From reading around this forum and others where the Dogs of War players post, I have noticed something which I find interesting, and was hoping some other players could give me their experience and opinions on.
Namely, I see a fair number of players doing well with their Dogs of War armies. Sometimes I notice this in their signatures in various forums, showing winning records in games played, and oftentimes I see battle reports which are either competitive or actual victories for the mercenary forces. I have also noticed that very few of these games are against what I would consider truly powerful armies or builds.
Now, maybe it is just because people are more likely to write up a report for a battle which they enjoyed, or perhaps it is that gaming groups which include Dogs of War players are more relaxed and 'in it for fun'?
I was wondering if anyone here has some stories or experiences against armies that are not the Ogre Kingdoms. Forces that are made to win, with the most effective builds. Not necessarily the 'cheesy' or 'beardy' power lists, just armies built with the maximum benefit to cost ratio.
For Example, I know two Skaven players, and one often makes themed, less than optimal lists which he battles me with. These are effective lists, not handicapped in any way, but they are nowhere near the level of the other persons force.
The other player, who I consider a fun guy, ALWAYS has a hellpit A-bomb or Doom wheel, and he has endlessly debated the use of each against different armies. He nearly always has a BSB carrying a storm banner, and two mages in any game of 1250, as well as a unit of giant rats. He will never take Rat Ogres, but always a unit or two of censor bearers, and never fields Storm Vermin.
Perhaps needless to say, Many people struggle against him. He is not a jerk, nor do I fault him at all, our group is highly competitive and he often has close, challenging games against other players.
In closing, does your gaming group go more for the goofy fun? Do they include less-than-optimal units and choices regularily? If so, have you ever stepped into a more competitive environment to see how the game is different?
PS- Yes, i realize the skill of a player is very important to the outcome of a game, and no, I am not talking about going against first turn reduce-your-leadership-by-4 terror bomb and insta-destroy demon armies.
I run a Wood Elf Phalanx themed list, running the following set up;
Highborn, Great Weapon, Light Armour, Great Weapon, Rhymers Harp, Annoyance of Netlings
BSB, Eternal Guard Kindred, Royal Standard of Ariel
68 Eternal Guard, Full Command, War Banner
This is a deathstar with 5+ Armour/5+ Ward, Stubborn, Reroll Ld10, and a huge amount of attacks.
Well #1, I cheat sometimes in my battle reports in that I blog abut the ones I won usually. I didn't describe the battle I lost against my Skaven opponent. Largely because we had got so many of the rules wrong (Stormbanner/breakable DoomWheel) that I felt it was a pointless thing. And I'm sure that's the case a lot of the time, people only talking about battles they fared better at. As I get more experienced I'll change that.
#2. In my under 20 games I've played, I'm starting to realize that the Dogs of War aren't a horrible army. They have balance and some hard hitting troop types. They could be described as "bland" because they don't have a lot of weird specials or Lords in their basic list, but as you said, that's what a good general is for.
#3. Skaven are actually not a bad match-up for us. Their basic troop's aren't elite (make Pikemen look good). They have a worse leadership than us (which is rare) and if you can avoid pitched battles with their large blocks, than our maneuverability should help the Dogs play a good game. I've had good luck against the DoomWheel, only once (of 4 games) did it cause serious damage. The only time I was embarrassed by the rats was when my PM got Warpfired and sent everyone (and I mean everyone) off the board.
High Elves, Skaven, and Vampire Counts. These are the three main armies I fight (another Skaven player and a Lizardman coming soon). They always play to win and have a lot more experience than me in builds, and their lists are good. Each army has strengths that our well-balanced list can tailor itself to.
(05-17-2010 11:04 AM)Sadirath Wrote: [ -> ]#3. Skaven are actually not a bad match-up for us. Their basic troop's aren't elite (make Pikemen look good). They have a worse leadership than us (which is rare) and if you can avoid pitched battles with their large blocks, than our maneuverability should help the Dogs play a good game. I've had good luck against the DoomWheel, only once (of 4 games) did it cause serious damage. The only time I was embarrassed by the rats was when my PM got Warpfired and sent everyone (and I mean everyone) off the board.
Not that i am picking on your on your post or want to get this really off topic, but a lot of players seem to have a real misconception about exactly what the Skaven are really like. It seems to many people have bought into the fluff and haven't really thought it out for themselves.
Skaven troops may not be elite, but they are one of the best basic troopers, with a good movement and initiative, and they should really never make Pikemen look good. Consider some simple Mathhammer:
20 Skaven charge 20 Pikemen (vanilla) in the front. Pikes strike first, Skaven wall up with Hand Weapons and Shields.
20 attacks = 10 hits=5 wounds = 2.5 dead rat men.
