[Archive] Legion of Azgorh longevity

Wiccus:

So I have been doing a lot of research on the CD over the past few days as I am seriously thinking of starting them later this year. I wonder though about the longevity of the list. I know it hasn’t been out for too long but what are peoples thoughts on the Tamurkhan list? Does it become a bit too boring and one dimensional after several battles?

I like the list because its got a dwarfish playstyle while having some maneuverability options and a magic phase thus giving it a lot more depth. I just worry that with only having a few units in the book that it would become the same list battle after battle. I know I could field wacky lists that don’t feature any guns but I do like to remain atleast mildly competitive.

So, thoughts and experiences? Do you end up just sitting there and blowing people away game after game and ramming a destroyer down peoples throat? Or is there more depth to this army?

Grimbold Blackhammer:

I’ve never tried a pure gunline because the idea of it seriously bores me.  But my usual list has a mix of both fast and slow units, some magic, and a fair amount of shooting.  My latest lists have all fast-moving units (ok so my only Infernal Guard unit is only moving 4" wit the Banner of Swiftness but still…!) and I’m crossing the table to crush people in hand-to-hand combat with no war machines at all.  And I’ve been tabling my enemies doing it!  The last theme of monsters has had a fair amount of documented successes.

All four lists are viable - gunline, show horde, fast elites, & monster-fest seem competitive.  Add to that list this is one of the best online gaming communities around and Forgeworld having some of the coolest models around, you have the recipe for a very solid army!

Grimbold Blackhammer

Grimstonefire:

I think it depends on 2 things; whether you are in love with chaos dwarfs and whether you are a pure tournament gamer or not.

Collecting CD is still unusual as an army.  Before it was the lack of models, now it’s the cost.  So for many years people have and will continue to be forced to be creative unless they are made of money.  So you have to bear in mind that this army could have a lot of creativity needed, or not much, depending on how rich you are.  If you are in love with CD it shouldn’t make a difference as you’ll go to any lengths (in time/money/blood, sweat and tears)!

Secondly, on the tournament scene I don’t know how CD stand these days in terms of flexible builds.  But if you play a lot of friendly games there’s a huge amount of scope for creative rules writing to bolt onto the LoA list.

frogbear:

You do not have to play with Destroyers or warmachines to be competitive. So no, the list is not as boring as that. It depends on the player.

There are other options apart from the above and taking them is not ‘wacky’.

Da Crusha:

there is a lot you can do with the list. still coming up with ideas for variety.

mireadur:

Also if you dont play in a GW store there are already some high quality alternatives to the expensive FW (titan-games, and the soon to be released AoW thunderer warriors or even, well, taobao :~).

Wiccus:

I don’t necessarily “love” CD but thats mostly out of ignorance of their fluff but I do love chaos and the dark gods. I play Daemons in 40k and Warriors in fantasy and I plan on having Beastmen eventually as well as making my Daemons workable in fantasy. So CD seemed like a natural route to take. My HE are a bit of an anomaly and I don’t know what I like about them so much.

Anyways I do have a lot of interest in the army from a fluff and model perspective as well as playstyle. I’m was just wanting to figure out if I would get bored of them early on and regret buying a very expensive army.

In reference to the word “wacky” I wasn’t trying to imply that not spamming magma cannons and destroyers would be wacky by itself but it just seems to me in theory that to remain somewhat competitive CD will typically have a core of some of their nasty war machines. I guess I’m not used to having respectable shooting so I don’t know how this would affect my game.

It’s good to hear that they can perform well with a mainly combat core. I do like the idea of blunderbusses marching up to annihilate a unit as well.

Slightly off topic but a bit relevant to what mireadur said. I plan on using the Scibor Moscals for the core of my army since I think they will look amazing in a dark and evil paint scheme and while they will be spendy FW CD are a bit too rich for my blood. Anybody have any comments on how those models scale to say FW stuff or the AoW models? I’m just wondering if mixing lines would look odd due to size differences.

Thanks mireadur for letting me know about those Thunder warriors. I had been looking around for models to use for fireglaives and blunderbusses since the moscal ranged troops look a little too not chaos for my taste.

Thanks for the replies so far.

fattdex:

I have scibor minis for my core, they look reaal fine with forgeworld characters and gun crews. The old bighats, however, do not mix, as they are toonish scaled.

ZigZags:

I am mixing forgeworld ironguard with my big hats. I dont want to convert really and the FW Ironguard make good Ironsworn and the old models make for good GW Warriors and Blunderbusses. Im painting them both the same scheme and it looks great!