First off let me apologise if the following thread appears arrogant or insulting, it's not meant to.

It seems to me that a lot most of the people who post on here are fairly average-low level gamers in the grand scheme of things, it also appears that way at tournaments too, when I watch people play.

The lists I see, ideas I read, tactical theories, all seem fairly poor to me, I don't think I have ever seen an army list or an idea and thought "hey that sounds great I'm gonna try that out"(other than from the Wildman), I do get that from other armies forums though.

I myself am an average gamer in the UK, I've had a little success in one day tournaments (1 win, 3x 4th places) and I finish top half usually in the bigger 2 dayers.

I collect 5 armies, TK, HE, Beasts, Daemons, WoC, I visit regularly on all the forums (lurking on a few) but all the time I feel there are players posting who are at my level or above me.
Here on the TK forum I feel as though I'm one of the stronger players that posts on here.

Is it that the better TK players don't post here, or have they all simply avoided using the army?
Perhaps I'm just underestimating some of the players on here.

Obviously Mark Wildman posts here, probably the best and certainly the most well known TK player, there are other people that give me indications that they are good players too, Rothgar, LevDaddy and a few others.

Again apologies if i seem really arrogant here, just wondering if some of you feel we TK guys are weakest players in the game, like I do?

i can't speak for everyone else but i can atleast say that i'm not the best general out there. often i go in with a pretty good idea of how to play but then i just lose it all because of friends talking and things like that.

for example, a few days ago i was meeting dwarves, had gotten my TG sandwiched beteewn a GW unit in the back and 2 other units in the front. in the magicphase i got of cursed blades and think: omg, omg his general is gonna be so dead soon and then i complitely forget to target him, LOL.

but at least the TG showed that they are still a great unit after only losing th combat by 7.

also often forget things like fear, terror etc.

since the release of TK i have played 59 games against a mix of armies.

im currently standing with the following record.

W=28
L=21
D=10

finding ogres, warriors of chaos and high elves to be the hardest to play against. going to be doing my first tourney in may. 2400 points using Blood in the Sun format. www.bloodinthesun.com

My reccord with the new book stands at
35 wins
19 losses
1 draw.

High elves and Dark Elves account for 17 of the losses :angry:

I think it may really be a case of the book bringing out the worst in some players, me included.

I do much better with Empire, Dwarves, Dark Elves, O&G, Skaven...pretty much all the other armies.

I don't know if soul crushing disappointment is leading me to build crappy lists or what. All I know is that I've never seen myself struggle with an army as I have with this book.

I've won tournaments with the old book and with other armies, but can't seem to buy more than 1 win in 50 with this one.

Once the reults go up for my latest tournament i will go from 3rd in NZ to 2nd in NZ overall rankings, and have the TK icon (along with the OnG one)

I look at the book and see a few viable builds for my play style, however there is some frustration being able to see how much better it could have been with a little thought.

To answer your question, internet hate does not equal reality.
There are a few vocal people out there that are in the minority that believe they are rubbish.
In reality, TK are a diverse army with alot of options, but not an overly popular army in the grand sceme of things. the book suffers from some internal balance issues which could have been easily resolved, however the army as a whole is a good midrange book.
Ignoring the 7th edition brokeness the book is solid and capable vs most armies, and there is no longer a chasim between the books

Something of note, ignoring the few ihaters, this forum is one of the more active race specific ive come across

I personally have a great track record with TK(46-3-5). However, I stopped posting as much on here because it seems that no one really grasps the concepts of how the army is supposed to work...even when you explain it in detail, they go try your suggestions but don't apply the whole picture to the canvas, so to speak. Or, they just completely ignore you and continue to complain about how the book sucks and how their 900 pt unit of tombguard lost a combat sandwiched between two elite units.


