Grimbold Blackhammer:
Sleboda - welcome to the dark side! :cheers
Grimbold Blackhammer
maded12:
Just make sure that you check if your tournament list is legal for that tournament. More then 1 tournament uses unit restrictions which make such a ‘power gamer’ list impossible.
If it’t legal… GO FORTH FOR THE GLORY OF HASHUT!
deadlydeceiver:
It’s good to hear that you’re at last into the models and that you seem to paint well too 
So, it’s not about wanting to crush other people, it’s about wanting to get some nice wins for a change.Be aware that the Destroyer-Magma-Gunline will earn you wins, but nothing I would call “nice wins” in any way.
Sleboda
Anyone you crush with this list won’t play against it another time. And I know no tourney that doesn’t use at last some restrictions.
So after beating some people in your gaming environment you will have bought and painted an expensive army, that you cannot play anymore.
On the other hand you have an army that is not accepted everywhere, what will add to the “I won’t play against this”-effect.
And you should know, that your CD-built is possibly the strongest in the list, but can easily be topped by the hardest builds of: Deamons, Warriors, Skaven and possibly Dark Elves or Ogres
Mentioning skaven:
This is a army that has
- cheaper horde units
- equally powerful warmachines
- an awesome lvl 4-sorcerer
- a monster that rivals the destroyer
- excellent shooting units (compared to CD)
- can shoot into combats
- easily accessable models
- IS 100% OFFICIAL!
Honestly, I don’t think CD are an army for people who want to play “all out”. It is awesome for people who love their evil dwarfs and do NOT play 2 destroyers (or even one), to be able to play their army in the future.
Please do not misunderstand me, but: People who start CD with your attitude endanger the use of CD for all those who waited for years to finally update their evil stunties from ravening hordes…
And IMHO this is “Why not”! Think about it.
Best DD
Samanos:
Honestly, I don't think CD are an army for people who want to play "all out". It is awesome for people who love their evil dwarfs and do NOT play 2 destroyers (or even one), to be able to play their army in the future.So CD are a fluff army?
Please do not misunderstand me, but: People who start CD with your attitude endanger the use of CD for all those who waited for years to finally update their evil stunties from ravening hordes...
And IMHO this is "Why not"! Think about it.
Best DD
deadlydeceiver
i dont really care whether i play vs 2 destroyers, 3 magmas etc etc, solutions exist and its a challenge. likewise i would not hesitate to field them, the only reason io dont is because i dont really like that playstyle.
i think that your view about endagering the future of CD is a bit farfetched though. If people find CD so broken they may as well place restrictions, why ban them?
deadlydeceiver:
i think that your view about endagering the future of CD is a bit farfetched though. If people find CD so broken they may as well place restrictions, why ban them?Bacause it's so easy to say: "I got beaten by that superstrong army that FW invented. They overdid it. The list shouldn't be official after all!"
Samanos
It is just the easiest way to ban a list without the GW-batch on it.
And this is why I always consider the use of LoA endangered and so I think everyone using it should show some sensitvity.
DD
snowblizz:
As I've been told my many players, internet Joe and real life Joe are different beasts. :)One of these days I'm going to have to see if Marty Gaska can put me up for some time to find out if 1) his cats really are as big as he claims and 2) if Joe really is a decent guy in person (he has threatened to introduce us). I am skeptical of both these claims. ;P
Sleboda
I'm friends with the C.I.A guys down south from you, but being on the wrong (or right side depending on POV) side of the Atlantic it isn't that easy to pop over for visits.
Yup. It's actually not farfetched at all. Take GW e.g. they had a poll after the Throne of Skulls if CDs should be allowed next year! If you crushed 5 people with a double destroyed list then that could well be 5 guys voting against allowing CDs.i think that your view about endagering the future of CD is a bit farfetched though. If people find CD so broken they may as well place restrictions, why ban them?Bacause it's so easy to say: "I got beaten by that superstrong army that FW invented. They overdid it. The list shouldn't be official after all!"
Samanos
It is just the easiest way to ban a list without the GW-batch on it.
And this is why I always consider the use of LoA endangered and so I think everyone using it should show some sensitvity.
DD
deadlydeceiver
This is a general problem with FW stuff. Some is balanced, some is way OTT, much sucks. This is why anything FW has a bad rep in the community for the longest time and remains opponents consent in many cases.
