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, as title says, and like similar threads, I'm a player looking at joining WFB. I'm interested in Lizardmen right now, mostly because it seems making a Bretonnian army is needlessly expensive with 5 grail/questing knights coming in at a 'sold-my-kidney' rate of $75. I'd like to do Bretonnian, mostly because King Arthur is badass, but I don't feel it'll be economical unless I converted KOTR to be Grail Knights or w/e. I like Lizardmen almost just as much, because Aztec lizards and fat-ass frogs are awesome. I also am under the assumption that Lizardmen tactics are the most comparable to old Roman style combat - tough, elite infantry blocks with light skirmisher vanguards and next-to-no cavalry. Plus, I play Tau - so I like blue-skinned creatures.

So, can you guys convince me on the merits of Brets (if you think it's worthy for me to go that route) or Lizardmen? I've never played WFB, nor even glanced at the 8th edition rulebook, but I've *heard* that big creatures are pretty terrible and easy to kill (enemy artillery) and I'm under the assumption that a Lizardman army might be exceptionally exposed to enemy gunlines? Do Lizards have a good counter for artillery? Etc. etc. I've read the tactica for Lizardmen, but found myself still with questions.

An alternative Bretonnian army I was considering is a gunline army composed of hordes of Archers, several Men-at-Arms blocks led by dismounted heroes, war machines, and like sorceresses or pegasus knights or something for some more oomph?

Lizardmen are much more competitve. the Brettonian book is quite old, its still good but not Lizardmen good.

They pretty much are like you said, plus magic support from the most powerful wizards in the game.

Both can be competitive that is what is great about fantasy. If you like the brets roll with them and just convert up some grail knights.

Chameleon skinks with their poison blow darts are a great anti artillery choice.

I have just started Bretonnians and I have had a great experience with them.

I will admit to being disappointed with Grail Knights, they have really mediocre models for the price- especially compared with Questing Knights. Its weird, I love the Questing Knight models, but hate the rules, and I love the Grail Knight Rules but hate the models.

Other than that, everything is very fairly priced, the Battleforce gets you a lot of models, and getting 2 battle forces gets you most of the way to a pegasus knight unit as well. The Plastic core choices are all very solid, and those will probably make up the bulk of your army. The Trebuchet is a rip off, but it is a huge model.

All in all if you are into the aethetic of the army, you will not go wrong with Bretonnians. Compared to older armies in 40K they have aged very well. The Iconic Lance formation means that its possible to get that all important rank bonus with expensive cavalry, men at arms and peasant bowmen are still dirt cheap for what they are, with access to truly solid leadership special rules. While we are limited to only 3 schools magically we have access to Life which is one of the best in the game, Beasts which is solid on our cavalry, and heavens which is also pretty cool. We also have some really cool special issue wargear which can really take advantage of certain mechanics of the game and allow our characters to punch way above their weight class. Don't forget that for the small price of first turn, we get a Ward Save on almost our entire army! Its amazing.

I can't really speak for Lizardmen, as I have not had the pleasure of playing against them yet at our club. If you are looking to play big monsters though, you should probably take Lizards cause they have dinosaurs.

Brets only really have access to the Hippogryph- which is pretty much the weakest of the monsterous mounts. That said (Royal) Pegasus Knights and Heroes are an amazingly fun and gorgeous mount, which IMHO look far better than Terradon Riders. If you want to lead groups of knights into glorious close combat while being backed up by hordes of oppressed peasants, then Bretonnians will not let you down.

What? Trebuchets are the best stone thrower in the game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What? Trebuchets are the best stone thrower in the game.

I think he meant monetarily. At least I hope he did, as you say it is amazing.

Its a little expensive, but I think its no big deal. Especially for something where you won't need more then 2

Lol yea, I meant how they switched to fine cast, then upped the price by 15 dollars for the same model... total rip off!

In game though they are a steal for 90 points

Still considering what army to pick. Question, though - I watched a game or two and read a few AARs and from what I noticed most people tend to only take 1-2 blocks of large infantry, instead of actual "battle lines" with wide frontage.

Why do people choose to have fewer, but bulkier blocks of infantry instead of more blocks with a better chance to do things like flank?

I'd always considered WFB to be more "tactical" with battle lines and moves carefully planned - but from what I see it tends to be a lot less complicated (fewer units involved) in these wars of maneuver. Is there a reason people choose to have blocks of 40+ infantry?