My small rant aside...I believe that TK attracts a younger crowd from the standpoint of they are skeletons, badass mummies, Huge, awesome constructs, etc. TK were what first caught my eye when I was only 6. In that regard, TK probably has a good sizeable chunk of newbie and young players. That in turn, pours a lot of inexperienced posts and threads into this forum.


My 2 scarabs.

I appreciate the compliment, first of all. :)

I'm still feeling my way around the Tomb Kings' playstyle at the moment, though. I think that it's an army where the "thing that you want to do" isn't quite as clearly defined as it is for other armies I play. I've seen 2 distinct playstyles in my time here (the "fast attackers" and the "turtle up and come to me" guys), and both of them seem to be successful. I'm not sure which one of the two I prefer at this point, though. Wildman's reports really planted that sort of build into my head.

I'm still in the "proxy out every unit and get a feel for the army" stage, so my results are very preliminary. I'll get back to you guys with a bit of data when I have an armylist I'm comfortable with on paper, and some games under my belt with it.

Anyone can be a high level of player with retarded armies like skaven or dark elf, but not everyone can do that with lower books, that doesn't mean your average "XXX" race player is worst than others.
For everyone who post his struggle with our book you can see another one who looks like he's either the god of warhammer with 90% winrate or plays with childs or really small groups of people, or even worst, plays at 1500 points and think his results can be extrapolated to the vast majority of the TK players.

I started TK a few months afer the release of the last book, coming directly from Beastmen and VC before that - and I have to say that I was absolutely floored by the amount of negativity on this forum. Not just negativity in that people were disappointed with some of the features/rules/models/nerfs/upgrades etc that were brought about by the recent book (these are subjective and people have every right to voice their opinions), but a hard-lined failure to support others in testing out the elements of the army that are either unfavorable or unfamiliar to them, an inherant 'Debbie Downer' attitude towards the army in general, and a disturbing lack of support in the creative section of this forum.

Now, as in all things, the loudest voices tend to be those with the biggest complaints, as rightous or ridiculous as they may be, but too often do I see the following resopnses to questions or ideas being posed on this forum:

A. You want to use X??? X sucks, don't use it!
B. The one time I tried X, it failed. X is total crap.
C. I'm not going to try suggested tactic X, even though it's worked out for other people, nor will I acknowledge it's existance as a valid tactic.
D. XYZ was soooo much better in prior editions, so it's gotta be useless now.
E. I haven't figured out a way to beat build X, so it's impossible and the whole army sucks.
F. I don't care what happens in this battle, I'm just going to throw crappy units A-Z on the table and assume that I'm gonna lose, then I'll share my crappy list, tactics and attitude with everyone who will listen to prove my misguided point.

Also, as I mentioned, the modeling and painting section is so undersupported, I just don't understand it. People of all skill levels take the time to blog and post their hard efforted works, and they go widely un-commented and unsupported. To me, that is just sad. If you look at someone's thread and you have an opinion on their questions, their works, or their ideas, SAY SOMETHING, even if it's just "Good work!", or "how did you do that?". We all paint, we all model, we all slave away on our beloved hobby, and we all know that burnout is too easy to come by and motivation is often hard to keep. Simply commenting on someone's works goes a long way.

To hit my point home take this out for a spin. As I mentioned I play(ed) Beastmen as well. In the current edition of Warhammer, Beastmen are viewed as one of the lowest-tiered armies in terms of overall power, however, anyone who plays them or has played a good opponent who uses them will tell you that Beastmen can be a VERY tough opponent, but no one on Earth would ever say that there are more inherent strengths in the Beastmen book when compared to TK, or less weaknesses or poorly visioned rules and units. Even those with the most negative views towards TK would be absolutely insane to make that claim. TK has a better 'ambush' rule, better 'big things', and less useless units and equipment throughout the book, not to mention the magic Lore. Say what you want about the Lore of Nehekara, but the Lore of the Wild is the most useless, poorly thought out, utterly bulls*$%& piece of garbage to hit a Warhammer Army Book...stay with me here as the point of this post is not that TK>Beastmen......my point is that the main Beastmen Forum, the Herdstone, is chalk of full of supportive, helpful, and positive players of all skill and experience levels that are willing to try things out, help others with their questions and needs, and support the community at large. The overall feel of that forum is "Our book aint great, but we're going to try our hardest to make it so, and embrace those that try out different tactics than myself, and we're going to have a hell of a lot of fun in the process. Also, that Jabberslythe conversion you painted is freaking awesome, even though it's the biggest waste of points I have every seen." I've had similar experience on plenty of other Warhammer Forums, as well.

