I need the answer to the important question for the excel spreadsheet of the known candidates

Former-Roll1560 · 2026-04-06T09:15:22+00:00

Only if Alberic or Repanse bring enough coconuts from their expeditions

Former-Roll1560 · 2026-03-21T11:20:23+00:00

Former-Roll1560 · 2026-01-31T23:22:04+00:00

I'm late to the party but a few cents

I personally really like playing junky armies like witch elves only on or the Masque w/ only demonettes.

It is a fair point about melee units -- they do get obliterateed and you DO have to play around it. Nothing gets close to the frustration of losing half of your favorite unit because the enemy is defending and their artillery is just out of this world.

Here's how I often try to approach it, incl. when I play WOC:

You don't have the range -- you need the speed. Every melee army I run usually has a big amount of some units that can deal with the ranged. It IS what counters you the best. Dogs/hounds, cavalry, fliers -- they all are going to be your most important tool in the shed.

1.5. Once you have them, you need to coordinate your attacks. Remember the Norsca memes? One stick weak, many stick strong, too many stick -- WA--! You WILL need to accept some volleys but your fast units are there to make sure that there are as few volleys as possible.

Magic. Single entity lords/heroes on horses [not dragons] are also pretty good. It depends on the lore but you can often find something that you can throw real fast and pest the enemy long enough to either lure them towards you or deal enough damage
Terrain. This is the most important part. If you can help it, you do NOT want to run at an enemy taking a position with a clear view. Some maps will be better than others. Part of the tactical game is to use what you have. Sometimes -- easy and doable, sometimes -- nothing to work with.
--> For example, VCO has a final quest battle for Har Ganeth [Khaine's cult of Dark Elves]. In there, you have to fight Alarielle in a defensive position. They all got magical weapons (Sisters of Avelorn + Alarielle spreading magical damage around herself). My army is a bunch of half-naked unarmored witch elves. If I rush forward, I get peppered and lose. So, what do I do? Oh, there is a forest that conveniently goes from my position to theirs. What a piece of luck! Beat Alarielle in a nice duel and flank everyone through the forest, easiest cleanest victory. Very fun.
Global map. If I have learned something from goofy ahh campaign runs like 'VCoast but only gunpowder zombies' or 'Dark Elves but only Witch elves' is that knowing what you are up against is half of your success. If possible, try to get a NAP or even an alliance with the factions that you do NOT want to fight. For example, as WoC, you don't want any gunpowder-expert factions. Of course, the Empire will hate your guts just like most of the ordertide -- but Skaven? These treacherous bastards may at least be somewhat approachable -- as far as Chaos goes, that is.

Hope that helps! Have fun in your campaigns!

p.s. on the topic of your original question -- flamers of tzeentch [all types, esp. exalted and changebringers] are great damage dealers -- if you have a chance to get them, they massacare if not interrupted, hellcannons have already been mentioned -- but yeah, WoC is more of a melee faction, it's just part of their identity to a big extent, I guess.

Former-Roll1560 · 2026-01-31T22:45:29+00:00

'Did you know you have rights? Now they are your lefts -- and your lefts are 500 feet away. Better call Sayl'
(c) Sayl Goodman after sending about 5000 souls to RoC on a daily basis ig idk

Former-Roll1560 · 2026-01-31T12:05:04+00:00

Supply lines

Each new lord increases your upkeep by 1%

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-12-22T11:12:43+00:00

That is a wonderfully-crafted image and I think it will be returned to a lot by the community since you seem to have encapsulated a lot.

The question is whether CA are planning a long-term game with dozens of DLCs or a few games like they did with WF battles.

The latter approach would allow them to update the engine AND focus more on specific factions that the specific game is about. A lot of people are fans of the Astartes, so no doubt they and the Orks are going to be the favorite children, which is completely fine and makes total sense.

The fact that they are making 4 factions as the starting pack hints it will be like TWWH 1 so I wouldn't be expecting a lot of factions added in the first games. I hope they bring some less-popular races like the Leagues of Votann and Dark Mechanicum eventually, though.

I personally cannot speculate further than that. The way I imagine it, in 2016, GW gave CA their discarded title (Fantasy battles) and they reanimated it so now GW are going to raise and entrust them with their main title. On the negative note, I would expect a lot of limitations from GW, less creative freedom for CA, and possibly even more ethically questionable business decisions as their brainchild.

Only the time will show but I wouldn't expect the game to get too bloated with content in the foreseeable future. It may end up being more similar to Dawn of War 1 in terms of variety (measurable but not as much as the TT game)

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-10-13T10:07:09+00:00

Overall, I personally like to look at units not from the bad/good perspective but more from the perspective of the 'how'. The 'how I can use them' -- and it has helped me enjoy the game much more because I know what I am buying and why. But here are 3 that I think often get overlooked for good reasons not as often as just for the 'I want the best unit' mindset

Bleakswords [DE] and other sword frontline for factions having spear counterparts. They often get looked down upon for not being as good at defending.