Xyrael wrote:
Still considering what army to pick. Question, though - I watched a game or two and read a few AARs and from what I noticed most people tend to only take 1-2 blocks of large infantry, instead of actual "battle lines" with wide frontage.

Why do people choose to have fewer, but bulkier blocks of infantry instead of more blocks with a better chance to do things like flank?

I'd always considered WFB to be more "tactical" with battle lines and moves carefully planned - but from what I see it tends to be a lot less complicated (fewer units involved) in these wars of maneuver. Is there a reason people choose to have blocks of 40+ infantry?

The steadfast and horde rules favor larger blocks of infantry that being said the best list usually feature 2-4 big blocks of infantry supported by smaller units of elites, skirmishes and cavalry (this is known as chaff) ANd buff style magic is more powerful in the game then most direct damage spells so if you can only mindrazor one unit you want it to be a large one with lots of attacks.

You still have to maintain a solid battle line or your big blocks will get flanked and its really the chaff that requires skill to use as it lets you pick your fights be delaying or redirecting the enemies big blocks.

Go with the one that appeals to you the most. If you go with brits your in luck because their not a high demand army atm so you can probly find cheap Grail Knights on E-bay. Some of the guys at my game club convert Empire knights I don't know if their cheaper of not but it's an idea.

Xyrael not sure if this helps
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470806.page

:'P

Yeah, I really liked that article. It should be stickied. I also really liked the sticky "tactical article 1. army strategies" though after actually watching some games of the past few days I have to say that I think the tactical article is wrong. Most battles seem to revolve around 1-2 infantry units (a single hammer unit and a single tar pit unit; or two of each etc.) instead of battle lines involving multiple hammers and tar pits.

As a 40k player I'm accustomed to the myth that WFB is more tactical than 40k, however after watching some battles I have to really question that concept. It seems that the rules behind WFB actually just make it a game focused around unbreakable units buffed by magic, with unit maneuvers coming secondary to how well can the unit tank the damage.

That said, I'm still interested in getting into the game. It just seems more like having irresistible magic is what the game is really about, while I was hoping it was more about unit-based tactics. More like tabletop R:TW, if you will.

I think I'm leaning towards Lizardmen, since I'm already invested in an army focused on mobility and power (mech Tau). Slow and patient is something that interests me. So, can you guys give me an idea where to start with Lizards? What point level do they perform well at, are Slaan's necessary, are the dinosaurs worth using or are they point sinks that die too easily? The tactica posted in Luna's link is useful, but it more describes the strengths and not the weaknesses of the army.

Yeah, I really liked that article. It should be stickied. I also really liked the sticky "tactical article 1. army strategies" though after actually watching some games of the past few days I have to say that I think the tactical article is wrong. Most battles seem to revolve around 1-2 infantry units (a single hammer unit and a single tar pit unit; or two of each etc.) instead of battle lines involving multiple hammers and tar pits.

Thanks! yes the current stickied articles might be out dated, its pretty old.
The one I posted is for current edition, and I agree it should be stickied! if mods would....

As a 40k player I'm accustomed to the myth that WFB is more tactical than 40k, however after watching some battles I have to really question that concept. It seems that the rules behind WFB actually just make it a game focused around unbreakable units buffed by magic, with unit maneuvers coming secondary to how well can the unit tank the damage.That said, I'm still interested in getting into the game. It just seems more like having irresistible magic is what the game is really about, while I was hoping it was more about unit-based tactics. More like tabletop R:TW, if you will.

They are both the same, just priority and focuses in different phases.
I too dislike the magic system, for me it should be about choices, I should be allowed to choose between brute force or magic,
rather then taking magic only due to the handicap I would suffer without a wizard.

I think I'm leaning towards Lizardmen, since I'm already invested in an army focused on mobility and power (mech Tau). Slow and patient is something that interests me. So, can you guys give me an idea where to start with Lizards? What point level do they perform well at, are Slaan's necessary, are the dinosaurs worth using or are they point sinks that die too easily? The tactica posted in Luna's link is useful, but it more describes the strengths and not the weaknesses of the army

.

Lizardmen suffer from needing to come to the enemy, as they have no ranged worth speaking of past 12" and war machines rip up their ranks, overpriced cavalry, dinosaurs, and artillery crew like lizards without much in defense. And have no access to said war machines.