I wish this community was as supportive, I bet it would have a huge effect on those that are struggling with Tomb Kings on the table or otherwise. My fellow Beastmen turned Tomb Kings Rothgar and Mr. Wildman (and plenty of others) can back me up on this.

So to answer the headlining question of this thread, I'd say that in regrards to this little community we have created here - Good 'ol Khemri - and comparing it to the rest of the Warhammer boards I have frequented - Yes, this is the worst lot of Warhammer players out there, and there is simply no reason for it. We can be better than the rest. The whole point of a forum such as this is to take the hobby FORWARD, and support each others ideas, not the other way around.

Embrace the positivity.

EDIT: Thanks Lordy for the compliment on my Generalship btw. I run a 60/40 win/loss clip. Not great by any means, but a lot of my losses were early on when I was trying to figure things out, and I have never felt that I simply didn't have the tools to win a given battle. Losing was usually bad tactics, user error, or a luck of the dice, and when I have lost, I have always been able to go back to the drawing board and learn from my mistakes. I'm the only regular Tk player out of the 15-20 regulars in my group, and my opponents like playing me and they dig my army.

I have literally made 100's of Tomb Kings lists in anticipation of finally putting my 2500 point list together. I was so focused on characters making my army better that I was overseeing that it is better to focus on units and support choices. Tomb Kings are a "light" army, we don't really have those super uber unkillable characters which is where I wasted alot of time trying to find one.

For me, I think it is good to pick one kind of method, led by a certain kind of character, and then ya build your list and strategy around this focal point. I tried having a King and a LHP in one list, but for me it take up too many points, and leaves both of them exposed in a way, so I just go with Khatep cause I know I will have any spell I want, thus supporting my archer horde properly.

I have to agree with Lev. The Beastmen book isn't as solidly constructed as the TK book, but if you go on the Herdstone, you'll get tons of accounts of hard-won experience to help point you in the right direction, and people are also re-visiting units and items to make sure that the consensus opinions are accurate. A very important point is that it's all delivered in a friendly and understanding manner - no one's going to chew you out for using a Jabberslythe, for example, though they will warn you that it's not worth the ink it's printed on. This community has been down in the dumps for a while now, and I think it's high time we picked it back up.

I'll be the first to admit I haven't patrolled the hobby side of this forum as often as I probably should. I probably should get on that, especially considering my Orcs will soon be done and I'll be looking for new models to build...

Comeon, Lev, cut us some slack. We're old and crumbly. We have a right to be a little grouchy :)

I don't know, though. I'll tell you this- I'm one of those 'new' players. I've had a grand total of 1 Fantasy battle, and that was on a small table against a proxy beastmen list with no magic. I crushed him (though he kept dispelling my spells with one or two dice!)

I've also had two games where I've pitted my ancient skeleton hordes against 41st millenium shock troopers- once against Deathwing terminators and once against Guardsmen, including a blob squad and a Leman Russ Vanquisher, and though I didn't pull out wins in either of those situations, by the end of the game, even the 40k armies were feeling the hurt (and really, who'd expect Fantasy to win against 40k?)


But I think, oddly enough, that the army attracts the kind of people that somehow match the fluff of the characters and race. Beastmen are generally a "We've been tainted and twisted by the warp, and now we're gonna do things our way" race, and from what you've said, the forums and community follows that example.