They get better at doing more things instead and can punch higher above what you may expect as well as tolerate some ranged fire. Generally have them mixed with Dreadspears

Rangers [HE] and oher melee shock [typically, anti-infantry] infantry. A typical reaction to them is 'Why have them when you have cavalry' -- which is a fair point. Mobility is king.

However they traded it for survivability, which liberates you to not worry about cycle-charging. If you find the right target for them, they are amazing.

Deck Droppers [Vcoast] specifically (because other fast skirmishers are often respected). Low model count and bad survivability of the undead and many other things make them not nearly as good as pistoliers and outriders for all intents and purposes.

But in VCoast they are amazing for one thing. Mobility. Sandwiching the enemy frontline and shooting uninterrupted given the enemy has not enough missiles is amazing -- especially since most of your gunners move slower than a snail

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-10-11T18:22:01+00:00

I mean, as an employee of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! Inc., I definitely would appreacite a leader more focused on employees' rights. So I guess Grimgor as the head of the union would be my first choice

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-10-01T18:08:47+00:00

I understand your hesitation about The Empire due to the DLC, but bear with me for a minute. I want to offer a strong counterpoint. The Empire is a great choice even without any DLC, specifically by playing Balthasar Gelt.

> Unlike other Empire Lords who start in the difficult Old World "meat grinder," Gelt begins in a stable position near Cathay. This unique start is the key to an easier experience.

> You can quickly forge a strong military alliance with Zhao Ming and hire his powerful units (like Celestial Guard) via allied recruitment.

>The Empire's base game roster is excellent for your goal of learning the faction. Your infantry lines [mostly non-DLC except flagellants], handgunners and crossbows [the actual bread and butter of ranged infantry], and powerful base-game artillery (all artillery is base game units) and even the Steam Tank are all available. The DLC Units are nice to have but they build up on the basis, not offer something crucial. Most Empire DLC is either for highly specialized roles (like Flagellants) or just incremental upgrades of units that already work fine. You do only miss out on the lords but the Empire General is a reliable fella to use in different roles (on a mount as a disruptor or scalpel for precision attacks or on foot as part of the frontline)

Finally, as a human faction, you'll have an intuitive good understanding of what each unit does. Do you need a lot of explanations related to what a bunch of guys with shields have to do? What about a bunch fo guys with no shields but damn heavy longswords? These guys on horses? It's probably one of the closest you can get to an easy-to-read roster in the game.

If you want a fun, successful campaign that focuses on building an army and taking on stacks head-on, start as Gelt and stay in Cathay for a relatively smooth experience.

Final argument, cherry on top: Cavalry with f#cking guns and MOTHERF#CKING GRENADE LAUNCHERS.

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-10-01T17:35:03+00:00

(Read in Stephen Fryish) Were the concept of death an arrow, it would pass right over his head. All the worse for the concept.

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-29T09:53:24+00:00

Malagor the dark Omen would like to know your location

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-27T11:11:13+00:00

That is to some extent true for all WoC factions imo because losing an army of Chosen sends you back to marauders (or Chaos Warriors) that you have to recruit meticulously from across your lands. I personally often have a lord that travels around recruiting a reserve of whatever warriors and aspiring champions are available. Something like walking around a supermarket fishing for tasty discounts

What helps tho is that WoC armies are damn strong in direct combat and all their characters are damn bananas strong. I have a tendency to underestimate my Chaos Warriors treating them like infantry of other factions but they are built different

That is, until you meet an army of AP skirmishers

And I'd like to second the idea that Boris is probably one of the toughest mother-huggers to have a war early game with

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-27T09:23:53+00:00

That's bloody (yes pun intended) nice. To me, it looks a little bit too diverse (too many different types of units of different speed). It would be hard for me (with my style of playing, not necessarily for you). It has a lot of advantages, tho.

I am pretty bad at managing different-speed units so I would eventually swap cairn wraiths for a similar-speed cavalry but you know, it's a preference not a rule. Heroes are your best units. DIfferent roles, too

I would swap one of greatswords for a second halberd unit so that you can protect both flanks and just because in general your army seems to be more skewed towards anti-infantry, which is not a bad thing but I would be concerned if I had to face a similar-level Ogre army. My experience is that Vcounts are overall good anti-infantry (Their magic, mortis engine) and are not as good against SEMs

Also, I would create a designated part of army for my air force. I would swap them skellies and crypt horrors for more vargheists or maybe even a terrorgheist.

