Poor Druchii: GT results

[Emperorpenguin]

Here's the list of armies and ratings at the latest GT

http://uk.games-workshop.com/tournaments/wh-2005-06/assets/wh-2005-06-final.pdf

Skaven won with them, Brettonians, Lizardmen and Wood Elves dominating

Poor Druchii, our highest showing was 78th! and only one other Druchii army made it in the list! I think we're entitled to feel our army is a bit underpowered...

Check out the Skaven list which won

http://uk.games-workshop.com/tournaments/wh-2005-06/4/

[Gnosis]

SKAVEN ARMY LIST
You can download a copy of Michele Fontana's winning army list for use in your own games of Warhammer.

DO NOT

That's pretty poor. And what a disgusting list. I would sooner pistol whip that guy than play his army.

[Rork]

I think we're entitled to feel our army is a bit underpowered...

Skaven, Bretts, Lizardmen and VC are pretty much the only armies that get a look in at the top spots at the GTs. To say Dark Elves are underpowered is only looking at one side of the story - some lists have ridiculously good options.

Doesn't matter if you finish 10th or 100th, you still get nothing...

[Dyvim tvar]

Pretty typical SAD army -- but it could have been worse. Warp Lightning cannons really aren't that great, and he got 2 of them. The list would be even harder to deal with if he had spent those points on jezzails instead.

But yeah, I would never play a list like that. Four ratling guns is just a bit much . . .

[Danceman]

I think we're entitled to feel our army is a bit underpowered...

Skaven, Bretts, Lizardmen and VC are pretty much the only armies that get a look in at the top spots at the GTs

Yepp, WE, skaven, brets and skaven are the strongest(and by that I mean the easiest to abuse).

But I cant say I´ve seen such an overwhelming amount of VC players getting top places. I think its abit unfair to place VC among such lists as SAD, Skink/krox+doomfrog etc etc.

I might be biased cause I am a VC player... but I know I rather face a VC than those kiddie-lists

[Tastyfish]

A Vampire counts and a Skaven player got 0 on the test as well, guess we won't know how hard it is until the quizbook comes out in a few months though.

[The liger]

Well naturally I'm not really surprised with the top spots, although I was surprised to see that Tomb Kings managed to get up to 38, as I think if any army has a right to be called underpowered, it's them. I'm pleased that they managed to do averagely though (better than Druchii at least!)

[Emperorpenguin]

here's the breakdown of the number of each army present at the final

Skaven 16
Brettonians 13
Wood Elves 10
Lizardmen 16
Empire 11
Daemon Host 13
High Elves 10
Vampire Counts 9
Dwarfs 8
Beasts of Chaos 6
Chaos Dwarfs 1
Orcs & Goblins 6
Tomb Kings 8
Ogre Kingdoms 5
Hordes of Chaos 7
Dark Elves 3
Dogs of War 1

there's something wrong when

a) the top 10 armies represent just 4 armies
b) said armies account for almost 40% of total places
c) Daemon hosts outnumber Hordes and Beasts of chaos 2 to 1
d) Dark Elves one of the commercially most successful ranges were represented the least of all major armies

[Seanzala]

And that is why I have never entered a GT.

The reason Dark Elves weren't there is pretty obvious really. They are a hard race to use well. Armies like Brets, Lizards, WE etc are all a lot easier to use.

Sean

[Langmann]

Just wait a year or two when they get redone and Dark Elves will be the next cheese. Don't you get it now? That's how GW generally works, though even they screw that up every now and then.

Skirmishing cold one knights with 4+ ward saves and units of stubborn manticore riders. I can see it now...

Soon there'll be no ranked units! After all 40K is easier to learn. Sigh.

However that being said, when played by two people with sensible minds about creating fair army lists, its a great game. Fundamentally it is up to the players to play it properly. These days I find I am much more selective about who I play against/with.

[Fr0]

I don't think that Skaven army looked that bad myself, it could have been worse. I saw no WFT's, just Cannons.

And they want to axe SoC lists, but leave the top armies as they are.. tisk.

Wow, I'm actually suprised to see the Daemon Armies! 13th? Not that bad for a crappy list.