2.5 skaven attack back = 1.25 kills = +/- 1 dead pikeman
Now, considering the fact that the skaven cost half the points of our unit, the should at least outnumber, meaning the fight is basically a toss up, and next turn, the Skaven will strike first.
Beyond that, the old 'Skaven have poor leadership' is just bunk. Most of the time, Skaven have the leadership of an elite army, or are Frenzied/unbreakable. It is only in SPECIFIC situations where you can nullify their leadership bonus, and that in itself is a topic for another thread.
Also, the old adage that, as an infantry force, Skaven are slow and easy to manuever around is equally false. Any horde army can cut off much of the field and do a great job protecting it's flanks, add to this the higher than average movement of their basic troopers (5), the fact they have several faster, hard hitting troops, such as Rat Ogres and giant rats (which can be about the best core they have), and more than one unit with a 360 charge which can eat through anything we have (Plague Censors, Hellpit A-bomb), and the great manueverability disparity is much less.
Lastly, the Skaven don't need to get into pitched battles with us, they can literally send in their super elites to decimate our army, supported entirely by overwhelming magic.
None of this is to say they are unbeatable, or by far the WORST match up for us, just that, if your opponent isn't taking some Stormvermin and Rat Ogres because he likes them, or a Warp Lightning cannon because it was powerful last edition, and instead takes a more, let's say, 'hardcore' force, you aren't going to get by on the 'classic' skaven weaknesses.
hmmmm I've played in one tournament 3 dark elves players. (I did not play warhammer for a year or 2.) Mayor loss, Crushing loss, Mayor victory.
2 things
1- ETC rules
2- When you play an enemy not knowing your enemy you almost certain find your zelf on the wrong end of it. Know your troops and know their abilities is very important before you know, or start to know your oponents army.
The first game against Dark Elves was a dissaster. (hydra, lord in a always strikes first halberdeer unit, with a huge woop ass weapon..... assassin and hydra)
The second game was a close run game. It could end up either ways, the dice desided against me. (dragon.... assassin and hydra)
The third game was again close run. But here the dice desided in my favour. (BSB with always strikes first elite unit and item Wardsave is strenght of oponent, kinda item. Blood cauldron ..... assassin and Hydra)
Ones I learn my opponents (armies) I start to anticipate, it works for me.
btw.
I played over 300 battles. From 2002 till 2007 I did many tourneys and the first 4 years I played every week one battle... at least..
That gives a great amount of knowledge which can be used (and dug up again when you restart after a 2 year rest periode)
(05-17-2010 01:58 PM)henerius Wrote: [ -> ]1- ETC rules
It certainly does! Those restrictions are a huge boost to Dogs of War. Well, actually not so much a boost to us as a kick in the pants to most other armies!
That being said, we don't use them for, really, any games over here, for a couple of reasons. The first being that showing up at a club or starting a game with one of your friends with the hopes that they will agree to (re)do their army using those restrictions is a little ridiculous. The second being that most of the people I play with don't want to be penalized for taking what they want, and I can certainly understand that.
(05-17-2010 01:58 PM)henerius Wrote: [ -> ]btw.
I played over 300 battles. From 2002 till 2007 I did many tourneys and the first 4 years I played every week one battle... at least..
That gives a great amount of knowledge which can be used (and dug up again when you restart after a 2 year rest periode)
That is a great deal of experience. If I had to guess, i would say I have played a little over a third of that, and when i leave the game alone for even a few months, I am rusty when I get back into it.
As for times I have been smoked...
I fought (another) skaven player not so long ago, and on my first turn he destroyed, hmm... let me think...
+/-15/20 Ricco's Republican Guard
+/-10/15 Paymasters Guard, and put a wound on the Paymaster
1 unit of 10 crossbows
1 unit of 8 dualists
1 unit of 5 light cavalry
and panicked one unit of Heavy Cav off the board
The really wild part was that none of this was out of the realm of reason, it was just that h is magical potential was so devastating, and even one irresistable force spell that effects an entire unit can heavily swing the game
Beyond that, I have lost brutally to a Psychology decked out Vampire army (lots of terror, leadership reduction, banshees, ect) in what was basically me rolling a leadership test for each unit on the board and packing my stuff up.
Geez, it's starting to sound like I never win anything!
Actually, I have done well and either won or tied against most armies out there. Except Vampires and Demons. At >2000pts leadership 7-8 is just not enough to hold it together, and at =<2000pts the lords just swing it too much.
