# Sick of seeing the same army build.



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Is anyone else sick of Codexes that were Nerfed, Oversimplified, or never getting a proper update with something as simple a easy as a PDF (looking at you BA Players, before your recent dex). Codexes that are so piss poor in 5th that only vary narrow range of units that work in any list. 

CSMs for example has options for vary list for fun. But to win at all period you have to go for DPs, Cult Troops, and Oblits. You could use Vindis, Sorcerors, Termies, Chosen, Defilers, CSMs to some effect as well. Everything else is a bust. Narrow Minded and lack of Options.

DE are worst. DE Lord, Wyches, Raider Sqauds, and Ravagers. You could use Talos, but no way to deploy them effectivly. Reavers are also a chancy option at running away at a high point cost. Everything else is garbage.

Is this a product of GW piss poor updating habits? I mean they could update BAs for 4th via PDF, update DE to some degree with their lower pts cost and addition of Wych Lords, but other neglected Dexes cant be?

Or is this the product of Gamers drilling the same copy and paste list to every gamer who plays for the hell out of it? As in "Play these units only or dont complain about losing." Is this the real problem. 

Please fell free to list other armies you might think are broken. Hell Post Lists that you claim can work without falling into the same Copy and Paste Lists that overflow the Army List section.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Warlock in Training said:


> Or is this the product of Gamers drilling the same copy and paste list to every gamer who plays for the hell out of it? As in "Play these units only or dont complain about losing." Is this the real problem.


thats pretty much what I see all the time, if someone posts a list these days all effort is made to make that list the same as everyone elses, and if you take choices YOU want, then your just treated like some moronic sub-human


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Yeah this does seem to be the prevailing attitude. It was probably worse around 4th edition when the game was really catered towards tournament play- something I _personally_ abhor. Thankfully though, recently there's slowly been a trend towards people choosing the units they like for 'fluff' reasons or because they just like the models. It makes for much more entertaining games (in this poster's humble opinion), especially with fun narrative campaign style missions where the games become a form of immersive escapism as opposed to a WAAC yawn-fest.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

GW do seem to want everyone to use the same types of lists though. They do this by only making certain combinations viable. It feels as if 40k is dumbing down with every new codex.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

What does WAAC stand for, Ive been seeing it alot latley and have never seen this before.


----------



## Calamari (Feb 13, 2009)

However many builds you might get in a codex there will nearly always be a "best" one and forums are partly to blame for spreading said list.

When I look in the army list section I see people say "take xyz and win" like everyone else. What seems to be forgotten is that some one will post up a list and say "make this competitive".

I'm not really sure what my point is but maybe people are asking the wrong questions?

But it's late and this could all be coming out if my arse.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Calamari said:


> However many builds you might get in a codex there will nearly always be a "best" one and forums are partly to blame for spreading said list.
> 
> When I look in the army list section I see people say "take xyz and win" like everyone else. What seems to be forgotten is that some one will post up a list and say "make this competitive".
> 
> ...



Umm... i think Im getting what your saying... on the safe side get some sleep and try again tomorrow. :wink:


----------



## Ravingbantha (Jan 9, 2009)

That's how I felt about the game since 3rd edition came out. 2nd edition really had alot of different things going on and then it was completly dumbed down. Even now the game is still a shadow of what it once was.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Poor, poor Necrons with their 15 destroyer list...


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Older books suffer from this inbeing mono-builds, not the new books. GW can't produce 16 new books at once and expect them to have the same quality they have now, so wait and be patient.


----------



## genesis108 (Jul 29, 2009)

I kind of get annoyed with people using C&P army lists. I dont really post anything up in the List section for that reason. I am going to field what I want to field..usually its going to coincide with fluff and the army's battle doctrine(Deep Strike/Fast attack/Assault for BA). I might, once in a while, venture outside the doctrine for a little variety in play...but usually it's going to be the same list..and its going to annoy people. I get tired of hearing from people "Combat squadding is dumb!" Guess what..I do it with Tacticals for the fact that I can leave a combat squad with a heavy back and shoot..while the sarge and special weapon move around and help support where needed. Tactically sound...most people say no because I only have 4 ablative wounds for my heavy weapon..but having 9 guys sit in 1 place for 1 heavy weapon to shoot isnt very tactically sound either unless they are holding an objective. So I slog my Flamer and Sarge around and support where I can with them while my ML pops shots at anything he can see. 

People say that that idea is dumb..stupid..whatever. It's worked for me. Is it "competitively sound" doing that..? No..but I don't give a damn about competitive play. I will play in tourneys but Im not going to change my list much or go against my army's main combat style just to win...to me, that is just retarded.

So..yeah, C&P lists and crap annoy the hell out of me because people don't think for themselves anymore..it's all about "what is the best to bring and what wins tournaments"...so why play a game that requires SOME level of thought if you aren't going to think for yourself..?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

genesis108 said:


> but I don't give a damn about competitive play.


*long shocked intake of breath* shhhh, don't say that, otherwise you'll awaken the sleeping beasts and we'll never hear the end of it.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

I thought combat squadding WAS effective???


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

seriously what does waac mean? im as confused as warlok.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Warlock in Training said:


> CSMs for example has options for vary list for fun. But to win at all period you have to go for DPs, Cult Troops, and Oblits. You could use Vindis, Sorcerors, Termies, Chosen, Defilers, CSMs to some effect as well. Everything else is a bust. Narrow Minded and lack of Options.


