My Tomb Kings should be finished and painted by the end of Febuary, and now I am starting to think of my next fantasy army after Tomb Kings. I've been thinking about our playing style and our very reliable magic, and awsome constructs and war machines. Now I think I've decided that I want to collect an army that is the opposite of what our beloved Tomb Kings are (Tactic wise not Fluff wise). So I'm asking what army is the opposite of Tomb Kings?

Brettonia? :)

For me that would be eather orc and goblins(very random) ogres (that has very diffrent kind of troops). Of those two I like orcs and goblins the most :)

I would say Brettonians since they are a very straight forward army as oppossed to Khemri which relies more on sly tactics and a bit of cunning. Bretts don't need that much magic to survive really, they do most of their damage turn 2-3 where as TK fight wars of attrition. Bretts are also heavily armored, another difference in the armies. Oh yeah, heh, and they are much faster than the walking dead too.

I was thinking of a pure beast of Chaos army myself. Low leadership means that it'll be less reliable, the fact that they have no ranked units for static combat res., and he ability to skirmish, and then you have to be even more tactically savy.

I have a few armies, I don't play with some of them now due to work etc but your theory about beasts is a fair one, very much different to TK.

Since playing TK I've started (slowly) to get a Bret army, I want it themed so I'm picking up bits as I go but I wanted something different to TK.

I didn't want Empire as several local players have this but I did fancy something human, normal if you like (see my other armies in my profile) something with a flying character and cCavalry with a better save than 4+ plus something that's able to use some of the tactics that are tried/used against me. Baiting with a fast cavalry unit or skirmishers.

I'm sure what ever you pick you'll be happy with but if you can get hold of the army book for what ever it is, your local GW should have a store copy they'd be glad to let you see, you can at least plan what purchases you want.

Cbt

I think the following armies are very much unlike TK:

-O&G: low Ld and rather unreliable, but three times as much models. Strategy is usyally straightforward charge, although they have some interesting war machines (can't go wrong with 2 bolt throwers for 90 points, taking only 1 special slot). Their magic can miscast like everyone's, but the consequences of a miscast are far more severe. Even if the spell does get trough there's a chance it backfires on you (foot of gork). Not that you'd care, a goblin shaman is barely 40 points. Main differenc eher would be the huge number of models and the fact they're not reliable.

-Brettonia: Incredibly fast moving one-trick pony. As mentioned before, they hit hard on turn 2-3, and are kinda worthless after that, only surviving because of their excellent saves. Your average Brettonian in the street doesn't really like magic, and if they bring a damsel it's usually a scroll caddie. As half of the army can reroll psychology tests and a quarter is immune to psychology, this army seems made to combat the undead. I'm not sure if it's the exact opposite though.

-Beasts of chaos: Indeed another very different play style, because of the large amount of skirmishers. I wouldn't say they're less reliable though, their Ld is still more or less decent, and beast of chaos actually don't have the skirmish rule. They get the raiders rule, which basically means they are skirmishers who do get rank bonusses. If you make them beasts of Khorne, they have no magic at all, I couldn't imagine something more distant from Tomb Kings than no magic. Their ambush rules remind me of scorpions on the other hand. (although scorpions are better ;) )

I would not consider ogres an opposite, as their magic is very reliable too. Their gnoblars are about skeletons (even weaker and without fear) and as of the rest you get an ushabti army (that could be fun though).
If you take a war machine heavy army (dwarfs, empire) I think playing style would be about the same as playing TK with 2 SSC.

on ogres (as the idea was proposed) - I came to TK recently having played ogres for a couple of years - I started TK thinking I was going to br playing a very different army, but soon found it was practically identical (at least for my chariot-heavy build).

comparisons

both:
cause fear and ignore fear-causing in others
both like to get the charge in
both are pretty bad when they get charged or ahve to sustatin a prolonged combat
both can spam out spells
both armies don't roll for their spells
both have few models compared to other armies
both cause impact hits
both have thie main strength in their characters
both have lots of multi-wound models
both have little armour protection

as for a differnt army, I'd second the beasts - indeed, I intend to develop a morghur beast army - loads of spawn!

another option could be lizardmen - lots of possibilities for different builds and skirmishing

Erm wasn't this one killed with the new "min 5 models per rank" as it does state 4!...
On the other hand and back on topic:

I would say either Beasts, Skaven or Orcs and Goblins would be worth it here.
Skaven due to their horde nature (as with Orcs and Goblins) and beasts due to their fickle nature in the game :P

No, it says minimum 4, so it only gets killed if there are less then 4 models in charge range when they themselves are charging (unlikely, because over a quarter of the models must be in charge range before raiders can charge) or when charged by a unit that isn't wide enough to have 5 beastman in base contact (essentially limiting the killing of the rule when charged by monsters or lone characters)

TK Fast - Dwarf Slow
TK Very Magical - Dwarf Very Antimagical
TK Limted Shooting - Dwarf Lots of Shooting

I's say Dwarves are the opposite, that is why I choose TK as my second army.

The only bad thing is that with beasts:

Ungors dying causes panic
Beastherds cause panic to other groups

GW is "unofficially" saying that beasts can no longer use mortals and/or daemons

so NO flyers and additional marks

plus w beasts you can't march coming off the table, and only one unit (bestigors) can take a mark (other than mino's)

i started beasts, and they're fun, but they are very challenging

For an army that's totally opposite, I would suggest Skaven.

Very few reliable, unbreakable models vs. hordes and hordes of bad combat troops

Primarily defensive or supportive and hugely reliable magic vs. magic that is very likely to kill you and one of the most offensive and powerful lores in the game

Very strong characters that are primarily used in supporting CR through kills vs. very weak characters that are primarily chosen to either provide ld, cast magic, or carry banners

Some of the more expensive units in the game vs. the cheapest

Long to mid-range shooting vs. Mid to short range shooting

Either slow or very fast movement phase vs. a mid-range speed movement (all models having either mv 5 or 6)

I came from Skaven and they're an army that has an enormous amount of options while still remaining tactically flexible and viable, especially if you don't cheese the army up.

Gateways

personnaly i find that a mortal based Chaos army hailling the God Khorne is a very interesting idea. Khorne is very against magic, all based on strength bu the humans have some interesting feats. this was going to be my 3rd choice for an army instead of DoW and the best, Tomb Kings

Try the CHAINSAW!

http://z7.invisionfree.com/wyrmling_x/inde...topic=2610&st=0

Or something like it.