tvandyke:
We actually had a player complain about the Chaos Dwarfs after the tournament I attended a couple of weeks ago (SAWS Challenge) because he lost so badly to one of us (it was an anonymous survey so I'm not sure who it was). However, the tournament organizer looked at the overall record of the three of us, 7-7-1 (and we all had at least 1 magma and the destroyer) and just chuckled. Obviously with a record that average, the army isn't all powerful, even with all the good stuff in it, so it's not like he can ban the army. At the end of June there's supposed to be 4 of us CD players attending the Quake City Rumble which is a tournament with 120 people in San Francisco and we'll see how we do there but my guess is that our record will be underwhelming. I play daemons (pure Nurgle Daemon army) and have since 3rd edition (even though in the past I mixed them with warrior armies back when it was legal), and I've seen them go from decent to one of the most OTT armies I've ever had my hands on over the years. The crazy thing is, even with that army in my hands, I still lost to VC and Skaven (this was back in 7th) on a regular basis. Here's my prediction. We're already seeing the LOA list allowed just about everywhere. You almost never see games above 2500 points so you'll never see two destroyers. As more people play the list and play against it, I think you'll start to see just as many stories of how easy it is to beat as it is overpowered. Tournament organizers are going to have their hands tied, because they'll be hard pressed to ban an army that has at best a 60% winning percentage when Skaven, Daemon, Lizardmen and Ogres are doing better. What are they to do, ban Skaven and Daemons along with them? People will still bitch about the Destroyer, but here's my guess, if you ask a player if they'd rather play that CD army with the Destroyer, that big Skaven army with the Abomination or that Dark Elf army over there with the two Hydras, how much do you want to bet that the CD army is chosen as a preference to play against every time?i think that your view about endagering the future of CD is a bit farfetched though. If people find CD so broken they may as well place restrictions, why ban them?Bacause it's so easy to say: "I got beaten by that superstrong army that FW invented. They overdid it. The list shouldn't be official after all!"
Samanos
It is just the easiest way to ban a list without the GW-batch on it.
And this is why I always consider the use of LoA endangered and so I think everyone using it should show some sensitvity.
DD
deadlydeceiver
deadlydeceiver:
What are they to do, ban Skaven and Daemons along with them?NO, because they are 100% GW!
tvandyke
They cannot be banned and will never get the "legal/official"-discussion...
On your tournament example:
Imagine a 3000pts-tourney, with all (or most) the CD-players bringing Slebodas list. If it then really prooves to be the auto-win-button, like Sleboda suggests (what I truly doubt), the organizer would have serious reasons to critizise LoA and could easily justify banning it.
DD
tvandyke:
The first part about getting crushed and wanting to crush in return is sort of true. I am really gosh darned sick of losing with my TK. I've never had a win/loss record this bad with any army ever in the past. Ever. After getting humbled worse than pretty much any game I've ever played the other night, I thought "Well, here's an army I can build to help me get the taste of losing out of my mouth."I have yet to play against the new Tomb Kings but from what I hear, that army is having trouble getting wins period, regardless of opponent. When 8th edition first came out, I thought my Ravening Hordes CD army would be perfectly suited for it (large units of cheap hobbos, solid blocks of dwarfs, etc), but as the 8th edition wore on, I had a tougher and tougher time winning with it. It just seemed the other armies were better able to adjust to the new addition and my winning percentage went from around 70% down to about 40%. The last tournament I went to with that army I went 1-4. I've been a regular tournament player since 1996 and I honestly don't think I've ever had a won/loss record below 50%. I don't mind losing, I just want to feel like I have a good chance to win in most of my games otherwise it just isn't any fun. Pick up games with good friends is completely different since it's really more about pushing models around, drinking beer and laughing than it is about winning, but at tournaments, I want to be competitive even if I'm still there to have fun if that makes any sense. For whatever reason, this new LOA list feels like the Nurgle Marauder army I played back in 5th edition (marauders were kick ass in 5th edition). It's small, elite with very little to throw away. The only difference is that it's not nearly as fighty since it relies on War Machines, but it still has that feel to it.
Sleboda
Baggronor:
When I jokingly asked my regular opponent what he disliked about the LoA, his comment was, “Everything’s unkillable!!!111”.
This may be partly due to how I play them, and he wasn’t being entirely serious, but he has a point.
I run 2 large blocks of IG who hold their points very well as long as you fight the right targets.
The war machines are behind my infantry, and so are hard to get to.
We all know what the Destroyer does, and he is immune to less than Str4, ie most troops.
The Skullcracker is T8 and requires serious effort to kill.
It’s pretty straightforward to make a list with no easy VPs, as long as you protect the artillery well. And then you drop Str 5 flame templates on people from miles away. It often doesn’t yield fun games in the same way as the 8th books do in my experience. I’m not saying the list itself is bent, just that it has a certain style that is no longer in vogue in 8th that can easily give frustrating games.
People will still bitch about the Destroyer, but here’s my guess, if you ask a player if they’d rather play that CD army with the Destroyer, that big Skaven army with the Abomination or that Dark Elf army over there with the two Hydras, how much do you want to bet that the CD army is chosen as a preference to play against every time?I’m not so sure, it really depends on what army they have imo. WEs for example, have a much better chance vs the DEs than they will vs LoA or Skaven. I’m sure Ogres would agree with you and pick the DEs or Skaven. Conversely, VCs are strong against LoA as they have easy counters to the Destroyer, they would/should pick the LoA every time.