This is the sign of crappy Codex writing - there's literally one viable build in a Codex that isn't even *that* old (it was released toward the end of 4th edition, most certainly with 5th in mind).



> DE are worst. DE Lord, Wyches, Raider Sqauds, and Ravagers. You could use Talos, but no way to deploy them effectivly. Reavers are also a chancy option at running away at a high point cost. Everything else is garbage.


To be honest, what do you really expect from a Codex that's two editions out of date? It's a miracle that it still functions at all let alone functions with a viable build for competitive play.



> Is this a product of GW piss poor updating habits? I mean they could update BAs for 4th via PDF, update DE to some degree with their lower pts cost and addition of Wych Lords, but other neglected Dexes cant be?
> 
> Or is this the product of Gamers drilling the same copy and paste list to every gamer who plays for the hell out of it? As in "Play these units only or dont complain about losing." Is this the real problem.


In part, yes, it has to do with Games Workshop not staying on top of their Codex updates as well as they should/could be. The other side of it in my opinion is that people don't follow the Army List forum rules.

You'll notice partway down that members are supposed to make it clear *in the thread title* what the list is intended to do. Is it intended for Grand Tournament play or casual/friendlies? Most people don't specify, so those of us that are looking to help people out with competitive lists don't know what's what before we open a thread. Once we do and see there's a ton of stuff "wrong" (and by that I mean a lot of sub-optimal choices) we try to help. Now, this isn't entirely the thread maker's fault as there are _some_ (only some, *not* all) people that will continue to push their viewpoint on you even after you've made it clear that you're not interested in their ideas, which is wrong of them. But overall, I think if people made their intentions more clear there'd be less issues.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Basically, if you want to play a non-competitive list, then be prepared to lose 90% of the time.

Blame GW for their lack of balance within a Codex. Some units are a must in almost every list, other units people wouldn't even buy them if they were half price.
Whats even worse is that the units that are effective in this edition will be crap in 6th edition, forcing you to buy more models.

Regarding people posting lists on the forum....
If you post a list on the forum, then it should be assumed that its supposed to be a competitive list.
If its a friendly list and you have no intention of changing it, then why bother posting it? Dont waste your time posting the list, and most importantly dont waste other peoples time that are trying to help you if your not going to change it.
Who cares what some tourney-obsessed douche on the other side of the planet thinks. Just play the game and have fun if thats what makes you happy.
If your a complete noob, then fair enough. You might want some advice about basic stuff (like should Berzerkers be in a transport, or should i use a Trygon or Mawloc), but that is an understanding of basic tactics rather than list building.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

I agree with Katie Drake here, it is primarily the responsibility of the person posting the list to clarify what they want as far as criticism goes. They should read the guidelines for posting lists fully before doing so.

On another note, the new codexes that have come out like IG, Tyranids, SW, BA, etc all have multiple good builds that can be both semi-competitive and fluffy. You don't have to field an army with sub-optimal units to have fun.


----------



## solkan (Apr 24, 2008)

I don't think trying to find new and varied lists to use is going to be effective in general, because of the power span between GW's books. If you're tired of seeing the same builds over and over again there are only a few options open:

1. Use brain washing, mind control or just really good arguments to get a group of people together willing to play with adjusted or non-standard army books. Try out various strategies for fixing the Necron book, and try out various custom scenarios.

2. Use similar methods to #1 to get a group of people together who will play with non-optimized lists.

3. Play 40K the drinking game--the winner buys the beer/snacks/pizza/whatever for the loser.

Of the three options, I think #3 is probably the best bet, because free food is almost as good as winning, right? But if you're playing random pickup games at a local store, then I think you're going to have to fall back to mind control. :secret:


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> Some units are a must in almost every list, other units people wouldn't even buy them if they were half price.
> Whats even worse is that the units that are effective in this edition will be crap in 6th edition, forcing you to buy more models.


And thus their master plan is revealed...


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

High_Seraph said:


> seriously what does waac mean? im as confused as warlok.



Win
At
All 
Costs

They are the "enema" of the casual gamer.

Silly me. That's meant to be a 'y' there, not an 'a'.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

And thus begins a new battle between the veteran forces of the Coalition of Competitive Gamers and the laid back forces of the United Casual Gamers. CCG vs UCG, who will win this deadly battle of words? Only time will tell...


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Why not settle it with a game? We are all from western nation.... War is how we do these thing isn't it?


----------



## Ravingbantha (Jan 9, 2009)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> And thus begins a new battle between the veteran forces of the Coalition of Competitive Gamers and the laid back forces of the United Casual Gamers. CCG vs UCG, who will win this deadly battle of words? Only time will tell...


The UCG is too laid back to really care.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Ravingbantha said:


> The UCG is too laid back to really care.


*The fight has started!* First blood goes to Ravingbantha with some nicely executed, albeit predicable satire.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Well, with a single FAQ, GW have managed to destroy a Tyranid army I have been planning for over a year. I wanted an all Tyranid Warrior army in drop pods, but now all units that have them MUST use them, and you can't attach your HQ to the units! Definitely GW closing down options rather than opening them up.

I think GW must redo all codices at the same time, because the drip-drip method is really shit for the hobby. Maybe they have just over stretched themselves with too many different armies.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

darklove said:


> Well, with a single FAQ, GW have managed to destroy a Tyranid army I have been planning for over a year. I wanted an all Tyranid Warrior army in drop pods, but now all units that have them MUST use them, and you can't attach your HQ to the units! Definitely GW closing down options rather than opening them up.
> 
> I think GW must redo all codices at the same time, because the drip-drip method is really shit for the hobby. Maybe they have just over stretched themselves with too many different armies.