This is offset by the many strengths they have, and as a Lizardman player, they are a sweet army to play, great opportunities for painting, and are surprisingly versatile. Being able to pick any lore on your Slann, and loremaster on top of that, makes them dangerous. His 5 wounds, 4 toughness, 4+ ward and potential to be ethereal make him tough. He's expensive and can be a huge point sink but he can single handedly turn games with strong use of magic.

I like the idea of Brettonians, and think their army looks great fielded. But I would recommend lizards. Easy learning curve, forgiving play style, and weakness to only the cheesy multi cannon and gun line armies.

Very interesting, thanks for the tips guys. I was looking at Salamanders and I think they could be very useful against enemies with those very large units I have expressed my dislike for.

If the weakness for Lizardmen is getting across the board to the fight, would you suggest equipping Saurus with shields or spears? What's the best way to deal with a gunline/artillery army?

Also, how common are gunline armies? I've only watched a few games, so I've no idea what the prevailing army type is. Right now in 40k it seems everyone is reverting to a gunline because the rules favor it the most. I imagine in WFB it's different simply because some armies just don't have the option of doing certain things.

Also, question about magic as I "plan" my army. Is there an advantage to flooding your list with magic, overwhelming an opponents chance to defend against it through sheer numbers of dice? Just wondering if the Saurus heroes are worth it, or if Skink Priests might be fun to spam b/c they're so cheap.

They always get shields, spears just give them an extra rank of attacks on a turn they don't charge. Only use them if you are running a large enough block and expect to hit other blocks worth spending the points and losing their parry saves

Against gun lines, use speed and magic. Saurus are average speed, 4, but the rest is 6. Skinks, stegadons, salamanders, cavalry, can all cross quick and chameleons and terradons can hit war machines quick. Screen the blocks with skink skirmishers and get into their face. Magic can help in this regard. Lore of Life makes it so you can heal what they do to you and be tough as nails, Lore of Light speeds you up. Most gun line armies have mediocre to low initiative, so Lores of Death and Shadow have spells that kill based on initiative checks, and can wreck gun lines. The Slann has a magic item that can give him a 2+ ward vs ranged, and on top of that can be ethereal. So only magic ranged will hurt him and he ignores them on a 2+. You can leave him floating around on his own and be really sure of his safety.

Dwarves play gun lines. Occasional Empire, too. The rest at least meet you half way across the board. They aren't super common.

Magic wise, you get 2d6 power dice per magic phase. 1/6 per wizard for one more. Slann has an ability to create a free one per spell cast to use on that spell. Skink priests are mainly for getting the Lore of Heavens signature which hurts war machine shooting, getting an Engine of the Gods (awesome and has a 5+ bubble ward vs shooting to help) and to carry dispel scrolls and other arcane items you can't fit on your Slann. He'll be using the Cupped hands of the old ones to give your miscast to an enemy wizard. Yeah. Lizards are crazy awesome at magic.

I am the opposite to what most people say. I say take 1 block of saurus to stick your slaan in, and fill the rest with skinks, chamo skinks, terradon riders and salamanders. Stegadons don't do enough to make their points back on a regular basis, but in that one game they will do spectacularly.

Xyrael wrote:
If the weakness for Lizardmen is getting across the board to the fight, would you suggest equipping Saurus with shields or spears? What's the best way to deal with a gunline/artillery army?.

Engine of the Gods have ward save bubbles, its excellent.

Lizardmen does have artillery out side of 12".

Salamander can move and fire without penalty, use flame template, and roll artillery dice for "extra" range.

Bretonnia needs a lot of practice to make perfect. I have been playing for some three years, and after my WoC they are what have won me most games, granted they can be a somewhat glass cannon at times. And needs to keep a even flow of combat to keep their lines in order. I also always take with me hordes of men at arms

GubbinsGob wrote:


I like the idea of Brettonians, and think their army looks great fielded. But I would recommend lizards. Easy learning curve, forgiving play style, and weakness to only the cheesy multi cannon and gun line armies.

Hey hey hey Lets not bicker and argue about the most fun thing to do when your army is drunk off it's arse. For the time being that's one of the few things keeping the Dwarfs alive soooooo back off!!! XD

Lol. I admit, they do it well!