I have been playing Dogs of War for many years since 2002 or so-- dont know how many games I have but its easily numbers 500+ I would imagine, between weekly games and tournaments.
The group that I normally plays tough lists and we all try to win. One member chooses fluff lists and unusual builds -- we feel sorry for him and wonder why he does that as we continually beat him. Another player is not very good and looses consistently -- not because of builds but because of skill -- we are working on him. The rest of the group goes for the juggular. I am about 50% victories against them.
I have found that my biggest problems are against Deamons (normal) and Bretonians. These two lists I regularly loose to. The rest of them I have better then a fair chance of winning against.
Now as I run a nonstandard Dogs of War list you have to decide how that works for you. I dont have any pikes and I am mainly a skirmishing list. I posted it in March after coming in 5th in a t40 man tournament. I am currently experimenting with Giants of Albion to see how they work.
If you wish I will begin putting up my builds and quick battle reports in the coming weeks.
(05-17-2010 03:48 PM)tarastop Wrote: [ -> ]If you wish I will begin putting up my builds and quick battle reports in the coming weeks.
I think everyone would appreciate if you were to do that. The more traffic and conversation on the sight, the better for all of us.
As for army builds, I don't normally run any pikes, but in most of the games in which I have been hammered, I have included a unit. Coincidence?
I am not sure if I have ever beaten the Brets, I can't remember any crushing victories at the moment, but I know that I have had a fair number of close games against them, and don't remember being blown out by them.
Also, this may just be me, but I have found that the Dogs of War are most playable between 1200-1500pts, where we can take a fair number of our better units, do not suffer quite as much from the required Paymaster, and our enemy is still prohibited from taking more than one of their rare super-units. Additionally, at this level we don't suffer so much from our lack of any real Lord builds.
I have a theory that at higher levels, where multiple lords are allowed, that the balance issue may be lessened as well, but have not had the opportunity to test my theory. Anyone want to weigh in on that?
As for fluff lists and gimmick builds, oftentimes someone in our groups tries to run one, but they are more on the level of a Vampire Counts army with two HUGE units of wraiths with banshees and ethereal vampires carrying a helm of commandment, ect. Or a Demon army trying to see if it can make it through games without losing a single unit (or sometimes more than a half dozen models). So, in translation
As for guys who just lose, yeah, we have one of those in our group as well. In his defence though, he carried his orcs over into this edition, and eventually gave up in disgust, moving on to Tomb Kings (which were his secondary army) and mostly 40k.
So what say you all? At what level can you continue to field a 'classic' dogs army with and remain competitive? Where do you need to drop the fluffy, but ineffective units in favour of a more tactical build? And when do you need to just take the maneaters, dragonlords, bearmen and other power units?
This reminds me of something, on the OP topic. On the Ogre Stronghold I noticed they have a ongoing games percentage rating. Where their members report on games and percentages of victories. It's a good idea and it's broken down by opponent so you can see how the army has fared against each opposing army. Someone should steal this idea and do it here...
Also Shane, I'm not into Mathhammer much, but how do 20 attacks against a WS 3 Skaven unit come up with 2.5 kills while 2.5 attacks from a Skaven unit come up with 1 kill? My rolling is bad sometimes but I think that is a low ball isn't it? And yes, I do agree that Pikemen are not good on a cost analysis, but that just seem's like a weird number to come with.
Although honestly, we could create another thread entitled Vs Skaven Tactics and make it 10 pages long
Skaven is a hard oppenent if his stuff get's off for sure, and a IF'd spell can screw with you bad in the early portions of the game.
(05-17-2010 05:01 PM)Sadirath Wrote: [ -> ]Someone should steal this idea and do it here...
That is actually a great idea, especially for new players wondering how their army is going to stack up against their friends. I realize it is fairly vague, as it doesn't take into account the general build, skill of the players, points value, ect, but if we get a few hundred games plugged in, patterns would begin to show up.
(05-17-2010 05:01 PM)Sadirath Wrote: [ -> ]Also Shane, I'm not into Mathhammer much, but how do 20 attacks against a WS 3 Skaven unit come up with 2.5 kills while 2.5 attacks from a Skaven unit come up with 1 kill? My rolling is bad sometimes but I think that is a low ball isn't it? And yes, I do agree that Pikemen are not good on a cost analysis, but that just seem's like a weird number to come with.
First of all, it is not a weird number, it is a WRONG number! I wasn't really thinking it through and messed up the math.
