April 03 2020 07:39:38
Forum Threads
Newest Threads
· Marianna Chevaux
· New 3rd Ed. 40K oppo...
· 6th ed rules for 7th...
· Reclaim The Stones!!...
· Destroy The Chaos He...
Hottest Threads
No Threads created
Latest Articles
· Posting Content on t...
· A word on Attachments
· Final Testing and Bu...
Users Online
· Guests Online: 1

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 252
· Newest Member: Sherpa1016
Welcome to Classic Hammer
View Thread
Classic Hammer » Warhammer Fantasy » 6th Edition
 Print Thread
Against the norm...
Just Tony
So I had some free time waiting for my 14 year old daughter to finish beauty requirements before school, and I was left with my thoughts as usual. I was surfing ebay for Battle for Skull Pass sets, as it'd be a really fast way to build up two armies at once. Well, the more I thought about it, the more I didn't really want the Thunderers from the set. I'd always wanted a War of the Beard compatible army, and saw a massive redundancy between Thunderers and Quarrelers. I also realized I really didn't care if I had a single war machine in the army, as I've never really been a Grudge Thrower or single Bolt Thrower fan, and feel Cannons don't really make up their points.

Then I realized that most of my armies don't include the "mainstays" from the netlists. My Empire army, when I was building it before the great model purge of 2013, had a few obligatory black powder models that came with the massive army deal I got, as well as all the stuff from the 6th Ed. starter sets I had picked up. After deciding I was going to do Morgan Bernhardt's Grudgebringers http://whfb.lexic...gebringers I realized I wasn't going to field handgunners, and only planned on having a single mortar and cannon. My Chaos army was originally going to include Knights, but at the high points cost I couldn't justify it. Add my absolute lack of interest in Fast Cavalry, and I begin to see a pattern.

Do people on the board deviate from norms in this way? Especially if it's game wide and not army specific. Or do you find that certain units are so optimized that they must be ran no matter what?
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
It is dangerous being left with your own thoughts isn't it. I never bought the BFSP because they were models that I was not interested in. The 6th and the IOB had better models and I do have some of those. I do run a handgun free warrior heavy army, Dwarf army actually. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It is not maximized but I lost more tourneys than I won.

These days I tend to go for units and armies that I want to paint. Mainly because I am more likely to be looking at these armies more than playing them. They do tend to not be "normal" armies or net listed to hell like some of the armies out there.
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
I don't quite have the issue, as I collect complete forces rather than just armies (I always have a reasonable number of every model type for every list.

When it comes to actually putting armies together though, I loathe the brainless stuff. I won't completely steer clear of fielding units (I like my armies to have either a theme or a lot of variety), but I won't spam obviously OP stuff because that leads to really dull games. Even when two such armies face off against each other I find it dull.
Just Tony
I wish I could do that, I really do. However there are some units out there that I either don't like the playstyle or don't find them worth their points. I refuse to run a nag when I have thoroughbreds.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
Jump to Forum:


Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Member Poll
There are no polls defined.
You must login to post a message.

No messages have been posted.
1,327,924 unique visits
Table 'cmvogan_phpf1.phpf_new_users' doesn't exist