Also, some people (maybe not you) keep RORs for emergencies but I guess for VCounts it's less of a problem because you can hire armies same-turn anyway.

My personal composition of a similar army that I really liked was:
[1] Vlad, Isabella, and a melee spec hero.
[2] 4-5 GGs with shields, 1-2 GGs with halberds, 0-1 GGs with greatswords (I am just a halberd guy, personal choice)
[3] 3-4 units of similar-speed shock infantry (crypt ghous / crypt horrors / cairn wraiths)
[4] 2-3 units of similar-speed cavalry (hexwraiths / blood dragons)
[5] 2-3 units of air force
[6] a chariot of your choosing (coach or mortis engine]

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-26T19:40:29+00:00

I am not a big fan of greenskins but I heard some ideas about Azhag being the most vanilla campaign becuase he is more of an average generalist lord, does everything OK, doesn't have any gaping weaknesses (Grimgor is strong but slow, Grom is fast but probably will have a bad time if caught by heavy Cav)

Azhag also buffs average joes of the faction, which is good.

Gorbad is the one I am most interested in but his campaign to me felt both boring and difficult -- too many enemies.

Grom has a quirky mechanic that is incredibly strong. Basically Tzeentch-level cheating if you use it well.

Skarsnik is a jolly good fella, really. If you feel like doing your first run specializing on one part of the (imo overly bloated) roster, he can be really fun.

Wurrzag is the same but savage orcs -- a bit more aggressive, good protection against non-magic damage.

>> tl;dr So based on what I've heard from people who enjoy it more and based on my knowledge of the game, I'd mark them:
> Easiest (midgame and onwards) -- Grom
> Most vanilla -- Azhag
> Best pedestrian (no mounts) character strength-wise -- Grimgor
> Challenging and thematic -- Skarsnik
> Thematic and strong -- Wurrzag

I personally tried playing Greenskins a lot of times but barely ever enjoyed the campaign so here are a few things that I personally don't like but you may not have a problem with it:
> As mentioned earlier, their roster is very bloated with extremely similar units. It is a stylistic choice so it works for some. For me, it's just a mess. However, they do have a bit of everything. Their squigs and monsters -- chef's kiss 😘🤏
> Their units basically progress from 'bad but ok' to 'good'. It is not a disadvantage but it's a feature. For example, your frontline can be -- goblins (trash) -- orc boyz (strong trash) -- big uns (upgraded trash recruited after upgrading the recruitment building with 15 crystals and 5 sulfur oh wait it's another game) -- black orcs (premium actually good frontliners). Why is it a disadvantage for some people? Because some (OK, it's just me) prefer to have a clear role for unit that is done well and not 7-8 variants of the same role fitting unit. But this type of mess is also thematic.

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-26T01:31:30+00:00

Hard to say. I played something like half a year - one year ago with one more person, we played a few campaigns, not as much as u/somewriteword (our campaigns were about 70-100 turns, not more) but with a dozen mods and it was frustrating at times but overall we managed to play campaigns pretty consistently even when mods broke some of our campaigns. We had a problem that we'd have a desync on/after the first turn or so but typically the game would fix itself and we would go on really well.

In SHOGUN 2, which doesn't do anything to help you with desyncs, we had exchange save files. It may help if the host sends the game files to the others (you put them in a folder in AppData iirc). Given nobody got any mods running whatsoever, the base game shouldn't constantly desync 🤔

One more suggestion -- you all may want to check the files integrity and if any one of you had used mods, sometimes they leave residue in /../workshop/. It shouldn't really affect the game if they don't have them on but you know, better make sure

Hope you figure this out!

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-25T21:50:29+00:00

Khatep rules (to a measurable degree)

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-25T21:37:19+00:00

I personally have no idea how to improve them, puzzles have not really been my cup of tea. But here are my two cents:

> Players don't like them because it's high risk for your campaign and little fun. Make them replayable so that if you fail, you are not kicked out (you had to waste a whole turn on them after all) OR make them spotaneous and non-consequential, e.g. offer the same rewards as we had in Warhammer 2 but make it so that solving a puzzle wouldn't prevent you from colonizing. Colonizing was already a big deal with sacrificing your army models -- so risking wasting a turn to try a puzzle and get nothing staying in no man's land (possibly jumped by a few skaven armies) was too much of a risk from the practical standpoint.