Tomb Kings were betrayed in their past, leading to a present which falls far short of the golden paradise they were promised, but despite this, they're determined to grind through and reclaim the glory that was once theirs. They're not very happy while doing this, though, as every loss and every draw reminds them of what could have been, while the few, fleeting wins simply give them a taste of what could have been, before it was ripped away by reality.

But we get back up, and keep fighting.


Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough Necrotects around- I'm trying to fix that, but I've been struck by a case of the Tomb Despair lately, and have only recently gotten back out of my sarcophagus to start creating again. I do try to comment when I'm impressed or interested, though.

I also agree with the comments made by Lordy and LevDaddy as well.

Just yesterday I voted for TK in the 'easiest army to beat' poll, simply because the chances of meeting a well crafted TK list in the hands of a decent general are negligible at best.

It's also true that the forum has aquired a prevailing air of negativity in the last twelve months or so that certainly wasn't there before -and to be honest I find it more than a little draining sometimes. :(

Sadly I think the two issues are definately connected and although there are the occasional flashes of brilliance to be found here and there on the forum, you really have to listen very hard before they are drowned out by a chorus of naysayers. <_<

Hopefully the very presence of a thread like this will encourage some of us to adopt the more positive and supportive atmosphere this forum once enjoyed and could take forgranted.

Plus a very big 1!

Another big one to Rothgar!

Indeed. I have gone back to lurking mode due to the excessive amounts of negativity around here. Thanks to all the people that kept the fire going and the hieroglyphs free of dust (you know who you are, and I truly appreciate your posts) ;)

I'm all in favor of some good vibes. I just need to find a reason to generate them, and then I'll be overjoyed to spread the love. Still trying despite my failures!


By the way, I appreciate the restraint some folks have shown in their placing of thin veils over their comments.

Hey, Sleboda, you're actually probably one of the most positive people on the forum! You lose, and lose, and only occasionally win, but you're determined to see this army through, and keep trying. Your threads generate a lot of interest, and I know I look forward to every one of your batreps, and your army is beautifully done.

We're not reason enough???

hmm...

My TK win rate is about 58%, and my win rate with most other armies are in the mid 80 percentile. I consider myself a fairly decent player, and on the other hand I'll happily take internet deemed "subpar" units and army builds just to prove good things can be done with them. Don't like being a hipster that takes the same boring units as everyone else ;). I like being new and creative.

I think Levdaddy really hit it on the head.

Hi there, so far this thread concurs with some of my own impressions about the forum and the army itself. I am still fairly new to warhammer and sometimes still struggling with some of the basic rules. But overall, after my first wave of games in which 1 of 5 went to my favour, I have been able to raise my win ratio to about a third. Yay :-)
I do also have a dark elves army, but I really do love ours better, even though potentially I think the elves have more going for them. The reason why I prefer our TKs is the many possibilities they offer. Gunline, fast chariot/knights/sphinx rush, magic heavy (I am currently exploring death mage spams, then will look into light magic spells) or magic light, emerging from the sands or spamming big blocks of skeleton infanterie, hell, I even made 3000 pts lists with 3 caskets of souls... our army allows for so much exploring that my initial 3000 pts grew to 9000 just so I am able to try it all out. Who cares if other armies are overall better (or so it seems). I am glad I play a perceived underdog army, it offers me everything I expect from a good warhammer game and I do hope whenever I make a post it conveys my positive attitude towards it even when I have to struggle with some problems or concepts myself.