As I've said a thousand times they should just release codices in the rulebook. So the 6th ed rulebook would contain all the rules to play the game, and all the 6th ed codicies. It would mean that the miniature range could be independent of codex release. It would also ensure that all the armies were 'up to date'.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

darklove said:


> Well, with a single FAQ, GW have managed to destroy a Tyranid army I have been planning for over a year. I wanted an all Tyranid Warrior army in drop pods, but now all units that have them MUST use them, and you can't attach your HQ to the units! Definitely GW closing down options rather than opening them up.
> 
> I think GW must redo all codices at the same time, because the drip-drip method is really shit for the hobby. Maybe they have just over stretched themselves with too many different armies.


Do you have any idea how much effort that would take and how poor it would be on sales? Everyone complains about GW balance but the last 5 books have been very balanced between themselves and internally. THere are some "automatic" units and some "never" units but for the most part, they are damn good books. These take time to produce and if you did them all at once what would development staff do? Go straight into the next round of books and then everyone would complain about imbalances, etc. The 'drip-drip' method and FAQs (when they come out) allows them to address some imbalances, keeps their sales up with new lists injected into the game and doesn't create encourage stagnation.


----------



## Lucio (Aug 10, 2009)

I do dislike certain perspectives of "use this not that at any given time" perfect example are devastators. Sure, an annialator can gets its worth back in killing transports and tanks but it wont deal with packed nids as well as a plasma cannon squad since even if they miss (ie not blow up in my face) they've got a good chance at splattering some MC I wasn't aiming for and are generally more survivable than the Pred. 

Never take Dark Angels scouts. How else do you expect to get a squad with 10 lascannons (see: sniper rifles) with rending against high toughness targets for another 50 pts?

I understand if its just kinda there unsupported, my main problem really, but when it fits into the list well it really shouldnt be suggested to be thrown out.


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Ravingbantha said:


> That's how I felt about the game since 3rd edition came out. 2nd edition really had alot of different things going on and then it was completly dumbed down. Even now the game is still a shadow of what it once was.


That's how I felt until 5th, which for me is a nice compromise and I'm really quite happy with this edition. However, if there was ever a 40k skirmish rule set released (think kill team but more indepth)- i'll be all over it in a shot! For now though, 40k and Necromunda keep me entertained.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

El Mariachi said:


> That's how I felt until 5th, which for me is a nice compromise and I'm really quite happy with this edition. However, if there was ever a 40k skirmish rule set released (think kill team but more indepth)- i'll be all over it in a shot! For now though, 40k and Necromunda keep me entertained.


Like Inquisitor? Or is that too in depth?


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Nah Inquisitor is great, but to really enjoy it you have to put in a fair bit of prior planning and preparation. I'm prepared to put some in but my time is at a premium at the moment so I can't really commit that much effort into a game  For those who have yet to play it, if you can get a small group (ie, 2 players and a GM), I really recommend Inquisitor.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Inquisitor is awesome - I also recommend Dark Heresy for anyone that likes inquisitor.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

It is mainly the fault of the forum that there are so many copy and paste lists out there nowadays. A few years back, before I ever joined this site all my gaming friends were on no forum and nearly every week there'd be a new list with all manner of options. A lot of them gave u pthe game but my newer group, mostly warseer members too, all carry lists that i've seen online countless times. One guy is bringing a list to a tournament he's never played with but is confident as the people he heard use it did well in tournaments.


----------



## scubamansam (Aug 15, 2009)

The fight has started! aw damn theres a fight now? i'll sit this one out as Switzerland


----------



## Ravingbantha (Jan 9, 2009)

I would hate the idea of a rulebook comming out with all the codicies in it. Could you imagine how much that would cost? GW wouldn't take a finicial hit like that, so then we would have to pay for the rulebook and about 15 or so different codicies. Your talking about $200-$300.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Ravingbantha said:


> I would hate the idea of a rulebook comming out with all the codicies in it. Could you imagine how much that would cost? GW wouldn't take a finicial hit like that, so then we would have to pay for the rulebook and about 15 or so different codicies. Your talking about $200-$300.


Would just encourage people to download PDF's illegally.

People wont even buy the books at the price they are now, never mind if they triple it.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Ravingbantha said:


> I would hate the idea of a rulebook comming out with all the codicies in it. Could you imagine how much that would cost? GW wouldn't take a finicial hit like that, so then we would have to pay for the rulebook and about 15 or so different codicies. Your talking about $200-$300.


They did it in 3rd edition and that rulebook was like... $50. Even with inflation, there's no chance in hell it'd cost $200-300. Look at the size of the 8th edition Fantasy rulebook. They're charging, what, $75 CAD for that?


----------



## Ravingbantha (Jan 9, 2009)

does the 8th edition have full codicies in it? And I do remeber the 3rd edition rule book, it sucked in ways rancid crap does when it's shoved up your nose.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Yeah..... they wouldn’t change 300. No one would be that stupid. Besides, with the proper marketing it could work. Think about it, most of their expenses are in printing so this would also cost much less.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

If I play against someone bringing a non-competitive list then there is a good chance that I will table them and neither one of us will have fun.

Problem I see with the internets crying about WAAC is that you seem to think the scenario above is fun for the competitive player. It's not. 