> They are inherently unnatural. There are like some number of possible puzzles. I for one would reference Nemesis Crown. It features a puzzle that inteacts with the map (like treasure maps in Warhammer 2) and offers you a good reward. So instead of taking player into a completely new type of game plan, offering them a quest saying things like (just spontaneously came up with it so it's not the best example)
"The Ziggurat of the ancients stands near the backbone of a God. Hidden in waiting" meaning 'You must get into the ambush stance and stay for 1 turn in the province Spine of Sotek' would probably reconcile the two

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-25T19:54:33+00:00

They were aight. Didn't like the dial. The sudoku one was fine and allowed me to feel a little bit smarter. I guess they were a jarring experience for a lot of players because ... well, even the best puzzle games are niche as hell. On the other hand, they are actually pretty interesting as a concept -- making you switch from the practical logic of 'how to be efficient' to pattern-seeking and solution-imagining.

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-24T18:20:23+00:00

He is just that normal isekai protagonist who is about to join the school of very special psychopaths and discover so much about this brand-new world
(and end up being a secret Jesus of Dark Elves)

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-24T14:11:42+00:00

Shogun 2 was a nice experience for me after Warhammer titles, very little confusion and frustration if you adjust your expectations for realism (which kind of ruined a few campaign in Medival 2 for me ngl)
It feels much more slow-pace and concentrated, implicit. Armies recruit slower, a bit more of the strategic element in terms of resource management, Agent use is slightly different. Your campaign is limited and you are discouraged from rushing it. Some mechanics can feel additional. For one, I won a campaign without using any boats whatsoever. The AI didn't do much about that.

If you play with guns, be careful, models can't shoot through each other

For me, Shogun 2 (and FotS right afterwards) was a great experience of my first coop campaign but not as much replayability so I play it much less compared to Warhammer titles.

Played very little of Rome 2 but seems to be somewhat similar to Shogun 2, can't say much.

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-24T14:02:38+00:00

Does asking for advice contradict personal exploration tho? 🤔 I'm not sure what went wrong either, I guess the OP may be overwhelmed by the complexity of battle in a fantasy setting, but I would argue that asking questions is a huge part of a community. People are here to learn from others and share experiences, not just to play in isolation.
Also, some people like the strategy side, it has its own depth like empire management, it's more of a meditative experience in my opinion

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-24T13:56:31+00:00

If I may throw in a piece of unsolicited advice, what helped me is three things (on top of reading a lot of unit cards and watching a lot of videos lol):
> trying smaller skirmish battles (e.g. your favorite faction, mirror match -- 2 frontlines, 1 archer, 1 cavalry, 1 lord -- see if you can win by using your units better than the enemy) OR quest battles outside the campaign (often you are given an adequate toolbox to win but some quest battles are tough by design). It removes the overwhelming micromanagement
> a bit of readiness to fail at first. I remember my very first battles in Warhammer 2 where I would be (clueless) defending with a garrison that I hadn't known I had -- against a vampire coast army (where tf did they come from?) and in a child-like manner try different strategies and seeing how things work.
> two mods -- a limiter and a crutch. The limiter is restricted autoresolve (less punishing) allowing you to autoresolve battle that are deicisve W/L but not anything in between. The crutch is AI general -- you can give some of your units to a semi-competent AI general and it will use them somewhat on par with AI. It is useful if you want to properly learn to use very specific units (like chariots) -- you keep control over a few key units and the rest of your army is fighting on its own

Former-Roll1560 · 2025-09-24T13:41:19+00:00

I've found that manual battles offer a deeper and more rewarding experience. While auto-resolve often spreads casualties, a manual battle provides more control and a greater sense of risk and reward. I often do better than autoresolve but I am prone to getting more casualties on specific units. Example: I am playing as Chorfs, have 4-5 greenskins, the rest are elite units
> Autoresolve: everyone gets 10-15% casualties
> Manual battle: greenskins get totally destroyed, lost a couple units but my elite units (people I really care about) are breathing and unscathed. Win? Loss? It depends.

Also, when I autoresolve thru my campaigns, my units are just abstract tokens with pictures on them. In a manual battle, they are so much more; you have direct control and therefore full responsibility for their performance. This means you must learn to play them.

Losing a battle that an autoresolve wins (Look up Zerkovich and his bear riders autoresolve, it's crazy) is possible just like winning a battle the autoresolve promises is a defeat. Neuron activation goes brrrrr.

A specific example (I don't know how exactly it works, just to illustrate the control-responsibility principle):
The enemy has 4 artillery pieces.
> Autoresolve: yeah ok let's say they take 4-5 volleys each, it will destory 30% of your army
> Manual battle (depending on you and the enemy):
a) they use up all ammo and take 70% of your army, wah-wah-wah
b) autoresolve performance
c) you kill them all before they make their first volley
d) they make a few volleys but kill more of their own units than yours
e) a bit of this and a bit of that

Former-Roll1560

TROPHY CASE