|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Jul 9, 2017 21:32:20 GMT
Hi All,
Now here's a controversial question.
What gives you the right to write about tactics for armies, especially those you don’t own. Now I’d be the first to admit I don’t know the rule book inside out, some of it is down to the armies I play and the rules I use a lot or not at all.
Example: I play Dwarves, Tomb Kings and Bretonnia. I don’t run away when charged, I’m either too slow, can’t as I’m undead or I lose my ward save if I do. It’s not an aspect of the game I use at all and therefore I’m not really qualified to talk about bait and flee armies. Do you see the point I’m trying to make?
Now there are some good tactical sections out there and if we copy and paste then fair enough but while I’m more than happy to discuss my tactics and thoughts but I don’t think my opinion would be the definitive authority on the subject. I’ve had mixed success over the years but never been a tournament winner. My friend plays TK, he uses Nek magic alongside death, not a bowman in sight. Now I too have dropped the larger units of bowmen but I prefer Nek and light which ends up in slightly different builds. Who’s right? It’s all opinion after all with no true “this list will win you tournaments but not friends”, That said I think it takes a good list, good dice and a little luck.
Your thoughts?
Greg
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Jul 10, 2017 5:58:53 GMT
When I got started with dwarfs I got some great advice from a guy who didn't own the army but had played against them over 100 times so I certainly don't think owning an army is a requirement to advise tactics and strategies for it.
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Jul 10, 2017 10:04:37 GMT
You can always try things out for yourself but different people have different ideas and you can try out new stuff. Also there are armies that I cannot beat or have no experience with. At the other hand there are armies I have lots of experience with. Within my meta, with my kind of play. But it is my experience and that is valid, do with it what you will.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jul 10, 2017 12:54:37 GMT
Great question. I think anyone can write whatever tactics they want. They have that inalienable right, but... I would pay attention to someone that has either (1) played over 25 games with the same army against a range of foes and/or (2) has won a tournament of some sort.
Your point "especially those you don’t own" is valid. If someone spouted off about tactics with army X and I asked them, "Cool, how many games have you played?" If they said "Uh, zero games." or "1 game" I would just laugh. You know what I mean?
It's the Internet - Anyone can write anything. But it's gotta mean something.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jul 10, 2017 14:39:37 GMT
As you say, you can have all the tactics and wisdom in the world but at the end of the day if you roll a crap load of 1's you are still gonna lose I think people can offer opinions on subjects, how much authority they have depends on their experience and how sensible what they are suggesting is. I tend to not really get involved in the threads about armies I am not familiar with because I assume the person posting will probably have a better grasp of things than I would. Really though it is all just an excuse to talk about a hobby we all love so I don't think I would hold it against someone
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Jul 10, 2017 21:16:09 GMT
I would pay attention to someone that has either (1) played over 25 games with the same army against a range of foes and/or (2) has won a tournament of some sort. Your point " especially those you don’t own" is valid. If someone spouted off about tactics with army X and I asked them, "Cool, how many games have you played?" If they said "Uh, zero games." or "1 game" I would just laugh. You know what I mean? It was this link to my previous post (in this Thread) that got me thinking. The bloke who wrote about the Tomb Kings should quiet frankly have a word with himself. There was no way he was refering to a book and I'm all for adding my own tactics to any of the armies I currently own, intend to own or have previously owned. The bloke who wrote about the Tomb Kings should quite frankly have a word with himself. There was no way he was referring to a book and I'm all for adding my own tactics to any of the armies I currently own, intend to own or have previously owned. The one thing I can say is that I have all the books so I can comment on all of the armies in one way shape or form. Regards Greg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 21:24:01 GMT
Playing against them often enough is another way one can comment about different armies. Even though I almost exclusively play WoC my regular opponents throughout time have ALWAYS been either skaven or high elves (even before IoB made those two armies super affordable). I feel that it qualifies me to at least talk about those armies and their tactics/wargear from an opponents point of view. Wood Elves are one of the few armies I know very little about, so I refrain from posting anything on those posts even though I have "theories". But I'm also joining the skaven ranks soon so I'll be able to talk about what works for me as a skaven player Just as a side thought: Does anyone play an army, but then midway through a battle wish they were playing with a different one? This happens to me all the time: I keep wishing that a [given] army that I'm playing with would turn into WoC. I always end up missing those really awesome stats. This weekend I kept wishing that my dwarves would sprout I5+ and develop another attack. I love the dwarves, and my beastmen, and my skaven, but I LOVE my WoC. Anyone else out there feel that way?