Personally, I've thought about building a non-competitive list... but I keep stopping myself from doing so because I just don't know how bad to make it... How bad does my army have to suck until we are on level footing.... and strangely, the Non-Comp players in my area are starting to make lists that don't suck... I guess they must like the win/lose part of the game at least a little bit... 

Kirby, I think you are dead on about the Codex situation... Older armies struggle, a newer codex gives more options...

Warlock, there are crappy choices you can make in your list selection. If the game were perhaps a little better, then you would have viable choices in every FoC that would let you take multiple builds at every points level. But that's not the case. So you'll end up with some very similar builds. 

For the copy and paste lists... I would rather see less "take x to win" and more "here's what is needed to make a competitive list" - And I'd rather have a new guy coming to the table with a viable army list rather than a basket of crap choices (assuming he wants to play the game to win/lose... It's easier to win if you're new with good tools rather than bad ones...)

The real problem, as I see it, is that many are attempting to play a competitive strategy game in a non competitive manner. As long as we're in agreement... then all is cool... but if you're playing one way and I'm playing another that could lead to a no fun game on either side (I don't get my competitive fix and you may be losing out on the in-game narrative that you might enjoy)


Stella, you say "if someone posts a list these days all effort is made to make that list the same as everyone elses, and if you take choices YOU want, then your just treated like some moronic sub-human"
- If you ask me what do you think of a list, then I will give you my opinion based on it's ability to win games (assuming a competent player) -- If you were playing the models YOU want, then why post it on a forum asking for constructive advice.. 

However, people DO need to be more clear about what they want... If somebody say's, for example, _I'm gonna field 3 whirlwinds 'cause they're just made out of win..._ Then they shouldn't get upset when it's pointed out to them that Whirlwinds suck... Now if that same person were to frame their statement in a different way then they'd probably get a different answer. As an example, _Hey guys, I LOVE whirlwinds and I have three of them already... but I'd like my list to be somewhat competitive (though it's not my biggest concern) What else should I think about adding to make my list more better...._

See the difference? 
Whirlwinds=Win --> You don't get it
Love Whirlwinds and need help ---> Might think about Rifleman Dreads and Speeders to give some needed punch... 

Also, I think using phrases like _moronic sub-human_ is a little much...


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Ravingbantha said:


> does the 8th edition have full codicies in it? And I do remeber the 3rd edition rule book, it sucked in ways rancid crap does when it's shoved up your nose.


No, but my point is that they could publish a 40K rulebook with full army lists in it and it'd be around the same size as the Fantasy book and they can sell it for $75 and still make money. Thus, the book wouldn't cost $300.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

screw the masses. i play to have fun and often themed lists.
My Drop pod list has major weakness as wellas my Raider list but i have fun playing them and thats what matters


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

jaws900 said:


> screw the masses. i play to have fun and often themed lists.
> My Drop pod list has major weakness as wellas my Raider list but i have fun playing them and thats what matters


I use the Space wolf list to represent my red corsairs, which is one of the more unbalanced of the new lists. So I have a fluffy army, that kicks ass! If only the army's general wasn't a complete pillock....


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

The list is not the only cause of winning or losing.

One of my regular opponents beats me more often than not; occasionally we swap armies within the group and he beats the army that just won using the army that just lost.

As I usually run mono-Tzeentch CSM without the things that are seen as almost mandatory for competitive builds (for instance I never field Obliterators), it must be down to tactics.

Therefore, it is not so much that the common builds are infinitely more competitive but rather that they are a lot easier to use without a professional grasp of tactics.

Obviously there is still a lot of edge from the list; taking minimum HQ and troops to spam Chaos Spawn for instance would probably make even Von Clauswitz lose.

Also, to my mind, anyone who does not enjoy annihilating their opponent on turn one without their opponent causing a wound does not enjoy Winning At _All_ Costs; which is a good thing.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Codecies have to do many things for many different groups. Some players want to just beat face; the tactical battle between two hard-as-nails forces is what they want and how they have fun. That's cool.
Other people want a less in-your-face game, more just a setting for a fun time with friends who enjoy the miniatures and painting etc. That's cool. 
But I actually think that the books come into themselves when you add narrative-play and campaigns. In each book you have units that are sitautional, that only make sense, really, when picked because of the fluff they embody in the wider fluff and the fluff of your linked games. In real-world armies, not all units are as hard as others, some seem useless whilst others are obviously more deadly and so we get this in a Codex, but maxed-out IG Infantry makes absolute sense when your game is all about a group of ground-pounders desperately trying to fight for their lives without armour-support.
And this is where the divide is coming from, I think. GW are all about stories, cinematics, about us as Gamers actually living through the models on the TT as they wage war. They want us all to play linked games and to have the stories they make wrap around our hobby as a whole so that good/bad unit no longer matters, only that the experiences we have leave us thirsting for more. That's cool.
Whilst we all just come at the hobby part-way, focussing on just a portion of what it can offer, and this portion is diferent for all of us depending on what we like, then there will always be this debate about wether each Codex is balanced and offers multiple builds, or if it is full of stuff that there is nothing worth taking outside of x,y,z. This will happen for as long as, even before each book is available to buy, there are articles all over the web telling us that half of a book is useless and that the other half is barely worth looking at. People seem to be stuck on saying 'that will rock, we'll all use that. That is crap, we won't', rather than saying 'This doesn't look too optimal, but I like it so I'll take it and learn to use it'. Tha's not cool.