As for my playing, I'm regretting not having kept very much scores. Though I'm throwing out lot's of analysis at times (another hobby), I'm still very much in my startup phase, having played only 20 big games (let's say 2200 points or higher), I think. Still, within that startup, I have done pretty well against the friends in my playgroup. actually: I lost once to orcs and goblins, and otherwise I'm pretty sure I won everything else against darkelves, O&G, lizardmen, WoC, VC, wood elves. My regular buddy that plays skaven and I are somewhat keeping scores, and that's someting of a 9-3 in my favor. All in all not to bad.
Can I now conclude to be a great player? probably not, as I said, still startup phase, and we're not a tournament attending gaming-group, so we're all still learning. That's one thing that I personnaly suspect some negativity is comming from: this community sports the word 'competitive' far too often. The spirrit of this forum would indeed discourage to field lot's of monsters, lot's of characters on dragons and what have you, just because you will risk playing a very short game when ther'es three cannons around. When preparing for a tournament, I think this is actually a very valid consideration. however, in my gaming group; the guy playing the invincible gunline would simply change his list or loose opponents, in a natural way where the group spirrit would be 'ok, it was a nice trick, but we have seen it now', and we move on. Therefore I can field ushabti or a king on a sphinx, and still have fun, or even win.

Other than that, I feel with Vallah. I came lurking at this forum when he seemd to have just started 'contributing heavily'. I remember him from then because he had brilliant posts in all sections of the forum (that and he never changed his avatar :)). We missed him for some time, and when he returned, indeed, we had a new book and lots of negativity. The initial shock of something new might have caused the negativity as well;

---------------------------------------------

anyway, instead of dwelling on what caused the negativity, I should try to think how to turn it around. If we are doing this actively, I'm suggesting that we try to set up a few BIG, joined-effort things. I'm thinking of the LEAF (library of articles forum of the woodelves) or some centralized tactics topic (let's say a grown-up brother of the tactics-corner only Krael is suggesting threads for at the tactics subforum right now).
I think this is a good plan, because one of the topics I really enjoyed was the custom-dice ordering effort. Not because of valuable gaming-lessons, even, but just because EVERYBODY was enthausiastic, and working/thinking on the same thing.

whatever happens, I'm happy with the new optimism

Just a quick opinion because I'm at work.

I'm not 100% in agreement that we are 'the worst' players.

I think in my personal opinion, that there is 2-3 big names here on this forum (no names) that bad mouth peoples tactics and/or opinions based on their own opinion of Tomb Kings (which in this case, they hate with a passion our 'broken' book). Rather than thinking outside the box and finding a way to deal with these solutions they openly dismiss other peoples tactics and/or unit choices.
And in doing so, many of the really decent gamers here don't post anymore because they don't want the hassle of flaming/trolling/unfriendlyness.

I myself have found that its much much easier to help people via messages, and lately a lot of people have been mailing asking for list advice.

I've been playing Tomb Kings since back in the day when the first edition of Tomb Kings (6th gen) that's what, 4-6 years? I think of myself as just above averege. My normal games are 2k and lately its 3k.
I was in the ToS this year and the previous 2 with my Tk (advantage of living nearby). And placing in top 15 in all three (last year I ranked 5th).
(side note, if I knew what mark looked like I would of said hi!)

I try to give advice where I can, and Im probably guilty of saying "dont take X, take Y for the points" or "dont take 5 horsemen archers, take 10!" but I do try to justify my reasoning when I do so. I appologize if Ive bashed anyone....

However, I've been playing for only about a year now and Ive seen similar happenings at my local shops. I think the true issue is competitiveness... People pick up some Tomb Kings and play for a little while and since the army doesn't have solid stand alone units, and is more of a support unit army they dont give themselves enough time to learn it, or try to play the way they do other armies. Then they get frustrated and give up, going back to a different army because "the new TK book sucks." I was quite proud of myself at the last tournament I entered. I was part of a conversation where some guys were saying how crappy the new TK book is compared to the other new books, even O&Gs. I went on to go undefeated in the tournament and won.. with out crappy new TK book ;)

In conclusion, I feel that people are just too impatient to get to know the ins and outs of TK. The complaining and whining about how our new book didnt get this and didnt get that, but VC got this and can heal characters doesnt help. It just pushes newer players to VC and mid-level players to another army. I have three armies currently: TK, Lizardmen and Ogres. TK are by far my favorite at the moment because NO ONE ELSE around here plays them. Ill be the first to admit playing TK is a challenge and isnt something you can go get the book and some models and just start winning. If you can, you are awesome. Its an army you have to "play chess" with and plan ahead and cast the correct things, etc.