Fr0

[Raziel02]

Well although the Druchii havent faired well, it doesnt neccersairly represent the army its self, i saw three or four Druchii armies, obviously with these percentages unless they are being played by the worlds best druchiii players we are going to struggle, untill we get a chesey army of our own, which i hope we do, we will just have to keep trying and maybe one day well be at the top, it would be nice to see a whole range of results from the tournements to see how the Druchii fair as a whole, if we dont get into the top in any of them, then we have a problem.

[Jamesfazzolari]

The reason VC no longer fair as well as they used to is because skaven, lizards and brets, the current "golden" armies, are all very good at beating VC - and thats why your not seeing VC in the top spots anymore.

jfazz.

[Rork]

untill we get a chesey army of our own, which i hope we do,

Why? Do you really want to sink to the level of those skaven players so you can get near the top spots of the tournaments? I don't see ending up playing anywhere between 3 and 6 souped-up armies fun gaming time.

There's more to this game than how an army fairs at a tournament. If you're having fun, the army works.

[Raziel02]

True but its just a type of revenge, but sayingg that to be able to beat an army that is considered to be cheesy with one that isnt, would be even better, so i see your point Rork, it would be nice to see that no army at all is cheesy.

[Fr0]

Why? Do you really want to sink to the level of those skaven players so you can get near the top spots of the tournaments?

WAAC... WAAC. Then again, you could ask the question; "Why play WAAC armies"? or "why powergame"?

What a fun hobby us dorks play.

I think matchups have a lot to do with how you place, then tactics then lists. A solid army can lose vs a bad matchup, a veteren with a mediocre list could win vs a noob with a great list etc.

Aye, would be nice to get a re-write but from what I figure we have Orcs and Goblins, Empire and Vampire Counts ahead of us, if we go in chronological order of the last books, but we got a revision so that puts us down after High Elves then Skaven.

Fr0

[Jamesfazzolari]

powergaming is in the eye of the beholder - look at my sig.

Sure, there are things that are a little to effective, and people use them to crutch for a low skill level (think SAD, brets, dodgy lizard lists) - but that does not mean they need to be rewritten.

In fact, I think having such lists around is actually good for warhammer, as it FORCES the rest of us to really learn the game in depth, to learn those little tricks, to learn when to flee, how to angle, how to bait, the best way to redirect and so on.

Simply, cheesy armies makes us learn to play faster than we would otherwise - you do not learn much from winning - but you can take much knowledge from each lost if you can pinpont what you are doing wrong.

Furthermore, it is fact that even with the hardest, most cheese filled list, a bad player will still get rolled by a good player - because the good player has knowledge of how the game works and its intricacies - if you look at all these top finishing skaven players, they are all actually damn good generals, using HARD lists, and therin lies the problem.

These top players could probably do almost as well with less hard armies, but younger, or less experienced gamers do not realise that, what they see instead, and what they generall hear on the forums is that list XYZ is way overpowered and needs a nerf - but if you play using that list your WAY more likely to win - even if your not that good.

Now, young players especially like to win - lets not deceive ourselves. Im young (17, 18 in 20 days) and I still like to win a lot. It makes me feel good about myself, and makes the game a little more fun (on the other side, getting massacred makes me feel stupid). I think there are a lot of gamers out there like me - who like to win and hate to lose (well not hate - but we would rather win), so we take slightly harder than the norm lists to boost our chances of winning - sure it sometimes gets a bad look or too but generally it is ok.

What we are now seeing after several years of no comp system at the UK GT is hard lists on steroids - because when it all boils down there are SO MANY good players in the UK that you need a hard list to be competitive. Lets face it, someone like Agser is gosu (thats godlike at games in korean - possibly the highest gaming acolade you can pay someone), so if he is using a hardlist, the only possible way you havea chance is to use a harder list - which inevitably leads to this "list race" between the top players, to build the hardest list.

In one examines the average amount of magic and dispel scrolls in each list at the UK GT, it has increased by one level and one scroll every year, for the last 3 years...(it is now 8 levels of magic and 4 scrolls apparently - but dont trust me one of my friends told e this but couldnt name a source, supposedly warhammer.org?)

So what can be done?

1. comp systems need to be brought back, and sportsmanship needs to be given a higher weighting than it currently has. Sports can act as another way to doc beardy players - as generally they are no fun to play against anyway. A comp score, say 20% of your total, will really give a strong kick to those hard lists, and indeed make them abut 20% less effective at winning tourneys.