But, for the wider question, no-one is right, no-one is wrong, but we could all do with expanding our hobby horizons. Even me, and fairly near perfect. Well as much as the last member of an extinct species can be...

GFP


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

:goodpost:

I totally agree with GFP. I think allot of the game is missed by focusing on just the competitive side. 

I think the game disigners, at heart, are narrative gamers, who enjoy playing with plastic spacemen, and that's the way the write the games. I really don't think they care or ceater to the competitive side of the game. Most of the crazy rules questions and why would they even make a unit this sucky question really boil down to the game disigners having fun and make stuff they think is cool. All issues of balance in the Codex really bearly matter to them and they always look towards a fun, exciting, fluffy game. Some on said a little while ago, I think it was when the 'Nids Codex came out, said "Why don't the get a group of competitive powergamers to proofread the Codexs and find all the broken units and combos?". I don't think they care, the just wanna put out fun, exciting, fluffy books.

Paring a Codex down to the "best, most effective" units and then spaming them, really miss out on what an army is all about. I think competitive gamers are making the game Magic, where it's rules and powers that matter the most. Yeah there are pictures on the cards (or minis on the table) and there is some fluff/storyline (who reads MTG novels anyway?) but it's finding powers and rules synergies that just beat your oppenent without much effort that matters. I think it's sad the the internet community seems to be pushing this awesome, fun, exciting, fluffy game down that path.

If being a competitive player is your thing and what you enjoy out of the hobby, to each is own and more power to ya (pun intended ). Just don't try and force your version of the game down the rest of our throats. It doesn't say anywhere on the Army list forums they are for competitive list only, I for one would love to coment and discuse theamed, fluff armies, which as someone said can be done with the right wording in the OP. I for one hope the game doesn't countinue to be pushed to an all competitive, WAAC, way of playing and I doubt GW would ever want it that way. If it goes that way I wouldn't stop playing but my enjoyment would take a hit.

Just my thoughts and opinions, to each his own.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

For the last time, comeptitive and WAAC aren't the same thing. As Clt40k said, having two competitive armies face off against each other is fun. Playing a good army against a bad army is not, for both sides. WAAC is cheating. Competitive is gaming & tactical.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

WAAC isn't always cheating.... its pulling every cheesy move out of the great bag of bullshit to fuck the person you are playing sideways. Not necessarily cheating. 

And with some of the modern armies you can make a list that is competitive and fluffy.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Capt.Al'rahhem said:


> :goodpost:
> 
> I totally agree with GFP. I think allot of the game is missed by focusing on just the competitive side.
> 
> ...


Even though I respect your opinion and completely agree with the principle of your post I have to disagree. If GW was making fluffy books then why did the Chaos Legions disappear, only to be replaced by unknown groups of renegades and warbands? Why were Craftworld-specific armies removed? Why are there no longer Ork clans? How come that the Space Wolves, one of the most psyker-hating Chapters has spells that make CSM and Eldar casters look like quacks? And to go further into more technical details, what is the fluffy explanation of a Daemon Prince with the Mark of Khorne getting a lousy extra attack and nothing else? Or Orks not being able to buy PWs, even though the models have exactly that? Whats the explanation for the Chaos Land Raider being able to hold 10 models, whereas the SM version has a capacity of 12 models? And the list goes on.
You see, while I do agree with your views on the hobby (and with GFP's excellent post), I'm far from convinced that GW's motivations and intentions are even remotely related to what you've said they are.

Regarding the debate over competitive and fun lists I agree with what Kirby said: if I'm defeated by a list just as good as mine then I lost to my opponent and he is to be congratulated. However, if I lost to his list then it is either my fault as a player (which is at least 50% of the cases), or it happened because of the power gap between my Codex and my opponent's, making both of us feel bad, since it was his army playing instead of him, there was no need for tactics or super-special rolls, his army won without him adding any above-average brain to it. I've been in both cases with my CSM: I've never lost to Tau and in retrospect I feel bad about it; on the other hand, 5th edition codices keep pounding me into the earth, making a fair battle turn into a desperate fight for survival, which isn't fun at all.

Interestingly enough, you don't see threads like this in the WHFB section, grumpy ones at most but not the massive crying thats commonplace in 40K. Even though I'm still new to WHFB, I find that the general rules are much better planned and thought out and that there isn't a single army that wouldn't be able to put up a good fight at the very least against any other army (there are differences in power obviously). I just wish that one day 40K will be as good as WHFB.


----------



## coalheartly (Jul 24, 2009)

Khorothis said:


> Even though I respect your opinion and completely agree with the principle of your post I have to disagree. If GW was making fluffy books then why did the Chaos Legions disappear, only to be replaced by unknown groups of renegades and warbands? Why were Craftworld-specific armies removed? Why are there no longer Ork clans? How come that the Space Wolves, one of the most psyker-hating Chapters has spells that make CSM and Eldar casters look like quacks? And to go further into more technical details, what is the fluffy explanation of a Daemon Prince with the Mark of Khorne getting a lousy extra attack and nothing else? Or Orks not being able to buy PWs, even though the models have exactly that? Whats the explanation for the Chaos Land Raider being able to hold 10 models, whereas the SM version has a capacity of 12 models? And the list goes on.
> You see, while I do agree with your views on the hobby (and with GFP's excellent post), I'm far from convinced that GW's motivations and intentions are even remotely related to what you've said they are.
> 
> Regarding the debate over competitive and fun lists I agree with what Kirby said: if I'm defeated by a list just as good as mine then I lost to my opponent and he is to be congratulated. However, if I lost to his list then it is either my fault as a player (which is at least 50% of the cases), or it happened because of the power gap between my Codex and my opponent's, making both of us feel bad, since it was his army playing instead of him, there was no need for tactics or super-special rolls, his army won without him adding any above-average brain to it. I've been in both cases with my CSM: I've never lost to Tau and in retrospect I feel bad about it; on the other hand, 5th edition codices keep pounding me into the earth, making a fair battle turn into a desperate fight for survival, which isn't fun at all.
> ...