Only advise I have for new players to TK is... Hang in there! It might be bad now but the more you play the more you learn. And you always learn more when you LOSE.

I don't think the issue is poor players. I don't think TK appeals to teenagers much more than any other army. I think the issue is that there is no signature TK playstyle, except for the hard-to-master buried unit spam. We have decent shooting, but it doesn't help us that much to take out monsters or reduce elite infantry. We have good fighters but nothing that can just march across the board and mash face. We have good magic capabilities, but no "win-buttons" besides purple sun. We can muster tactical movement phases, but it requires a good grasp of the EBTS, swift reform, magic movement and the severe limit of no marching.

It's not that TK are hard to play right, it's an army that is easy to play wrong, and unstable in 8ed means that most mistakes means a unit lost.

Two very key points here.
I really wish EVERYONE who collects TK's reads this and understands this quote.

It's both of my answers to the big question 'How do you win with Tk?' that is asked a lot by the younger players.

1- Practice, testing and lots of Losing
2- Play it like chess, think ahead, get units working together.

I like to think of it as my very own Blitzkrieg.
Just like the Germans in WWII, Air, tank, infantry and artillery working together.
As must our shooting, magic, charges, flank charges, EBTS, MWBD, Hatred etc... Play all the angles and you win lots... Can trust me on that :)

This thread +1.

Everyone isnt that serious about warhammer. Its a lot of win rate and how to win. Me my self just have my little brother to play against. For me its the spirit and the epicness of warhammer that makes me play and not nesseserly winning(even if it would be fun to win sometimes). I rather have a epic game and a draw, Then major win and a total devestation for my opponent. No offense to those how are competitive and play alot of tournaments. But have in mind that not everyone do that.

I am one of this members who is checking all the threads and dont comment. mostly cause I dont know the answer to the questions that are asked.(cause my limited gaming experience) But Ill try to comment more and give my support.

This forum only is what keep me playing warhammer at all right know. Motivate me to paint, build, and convert. You are like my own tomb king family

Thanks for the compliment Lordy! I wouldn’t judge my success at the Throne of Skulls as being a good Tomb King player – just fairly competent! I wouldn’t class the TOS as a competitive event as a lot of the armies there where actually not very competitive at all. However, let’s have this discussion at the end of the year when I’ve been to 8+ tournaments and then we can see how good I can get Tomb Kings playing!

As for W/L/D ratio – I would probably say I win 60% of the time, although I don’t record my game results. I learn A LOT more when I loose a game rather than win. I think I am winning a few more games now – so hopefully this trend will continue!

I like being an underdog, I like making a lower tiered army good – I felt I did really well for Beastmen and would still like to play them, but I cant focus on too many armies. Compared to Beastmen, Tomb Kings are much better as the Beastmen do lack enough “special” stuff in the army and normally feel out gunned. However, I don’t feel like that with Tomb Kings, they do have special stuff, it just needs utilising well.

One thing I do feel about Tomb Kings is that they are not very forgiving. If you make a mistake it’s usually “game over man”. As a result, I think people have a few games with them, think they are ###### and move on. (On a side note, compared to some other armies they aren’t as good – but they have potential in the right hands). Perseverance is key – but list development has a lot to do with it.

I will add though, that there are a lot of lists on this forum which I don’t rate, but I think I’m in a minority here, but I think I’m right still :P (lets hope I don’t eat my works in a year time LOL).