I was assuming vanilla Pikemen, both have an equal WS of 3, as well as a S and T of 3, meaning that, back and forth, they are very even. The fact that the Pikemen get a huge number more attacks is important, but it really comes down to that armour save. Skaven with Light Armour and a shield end up reducing the effectiveness of our attacking unit by 1/2, whereas the Pikemen, with only light armour, reduce their casualties by 1/6, a HUGE difference.
So, 20 Pikemen have 20 WS 3, S3 attacks, meaning that half should hit (10) and half should wound (5). The Skaven then, ignore half of the wounds because of their 4+ armour, resulting in 2.5 impaled rat-men.
In response, the 2.5 which are left (I realize it is impossible for a half a model to attack back [unless they are being played during assembly!], but rounding the numbers does not give you a true average) have 2.5 WS 3, S3 attacks of their own. Half of those attacks will hit (1.25), and half of those will wound (.62), with the Pikemen saving 1/6, ending up losing .5 models.
So, the actual difference is 2 kills. Still not very impressive, considering the fact that both sides have equal stats, and the pikemen strike first with 4x the attacks!
(05-17-2010 05:27 PM)Shane Wrote: [ -> ]So, the actual difference is 2 kills. Still not very impressive, considering the fact that both sides have equal stats, and the pikemen strike first with 4x the attacks!
That's where Ogres with GW come in handy
even a lone survivor of a group of 3 will make a difference
I btw haven't fielded Pikes since my last campaign. a couple of years ago.
Granted, I really haven't played Dogs of War outside of a couple of times using my Empire (and to be honest... I'll probably cross use my Empire as such mixed with some other stuff as I can't afford a whole new harder to find army)... but it does depend on the gaming meta of the area.
Amongst my close friends, we prefer more balanced (still competitive mind you... think 12-18 (sometimes 18+) in WPS) lists. I could probably do fine with Dogs of War. A local tournament (Midwest Rampage) has been won by Dogs of War twice against a lot of really good players!
I run Chaos Dwarfs, and I'm not sure how people might think they compare. I've come to know how to use them very effectively. I went through to the finals of 'ard boyz last year with them even. Just as Willmark, he'll confirm I know how to use them.
Older armies like Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs have their strengths, and you can play to them. Combine that with strong tactics, and hopefully acceptable dice rolling and you can do well. Being older armies, the more competitive the environment, the morewe might have to do what was once considered 'cheesey'. Though, these days, some of the cheesiest things we can do is less and less nasty compared to what is out there. Though how 8th edition will change things is anybodies guess.
Yeah, I am less than worried about a Dogs of War army being considered TOO powerful, I still think that a max-powered Dogs of War force will run about equal to an average-powered top tier army in this edition, assuming all other things are equal.
As for 8th edition, one thing that stands out for me is no matter how any other armies may be hurt by the rule changes, we're really not going to lose anything! Seriously, a character cap, modified magic phase, and altered psychology rules could see Vampire Counts forces fall out of the top tier and have to completely reinvent themselves, but for us, it can really only get better.
I still remember the old Storm of Chaos campaign, and the breakdown of how well each army did against it's rival. Wood Elves scored the highest Win to Loss ratio (against Beastmen) of any army, and they were the only one that was still using a Chronicles list! It's events like that which do a good job illustrating a point, which is that if an army is obscure and rarely played, chances are those who do play it have been doing so for some time, and are both well practiced and well versed in fighting at a deficit.
On a completely different note, I've just moved, and hopefully will soon be introducing myself to a new group of players. I think I will stop in on a game night to see what the general mood and powerlevels of the players and armies are, before dragging my Dogs there.
I think you get more fun out of winning than being fluffy. However, if everyone agrees ahead of time to field a fun-army of fluffy units--where winning isn't the main consideration--then you could have quite an enjoyable tournament!
Who do you think are the toughest armies? I haven't fought any Tomb Kings, but they look a bit intimidating. I think Chaos/Daemons, Dark Elves and Skaven are the toughest opponents. Some of my Dwarf friends think Skaven are the deadliest--with their sheer volume, let alone their new, improved technology!
I thought the easiest opponents I've faced were the Bretonnians, Beastmen and Orcs.
Well, I am going to have to pretty much agree with the general game trend and rank them like this:
Level A)
-Demons
-Vampires
-Dark Elves
Level B)
-Skaven
-Lizrdmen
-High Elves
-Empire
-Brettonians
-Warriors of Chaos
-Wood Elves
-Tomb Kings
Level C)
-Orcs and Goblins
-Ogre Kingdoms
I realize that I left out Beasts of Chaos, but have no experience with their new book, and have heard very little about them so far. Other than that, I would say the list is pretty much in order, though obviously certain builds of each army can be made to beat others and bump the power up.