I have to say, as a Tau player, almost everyone of my games turned into me doing my best to survive against cookie cutter space marines. i also have a small CSM army, that in my first game using them, did get trounced by the Tau, (through bad dice rolls, and unfimlarity with CSM). Ive managed to get looks at the older CSM codex and i cant believe the newer one gave up the legions, which from the fluff, are a big deal. 

I've also found the same things you did when looking up WHFB. the new rules had me intruiged, so i asked around, researching the differant armies, and i was a little surprised to find that GW does not Zealously favor one singular armie.

i have to say though, when i do play a player who actually knows more about his SM army then, "OMG, THERE LIKE, SUPERHUMAN, THEY ARE DA BESTEST!!!!" im willing not to write him off. I dont mind losing to someone who uses actualt tactics, or has come up with some fluff for their DIY chapters and such.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Im really enjoying the different Opponions and views here. Its nice to see Others wish there BADLY neglected armies get some love (Necs, DE) and unfluffy armies like CSMs have some fun put back into it. As far as the balance of 5th, Im liking it. Each book offers mutiple builds that can be BOTH competitve and fluffy. 

Im intrigue that WFB gets more love in the way its written and army balance. I always heard that some armies like Ogers are super weak and Daemons super strong. In Tourneys if you play a weak army race you get +3 pts auto and super bad ass ones get 0 extra Pts.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Thing is with the CSM, GW made a very determined choice to move away from the Legions for a while and to concentrate on where the new Chaos Marines are coming from. People don't like how they've done the fluff part of the Codex, then fair enough; although I think the biggest issue is that the ethos of Codex design evolved after the CSM book, making it look like a poor relation.
But again, the ethos (I've decided I like that word, so I'm using it again!) of the book's writers was that anyone should be able to build whatevere army they wanted, without there being any false restrictions. So, Cult troops can be taken together in whatever way people want. Why? Because it's up to us to write the story of our army. GW really don't want to be the ones saying how you should build X army, they want us to do it so that we have complete ownership of the 'story' of that group of miniatures. And if you look at my earlier post, you'll see how, with each game being not just a pick-up game, or tournament game, it makes a lot more sense. But, as many people who frequent fora don't seem to play this way (or very much, anyway), then instead of seeing restrictions being lifted, rather it is character being taken away.
I've seen a number of peple say that because you can take whatever marked units + cults in whatever way you want, then Fluff is dead! Not so; it is merely up to us to decide what the Fluff for our traitors is. Leaving aside the mechanincs of the units, should you want to represent the WE, you can do it. The EC, yes we can. The BL, again yep. And we can do anything else that we want. Because it's up to us.

GFP


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> ...anyone should be able to build whatevere army they wanted, without there being any false restrictions. So, Cult troops can be taken together in whatever way people want. Why? Because it's up to us to write the story of our army. GW really don't want to be the ones saying how you should build X army....


A valid comment on the CSM changes.

You always could take some of this and some of that, so different cult troops were balanced to not be _too_ good if together. However, by removing the definitions of cult armies they have removed the special advantages that pure cult armies got, that re-balanced them to work better on their own.

As a lover of fluff, I find the lack of definition of what is and is not a "proper" cult army great as I can build really characterful lists or make them more flexible depending on whether I consider winning more or less of a prime motivator at the time; as a player of the game I can get sick to the back teeth that there is nothing official I can use to get rid of people who tell me my limitations are stupid because they can justify over 50% of the models in a Emperors Children army being Beserkers, or whatever it is.

Between the two Codicies I think the approach taken in 4th Edition might actually be fairer; for instance previously I got the synergy of anything goes or I could build a pure Thousand Sons army with a benefit for matching their definitions, but lost out on both if I wanted a Thousand Sons army with bikes, or Raptors, or Obliterator allies. Now I get the same lack of benefits whatever assortment I put together.

My suggested solution to lack of fun is to swap lists; that way you get the tactical challenge and they get the list boost.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

I never saw the 4th Edition as restricted. If anything it "Rewarded" Players of a paticular Legion with Special Rules and Unit Types. If you really want to get down and dirty about it If you feel 4th had restrictions to take whatever you want then just use Black Legions Rules as they didnt have Restrictions to any units anyway. So in the end you can play BL for a close to the recent edition, or be rewarded sticking with a Fluffy and Competent Cult/Legion army.

I back this further up by looking at the 5th SM Dex. You can easily build a Fluffy Salamanders army by simply picking one unit, Vulkan Hestan. Crimson Fist by picking Pedro. You can even use these characters for your own SM army to be unique.

Orks do this too, Take a Bik mek for a Kan Wall type army build. You can make Speed Freaks easy enough as well as Green Tide. Take a Warboss on Bike for Nob Biker type build. 

IG is the same, Take Creed for bad ass Infanrty build. The Codex by itself is tailored for Steel Legion. Hell you can take mutiple Penal Legions with Iron Hand Straken as Lt. Kage for somthing like Last Chancers. All Valkery Air Clavary builds are possible too.