Whenever I write lists, and loose a game, I normally look at changing something in the list. But only every 1 thing. Eg, I have been using Lore of Death or Light on my General. I’ve had about 10 games with each (and not changing anything else in the list – and light has come up trumps most of the time). Time needs to be given for each game you play as there are so many different variables, eg, types of opponent, play style, list type, bad luck (Sleboda :P), good luck, etc…. that’s why you need to play quite a few games before being able to critic a list. Having one bad game doesn’t mean an awful lot tbh.


I’ll give an example of a player on the UK tournament scene – he plays with demons and in his local community of gamers he will admit that he wins 99.9% of the time and admits he plays chumps – his words, not mine. But when he comes to play at tournaments and plays some of the “top ranked” players, he looses 99.9% of the time. Within his own community his win record is through the roof, but in another setting he doesn’t win as much and has a lower win record. I use this example as its one of the challenges faced with internet forums and getting all the right facts in place. But I don’t want to discount the support forums can give as it has helped me an awful lot.

+1 for possessiveness though!!!!

Not to derail the thread, but how are you doing this?

EDIT: Nevermind... you said GENERAL and not HIEROPHANT...
sorry... please continue...

Not to be a Negative Nelly here, but how is that any different from other armies?

In other words, the advice you have given is solid advice, but since it applies to all armies, why should that help a TK player any more than anyone else?

It sort of goes back to something I've said before about how with other armies, armies that are designed better, you can overcome an odd bit of bad luck here and there, but with TK you not only have to build an ideal list and employ perfect tactics, but you also have to pray that you don't hit _any_ bumps in the road. TK _start_ in a position of weakness, so to speak. Mark touches on this above with his "Game over, man" comment.

Again, not trying to be negative. I'm just curious as to how this advice applies to TK any more than another army. Or maybe if we looked at it from another angle - If we used this advice with other armies, we would be getting better with them as well, but their 'top end' from improvement is higher than TK, so all we can hope to do by applying this advice to TK is to reach a maximum level of play that is several pegs below that which other armies can achieve doing the same stuff. This is something else Mark touches on above and has also been expressed in honest moments by others in one way or another. Mark says "...compared to some other armies they aren’t as good – but they have potential in the right hands..." but I've seen comments from others like "You have to be a great tactician" or "they are an expert's army" or "they are tougher to use than most but once you master them... " or any number of other comments that indicate we all understand that other armies start in a better place than TK. If these other armies are better, and the players of them maxed out their potential as we did ours, their end point would be ahead of ours.

=> You are right that not everyone is a tournament player. You enjoy the game your way, and that's cool. The thing is, this comes up a lot, and it always goes back to a single point - If the game could be improved from a tournament stance, it would do nothing to harm the players out there such as yourself. So, if TK could be made to compete on a more level playing field, we could _all_ enjoy the game the way we each prefer. There's no good reason for GW to not strive for a better game.


@nobody in particular-

Beastmen. I never have understood the hate. Every BM player I know has put together incredibly solid lists that make me envy what they have. Solid troops. Good speed. Stunning magic. Redirectors galore. Hard hitters. Yeah, I know the monsters are overcosted, but other than that I think Beastmen are a fabulous army.

Truth be told, there is no difference sleb, it just applies more because it takes a lot longer to master TKs.
And your right about TKs starting in a position of weakness, but I think they become one of the strongest. However that is my own opinion. I find everything TKs bring in their book compliments my tactics/gaming style greatly.
I'm yet to find an 'elite' player that can beat me consistently.

Hell I could just have the great positive view because I love Acient Egypt culture/warfare. >.<

I'm right there with you on the culture/warfare thing. Loves me some really old Egyptians!

As to the other part of your quote, I'm a bit surprised and would love to read some expanded thoughts on your part on it.