2. "hardness creep" needs to be factored out. What i mean by this is that each successive army book is slightly better rounded, and thus harder than the previous book. Look at empire - they are a nicely rounded list, but there is nothing really special about the army. Then look at DE and asure which were released a little later, quite similar in that most units have no special rules and are quite basic, but we have a new lore, honours etc - so a divergence from a "basic" army. Then we look at chaos - were everything is crazily interchangable and customizable - which builds IMMENSE strength into the army. Then we have things like lizards and brets, which get awsome inbred racial abilities (natural ward or cold blooded for example) which make the lists naturally suited for tourney play. It becomes apparent that as each new list came out, a little something more was added to it - rounding the list further. While there is nothing wrong with the evoloution of army lists - hell thats great - it does mean the first books to come out are inevitably weaker than latter books - only VCs proved to be an exception to this, but even now they are no longer really competitive thanks to demonic legions, brets and lizards.

i think one thing that needs to be accepted is that it is inevitable that some lists will have inbred advantages over other armies, and that is part of the game. If I play orcs and goblins, with a checkerboard army, I know I will be strong against bretonnians, but lizards will really tear me up. Does that mean lizards are too good? No - i choose to take that style of army. Conversely, if i take an infantry chaos army, I will beat basically any other infantry army out there, but I will really struggle against bretonnians because all I can do is receive charges.

Why people get upset about this really surprises me. There is always a small rock paper scissors element involved in selecting an army type. This of course is why balanced lists generall do better - accepting that certain archetypes (all cav and checkerboard) are often just as effective if not more effective.

So basically, people need to appreciate that in choosing the army they pick, wether it be elves, dwarves, chaos or whatever, there is another list that will be strong against you because of its natural racial abilities, simply because you choose the race you choose.

[/rant]

now, I have a little more to add, but it is past midnight and I am meant to be writing an economics essay on gross domestic product and growth rates, so as much fun as this is, i better get back to work.

jfazz.

[Rork]

i think one thing that needs to be accepted is that it is inevitable that some lists will have inbred advantages over other armies, and that is part of the game. If I play orcs and goblins, with a checkerboard army, I know I will be strong against bretonnians, but lizards will really tear me up. Does that mean lizards are too good? No - i choose to take that style of army. Conversely, if i take an infantry chaos army, I will beat basically any other infantry army out there, but I will really struggle against bretonnians because all I can do is receive charges.

And I don't think elves (or dwarfs etc) will rise to the top of the competitive scene for that reason. Some armies can remove certain possibilties from their battleplan - Slaanesh, undead and lizzies essentially eliminate or significantly reduce the effect of psychology, and in the case of undead will never run away. Particularly with undead that's very difficult to balance since in most combat situations, even unfavourable ones, the enemy will likely be pinned in place. Skaven are a different beast since they have plenty of redundancy as well as reliability for their weapons/ld tests.

Why people get upset about this really surprises me. There is always a small rock paper scissors element involved in selecting an army type. This of course is why balanced lists generall do better - accepting that certain archetypes (all cav and checkerboard) are often just as effective if not more effective.

But that's more down to the general strategy than anything else. Armies have bad match-ups, but if it gets to the point where its "I have heavens magic, you lose" that's where the fun is sucked out of it.

Armies of "polar" strategies can at least attempt to out-think each other, but when two armies that turn up with their apocalyptic magic phases that's the point where you wonder what the point is - An army should be about strategy, not a single tactic.

[Jamesfazzolari]

I agree with everything you said, except that the game should not be decided on a single tactic.

Simply, why not?

If i have only one tactic, I really am not going to get very far. To take your exmaple of a really powerful magic phase, I will do well until I meet a very heavy antimagic army, or an excellent mage hunter player - then I loose.

Generally, anyone who relies on a single tactic will not do very well, and better players will be adept at exploiting the innate weaknesses with each tactic.

oh, and magic miscasts

I think elves, dwarves etc can be top lists - i just do not think that firstly; any of the really "top" players use these armies, or secondly that the golden lists are yet to be truly discovered.

If we had rob lane playing druchii, I bet he could do damn well, the fact is no one of his skill level plays druchii - Dark Alliance is close, but gary has chosen to take less hard lists (and good on him). We all know that when Dark Alliance takes a hard list - he gets the results.

jfazz.