The best part is all these builds (except Last Chancers one) are competent and solid Game Builds.

Then ontop of all this the SM Player can choose to use Codex, BA, SW, BT, or DA and be rewarded for picking one of these Chapters.

Hmmm.... Now I thinking about looks like SM Players DO get all the love. CSM wear Power Armore too.


----------



## Hellhammer (May 1, 2011)

To get some variety, do what me and my friends do. You have your opponent make your army list. However this does mean you will end up with some strange battles, like the one where I had a 1500 Tyranid force comprised almost entirely of rippers, and when my friend had an all scouts with shotguns SM list. But it is more fun than seeing the same thing every time (cough Mech Guard cough)


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

A comment on people complaining that asking for help on a list means being called a retard.


1 - We don't know what you want half the time, so we assume comp. It's reasonable, since you likely said comp, or didn't tell us.

2 - If you want to run a specific set of units, why are you asking us? How are we supposed to know what you want more than you do?

3 - Rarely is the language that strong, but you will see the same list suggested a lot (if you want to win) because there's usually one standout list in most armies.

40k suffers from the fact that it can't be updated as frequently as say, Starcraft. There's also more people playing that, so the meta moves much quicker and it's easier to determine what's OP and what's not. Generally though, the internet speeds everything up, it's hardly the fault of the internet that the "one build" has been discovered and "ruins" the army. It's the fact that once one person finds it, the rest of the meta picks it up. With the internet, that just happens faster.

If the books were balanced within each other (they're getting a bit better), or if GW wasn't afraid to release updates regularly, then that "one build" wouldn't exist. The meta gets stale for individual armies for a couple of years after all the builds have been tested.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Having played Tau for the last 10 years, and still winning more than losing, the DE "trash" will turn godly in my hands. Just you watch.

I'm collecting and playing DE because it's an obscenely cool army. I will eventually end up buying enough of every single unit to fill up all FoC slots like I do with all my commitments. In the end, I'll have evolved a playstyle and _learned_ how to play them to success, without ever posting a list on Heresy for so called critics to dissect.

(Those people tend to fulfill their lack of success in the real venues by pretending they are good on the internet)

EDIT: This necro post went WILD!


----------



## Ashkore08 (Feb 12, 2011)

I think the problem comes in when people say "FUN ARE NOT COMPETETIVE!!!1!."
The point of playing a game(any game) is too have fun. If you play to win, your basically a killjoy.

Sure, a fun list will be hard to win with. When people play "that one damn list", and you have your fun times list, people will more or less mock you because of taking a fun list over a competitive list. But the point of making a fun list is that you are comfortable with it. Your playing style will revolve around a list you make to have fun.
And if its a list you know in and out, and like to play it, chances are you are going to be playing better than other people with competitive lists. 
And really, the longer a cookie-cutter list is out, the closer someone gets to making its counter. Then its no longer cookie-cutter.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Ashkore08 said:


> The point of playing a game(any game) is too have fun. If you play to win, your basically a killjoy.


I'm not sure-- oh, fuck it.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I'm not sure-- oh, fuck it.


Congrats, you are learning. :laugh:


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

Why is it, with csm list's, everyone says you must take a DP to win, i very rarely take a DP with my CSM, and still do well, and most of the time ionly take a max of 2 oblits, and 3 on the odd occasion.


----------



## Ashkore08 (Feb 12, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> I'm not sure-- oh, fuck it.


Lool. What i wanted to type is that Take a guy(guy1) with a fun list, and a guy with a competetive list(guy2). Its clear that guy 2 wants to win at all cost. guy1 just wants to have fun. After the match, guy1 tells people who play for fun not to play against guy2, coz he is a killjoy. Very soon, guy2 cant get a game against who he thinks are morons, and soon his W/D/L are going to stall.

Or that might not happen. But in my opinion, if you are not at a tournament, stop bieng a massive frakking killjoy and have some damn fun. Dont spoil others fun.


----------



## 1Foxman (Jan 30, 2011)

After reading through this thread ive noticed that i seem to be one of "those people" i choose my armies with a "theme" in mind, but i choose units that i belive both work together fluff wise and build a competitive force and units i enjoy painting which is the most enjoyable part of the hobby for me.

Currently im working on my BA and IG armies after recently getting back inot the hobby. Now my BA's are composed soley of elite infantry; Dante, Mephiston,3 sang priets, 2 squads of sanguinary guard 2 infernus pistols and PF in each, 2 squads of 5 sternguard -maxed combie weapons and PF in each with drop pods with deathwind launchers, and 2 speeders with double multi melta. I admit it is a very strong list but at 1750pts it also has weakness as it stands at 29 models.

My guard are not much better in some peoples views; HQ squad 4 plasma guns astropath master of fleet chimera, 2 hard vet squads with 3 plasma and chimeras, 2 hard vet squads 3 meltas in vandettas, 2 sentinals multilasors, 2lemanruss Btanks with plasma sponsons in a squadron, and 2 mudusa siege guns. Defenatly what people call carpark guard

I enjoy playing with both armies and i do not always win. But i seem the find that the armies i play now are more enjoyable then my older ones but i think thats more to do with painting half the minitures or a turn taking 1/3 of the time it used to. I remember my 4th ed marine army when i just liked infantry and dreadnoughts... 6 tactical squads and 3 dreads  which still performed great in 5thed when points costs dropped and i could squeeze in some speeders.