How do you see them becoming "one of the strongest?"
What is it about them that shines in such a way that others stuggle to overcome the glare?
What is their "thing" that you can say is a strength that is uniquely theirs and allows us to build off of it?
Which armies do you think TK can become stronger than? Skaven? Demons? Dark Elves? Lizards? Empire? I don't see it, but maybe I'm blinded by my losses.
How does the TK army evolve to a point where other players of other armies ever experience any jealousy over what our army offers? I often look at other books and find myself wishing I could do X, Y or Z. When I play other armies, I don't look over at TK and think "Man, that rule that they have really seals the deal for them! I wish my (insert army name) army could do that!"

I have to agree here...

I guess what I was getting at is TK needs to plan ahead for units to meet up in a common area and work together. IE. Combo charges and such... And the fact we do not have any (Tomb Guard can be argued) stand alone beat face units that we can just point and kill, and if something goes wrong (as Sleboda said) TK isnt very forgiving. IE if you take a unit of 6 Necropolis Knights and make a mistake and they get waxed early, you might as well save yourself the time and pack it up. Where if WoC lose a unit of Chaos Knights it isnt as devistating because their warriors can stand up on their own.

I was rereading the topic from the start. anybody else feeling this way? I'm not visiting that many fora, but @ asrai and the underempire, much less tactics/discussion threads seem to be opened per week there, and though they each have more members, ours seem more active. could be a feeling.

I'm sorta trying something like that with my "Spell Focus" thread. Go through the Nehekharan lore, spell by spell, and look at all the situations they'd be useful, what hidden comboes could be pulled off, ease of casting, etc.

yeah, I noticed :) Those topics are great. The dirty tricks topic of pretty-long-ago is another one I always enjoy reading back. I'm going to suggest yours to the tactical corner at the end of the month ;)

still, I was thinking of going even a little further, and somehow coordinate such topics.
maybe it can be as easy as the topic starter updating the first post with the new insights that sprung from the discussion below, see were in strands, and if the topic is cool, mioumboy or cbt can sticky it after a while.
or we could open an outright comprehensive tactica-index thread with links to dedicated-articlethreads-with-updated-first-posts-written-on-request (as in: anvildude writes on magic, krael claims how to use tomb swarms, and rothgar takes the beastmen-paragraph in the 'dealing with other armies' chapter.

of course it would never finish, and most people have better things to do, but it is things like that (lot's of great stickies, extensive indexed usefull threads) that give other fora the impression of being an productive community (to me).

I'd be up for that.

I'll also be putting my experiences with Constructs here, once I can actually find a game. I'm actually planning on complete Ubi spam, with maybe a Titan or a couple Colossi, and I have to wonder how that'll end up working

Since I came back to the forum, I've tried to be as positive as I could when giving advice and sharing my experiences. I've done very well with the army and I know that any unit is viable in the hands of a good general. Why do I think that way? because I've seen tournament winning armies that bring units that many consider subpar. So yes, when I tell someone "I feel that unit x is a better choice than unit y" I know I'm just giving my opinion on things and for all I know, I could be trying to give advice to a top ranked general.
I'll never discount any unit, there are just some choices that I prefer like everyone else. So I'm all for helping out with an article like the LEAF from Asrai.org.
It's great to see so much positivity in the community!

I'm speechless......no words.....I can't even believe I'm seeing this, but I'll cut you two some slack on lack of experience on the subject.


One thing I will throw out there is - Go play Beastmen for a dozen games. Learn the ins and outs and then come back to Tomb Kings. Your general Warhammer skills will skyrocket. From how to build lists, redirecting/harassing (especially redirecting), sacrificing units, how to manage/bluff your magic phase, how to maximize your strengths and minizmize weaknesses etc.


ON TOPIC - I'll be starting another campaign soon and look forward to sharing my battles and strategies with the forum, as always.

=> ??? I _have_ the experience. That's the point. I've played against many different BM players and marveled at what the army can do.

=> Actually, what you learn from playing BM is largely inapplicable to TK. TK can't march, can't flee, can't solidify a magic phase like they can, can't put out a solid combat block like they can. Really all playing BM does is increase your frustration over what TK can't do.