[Emperorpenguin]

I don't think that Skaven army looked that bad myself, it could have been worse. I saw no WFT's, just Cannons.

And they want to axe SoC lists, but leave the top armies as they are.. tisk.

Wow, I'm actually suprised to see the Daemon Armies! 13th? Not that bad for a crappy list.

Fr0

I used to play as Skaven and trust me that is a bad list. He's not even pretended to theme it just grabbed all the best bits from different clans and made a very powerful list

I'd say the daemon list is very good and for there to be more of them than hordes and beasts combined when they're just a SoC list is worrying
I'd like to know if any of the Dwarf lists were Slayer armies and whether the Druchii contained CoS

[Kiwi]

I think we're entitled to feel our army is a bit underpowered...

Skaven, Bretts, Lizardmen and VC are pretty much the only armies that get a look in at the top spots at the GTs

Yepp, WE, skaven, brets and skaven are the strongest(and by that I mean the easiest to abuse).

But I cant say I´ve seen such an overwhelming amount of VC players getting top places. I think its abit unfair to place VC among such lists as SAD, Skink/krox+doomfrog etc etc.

I might be biased cause I am a VC player... but I know I rather face a VC than those kiddie-lists

From what i've seen of VC, they are one of the easiest armies to play tactics wise, they have overpowered lords and nearly every single unit causes fear. I think it's fair to place them in the same catergory.

[Spacepup17]

You could say the same thing about Ogre Kingdoms, only not. Almost all our units cause fear, our characters are big and scary, and we can just mulch through low-armorsave armies.

We are the best? Nope. You gotta look at the bad sides too.
We have almost no armor, poison is devistating, and any character with outowounding weapons can jubaliee our characters.

You can't just look at the good parts of an army, you have to look at it from both sides, the player of the army and the person being faced by the army.

Vampire counts have plenty of bad parts, if the general dies, the army crumbles. If you can nullify magic, their army doesnt get any bigger, things like that.

[Danceman]

There's more to this game than how an army fairs at a tournament. If you're having fun, the army works.

Words of wisdom indeed.

-

Kiwi: They arent more overpowered than Tomb kings, Chaos lords or DE
anointed(which is pretty damn tough). They often have worse choice in Armour/ward than chaos lord/DE anointeds and a VC count usually cost around 320-340pts, that is alot of points in one model or which we must take every time, unless we go with a necro of course.
Same with our heroes...
Also the worst troops in the game, cant expect to kill much at all with these other than the odd kill a skeleton will do every once in awhile.

every unit causes fear or terror in a VC army btw

VC are a good army, reliable but placing it on the same level as SAD armies... thats just being a poor sport(or you might only have seen VC-powergamers I dont know).

[Jamesfazzolari]

danceman is quite correct, VC are in no way in the same category as SAD - but a good VC player will do much better than a SAD player - the VC army can be downright brutal.

jfazz.

[Kiwi]

Kiwi: They arent more overpowered than Tomb kings, Chaos lords or DE
anointed(which is pretty damn tough). They often have worse choice in Armour/ward than chaos lord/DE anointeds and a VC count usually cost around 320-340pts, that is alot of points in one model or which we must take every time, unless we go with a necro of course.
Same with our heroes...
Also the worst troops in the game, cant expect to kill much at all with these other than the odd kill a skeleton will do every once in awhile.

every unit causes fear or terror in a VC army btw

VC are a good army, reliable but placing it on the same level as SAD armies... thats just being a poor sport(or you might only have seen VC-powergamers I dont know).

I'm sorry, I don't know a tournament legal DE lord that has a 1+ armour save on foot and a decent ward to go with it, has a basic toughness of 5, that can hit as many times and as hard, and cast magic for what you pay for a VC Lord, do you?

well isn't a VC-powergamer the same as a Skaven SAD player? Not all Skaven players use SAD lists, just like not all VC use "power" lists. But they happen ( a DE annoited isn't tournament legal now as well ). A Bloodline ( Brool Dragons ) that can have Black Knights and Tomb Guard ( KB ) as core. It can pretty much have an entire army hitting with st 6 and with a toughness of 4, causing fear, not breaking, units of skelies and zombies being risen in support. How can that not be compared to a SAD list?

And do Ghouls and Dire Wolves cause fear?