't leave much up for discussion, right?

Yep, that is adequate yet informative. I have lots of reading to do then xD

Ooh we are leaving out something nasty and dreadful.

How the schools of magic synergizes with the army ( dear god this is serious issue and hard to address )

replying in that other thread.

Yeah, Dr. Cheesteak's right. First and foremost, it should get new players decided on their army choice. That means posting in General Discussion and less focus on Tactics and more on stuff like cost in money, how many models you'll have to paint and stuff like that.

In each Spoiler you'd roughly follow the step's that Shrang uses in his thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401246.page). And I reckon there should be a section at the bottom saying which armies play like what 40k army. We get loads of 40k Players saying: "I want to get into fantasy, I play X in 40k and would like a similar style army in WHFB"

I'll write something up for the ogres. I've gotten a ton of advice on multiple areas, played numerous games and am familiar with the daunting task of picking a new army from nothing. I'm currently attempting an empire army for the first time, (hence my other thread)

But I'll contribute to the idea above because I think it's a great one. A static resouce with collecting, converting, tatics, army comp etc advice would be pure win.

 DarthSpader wrote:
I'll write something up for the ogres. I've gotten a ton of advice on multiple areas, played numerous games and am familiar with the daunting task of picking a new army from nothing. I'm currently attempting an empire army for the first time, (hence my other thread)

But I'll contribute to the idea above because I think it's a great one. A static resouce with collecting, converting, tatics, army comp etc advice would be pure win.

Well its done guys, read it up, and discuss away!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470806.page

 LunaHound wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
I'll write something up for the ogres. I've gotten a ton of advice on multiple areas, played numerous games and am familiar with the daunting task of picking a new army from nothing. I'm currently attempting an empire army for the first time, (hence my other thread)

But I'll contribute to the idea above because I think it's a great one. A static resouce with collecting, converting, tatics, army comp etc advice would be pure win.

Well its done guys, read it up, and discuss away!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470806.page

I love your work