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jul 10, 2017 21:50:47 GMT
I think that anyone has the right to post whatever they want about any army they think that they should. It's their right as well as your right to completely ignore it if you want. After all it is only advice. But to vilify someone for having a viewpoint contrary to your own...well, that's just wrong.
That was a post that I found insightful and gave me plenty of things to think about. Weather or not I agree with 100% of his assessment doesn't really matter because a post like that is supposed to get you thinking. Do I take the same army every time because it's a list someone told me I should do years ago or should I be considering something else? That's why tactics exist. That's why we have a game. Otherwise we would all play the SAME army in exactly the SAME way and just roll dice.
It personally made me think about the way I play not ONLY my TKs, but the way in which I play my 8 other 3000+ point armies. I also have all the books as well as many other expansions and scenarios produced by GW (not End Times though - I saw those for what they were). I have more than enough "right" to post, comment, or pose questions that will spark an interest in the game. I don't play for the "ultimate build" or for discovering that "hidden gem", but to find new ways to use the same units that are given to us in the books. If there is something that can make me rethink the standard build, then I'm all for it. That is the whole point of even having a tactics section. What fun is it to simply say, "This is what you should take every time"?
So to accuse someone of "Not having the right" to post an opinion contrary to yours, especially when you don't know what they have or how many games they've played, is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jul 10, 2017 21:56:33 GMT
On a side note... who says you can't bait and flee with Bretonnians? That's what peasants are there for!
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Jul 11, 2017 11:11:01 GMT
Does anyone play an army, but then midway through a battle wish they were playing with a different one? Usually during list building. I want skaven gutterrunners, herogoblin on wolf, ironblasters and standard lores in every army
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Jul 11, 2017 21:33:09 GMT
On a side note... who says you can't bait and flee with Bretonnians? That's what peasants are there for! What are these pheasants you speak of??? On a serious note I use yeomen but as you know, there#s no point in fleeing my knights. Greg
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jul 11, 2017 21:50:24 GMT
Sometimes fleeing is the best thing to do, IF (and only if) doing so will a) prevent the loss of the fleeing unit (hard to do with deep Bret Lances), and b) it is realistic to expect said unit to be able to rally and later charge a unit. Sometimes being able to get that turn of S5-6 lance hits is worth losing a 5++ save on a unit with a base 2+ save.
Most often I do it with the units of 5 Knights-Errant I use as chaff hunters. Or, of course, peasants.
A fun army to maneuver with is five mid-size Lances of knights (9ish), a bunch of minimum-size units of archers and yeomen, and some peggy knights and/or paladins to shepherd them. Drop the archers right on the deployment line, and hold the knights back on the edge of the board. Then shove the peasants right up in the enemy's face, take potshots, clog up his charge lines and maneuver area, and place peggy knights in position to boost their Ld when they flee.
The knights then maneuver to isolate one or two enemy units and smash them in one big combo charge. Then wash, rinse, repeat.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jul 16, 2017 13:40:26 GMT
I think you can write what you like but it's good to clarify if it's theory hammer (or looking at the books) vs real life games. I don't consider myself an expert and even with those armies I have played a lot, I now tend to go towards certain builds so I get a little bit of tunnel vision. That doesn't mean you don't have a good understanding of how certain units/builds would perform. Stuff like tomb kings or Brets (which I've never played - well not since 5th ed.) you'll find me very quiet on unless I'm asking for clarifications or queries mainly cos I wouldn't be able to offer much that is useful
|
|