As for who is the toughest?
I don't think Tomb Kings score too high on the list of groups to be feared with Dogs of War. As long as you can nullify his chariot spamming, which a few good missile units and a solid Knight charge will do, then you shouldn't run into too many problems. Since that book is 6th edition, the points values in it are still fairly comparable to ours, and our units can stand up to most of theirs.
Specifically, I would bring a cannon against the Bone Giant, and to try and snipe the guy behind the Casket, because THAT thing will demolish you. It's pretty much worth just trying to scroll it for the first two turns.
Orks and Dogs can have some fun games.
In lower points Dark Elves can actually be a good battle. Using our Knights to go after their Crossbow troops, and removing the obstacle of their fast cavalry with our crossbow troops can really even things up.
Skaven can wreck you. Their unit destroying potential is huge, their troops are darn good for the points they pay, and they can bring some of the hardest hitters (Plague Censors, ect) to the table, backed up by a solid psychology bonus.
Demons? Well, if you play a great game, and your opponent isn't trying to be a jerk, it can be fun. If he lands a 10 man unit of Furies behind your lines on the second turn, spreading out almost 24", then runs a terror causing demon in, along with a herald on a mount reducing all nearby leadership by -2, and then uses the Masque on your paymaster unit (additional -D3), well, besides Combat, Magic or Shooting, he can pretty much win the game right there.
I like dogs in medium points games, between 1250-1500, where we can take enough of our (generally overpriced) troops to make a solid army, as well as the three heroes we are basically forced to pay for, and are not going to be hammered by the Vampire Lord/Greater Demon/multiple super rares which we have no real counter for.
What about everyone else? Who are your easiest and hardest games against? And what is it about Brettonians that makes the game easier for you, miklamar?
You left out Chaos Dwarfs
Will: That's because we mighty Chaos Dwarfs make him weep in fear!
It also depends on the army too. When I played VC I hated playing WE as they were so blasted maneuverable. However, my Dark Elves and Chaos Dwarfs laugh at them for different reasons.
Mixed god Daemons are perhaps the most annoying for everyone. Monogod, is much more tolerable (I wish they kept the whole god limitations for at least Daemons).... though can still be nasty.
Dark Elves and Skaven I think have an interesting position. They can be REALLY powerful and nasty, but are not so by default. They still have to be tailored to be that way. They can also be made very soft and weak, as well as anywhere in between. So for Skaven and Dark Elf armies it really depends on the meta and the player. My Dark Elves are warrior heavy, and most people think I play a very reasonable list (no hydra even, the Black guard isn't ASF).
WoC are a variable. As an army I'm neutral on them. They really depend on the player. My friend (online known as Skittles), plays very enjoyable lists that are still designed to be a challenge. He also plays very 'believable' lists. Yet someone at the shop just tries building the strongest combo he can think of. Lizards are similar, but I fight them less.
The big thing I hate is special characters. Granted some of them are fun and enjoyable (Luthor Huss and Bugman), and I wouldn't mind those so much. Huss would temp me in some events. I also don't mind if they let take different core units (The troll from WoC, the Witch Elf from DE, and the Pestilens guy from Skaven).
(05-21-2010 11:56 AM)Swissdictator Wrote: [ -> ]Mixed god Daemons are perhaps the most annoying for everyone. Monogod, is much more tolerable (I wish they kept the whole god limitations for at least Daemons).... though can still be nasty.
Monogod is seen as more tolerable, but can be just as devastating, and is generally even less fun to play against.
For instance, Mono God Nurgle, is a 3 bunker unit army with 3 (cloned) characters and epidemus. It can easily make a game where there is almost no hope of either side accomplishing anything.
Khorne, of course, is just as many units of Flesh hounds as can be packed in, as well as either Heralds on Juggers, or Chariots.
Tzeentch is flamers and 13+ power dice.
Slaanesh is leadership smashing with Fiends.
Any of these armies make the game incredibly rock, paper, scissors, because by removing the variation of having Nurgle core with Khorne special and Tzeentch rare, you lower their overall ability to defeat all comers, but crank up their ability in one area to such a degree it is almost insane.
I agree with the Dark Elves having different builds, just like the lizardmen, which go from reasonable to copy-paste ridiculousness.
As for Chaos Dwarfs, I have never played them, never seen them played, and have only seen a handful of their models in display cases my entire life, so I don't even try to rank them. Though I did read their current Indy army book, and maybe since I just moved to a new city I will find some Dwarfs of the curly-bearded variety.