I tend to notice with the people i play against and watch, its more about how the person uses an army, esspecially the newer codexes there seems to be alot more adapability in them. Which when put up against and older codex really shows off the older codexs single minded approache to unit selection.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Ashkore08 said:


> Or that might not happen. But in my opinion, if you are not at a tournament, stop bieng a massive frakking killjoy and have some damn fun. Dont spoil others fun.


I'd have to agree, I think that most (not all) competitive players would find that they can still have fun not playing the most killer list they can. I mean, my group is pretty competitive but we all play Apocalypse once every few months using the units that we don't take in our tournament lists. I actually can't imagine only enjoying 40k in a competitive light - while it's my favourite way to play, it certainly isn't the only one.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

I have to say i'm very much a themed/fun list player. My vanilla SM force uses 2 full squads of tactical marines that DON'T get combat squaded, Terminators equipped with storm bolters and assault cannons (not a cyclone missile launcher in sight), a dreadnought with twin-linked heavy bolters, a whirlwind (yes, really) and a captain with TH/SS and jump pack. Hardly the most competetive list. And yet in my most recent game, i shot logan grimnar and his wolf guard buddies off the board without conceding a single model. Excellent generalship? No, cos i hadn't played for a couple of years before that day. Bad generalship on my opponents behalf for not taking transports? Very likely. Did we both enjoy ourselves immensely? You bet your fucking life. 

If they'd been running Wolf Guard/Long Fang spam, it probably would've been completely different, but i doubt either of us would have enjoyed it as much. For them it probably would have been the same old grind, for me it would have been a countdown of turns until my gunline was assaulted and slaughtered. Feels a bit pointless then...


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Eh, most of my lists are deliberately weak lists built around a theme. The only exception to this is eldar lists and necron lists, because at my skill level these armies are already challenging enough. 

As far as Orks, nids and the odd occasion when I play tau, I prefer to use a non conventional list. It makes the game more fun, challenging, and feels better if I manage to win against the odds. :grin:


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

KingOfCheese said:


> Regarding people posting lists on the forum....
> If you post a list on the forum, then it should be assumed that its supposed to be a competitive list.
> If its a friendly list and you have no intention of changing it, then why bother posting it? Dont waste your time posting the list, and most importantly dont waste other peoples time that are trying to help you if your not going to change it.
> Who cares what some tourney-obsessed douche on the other side of the planet thinks. Just play the game and have fun if thats what makes you happy.
> If your a complete noob, then fair enough. You might want some advice about basic stuff (like should Berzerkers be in a transport, or should i use a Trygon or Mawloc), but that is an understanding of basic tactics rather than list building.



One thing that would be nice would be to have a "Fluff List" subforum (either in lists or fluff) for people who don't want to hear the competitive formulas but instead want ways to make the list more fluffy or make it competitive without breaking fluff. Maybe just temporarily to test interest.


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

Ashkore08 said:


> Lool. What i wanted to type is that Take a guy(guy1) with a fun list, and a guy with a competetive list(guy2). Its clear that guy 2 wants to win at all cost. guy1 just wants to have fun. After the match, guy1 tells people who play for fun not to play against guy2, coz he is a killjoy. Very soon, guy2 cant get a game against who he thinks are morons, and soon his W/D/L are going to stall.
> 
> Or that might not happen. But in my opinion, if you are not at a tournament, stop bieng a massive frakking killjoy and have some damn fun. Dont spoil others fun.


It's not fun to play with a good list against someone who is voluntarily handicapping themselves. Some people enjoy that, but most of us just want a good match, and it's harder to figure out how to detune a list. Playing a good list doesn't mean you need to be a douche about it, it's still fun, but part of the fun is the challenge of victory.

Someone made a good post about this a couple pages ago, see CLT40K's post on the bottom of pg 4.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I know some people dislike playing vs. or seeing armies that are based on mobility (transports) but I can't sympathize. It's my favorite way of playing and I love running rings around people - and IMO it takes a lot more skill to do right, so I don't see the problem. Any old fool can push 100 miniatures forward 6" per turn.


----------



## Killystar Gul Dakka (Mar 20, 2011)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I know some people dislike playing vs. or seeing armies that are based on mobility (transports) but I can't sympathize............ Any old fool can push 100 miniatures forward 6" per turn.


It takes *skill* to move all of them 100 models and finish my turn before your wife calls to tell you "get your ass home!" :wink:

I tend to agree with Foxman. While I enjoy fluffy lists, I also try to avoid total crap units. And while I've made my opinion know about "tailored lists" as well, the closest I get to tailored is my Marinebusta lists, stacking up on Tankbustas, Boomwagons, and Killkannons...hella fun to play little humies neeever see it comin'


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

I found out recently most times I lose is when I end up doing very well in the first 3 turns that it looks to be a Tabled game, I find myself not enjoying that much. Since I play only twice a month for 8 hours or less, I have a bad habit giving my opponet a chance by shotting up my best sqaud or move my guys so they arnt in cover to his big guns, stupid shit to help him turn the game. I just Love sending Kharn on any 1 vs insert number matches. Last time I sent him against a Ven Dread that was Imoobilise instead of the ez 10 Tac Marines. He killed the Dread and moved on the SMs, Then was miracously killed by the SMs, Horrible rolling to hit/wound. Anyway I cant stand onesided games and just start going batshit crazy to see if my opponet can pull thru and make the game a close one. I also hate being tabled myself in turn 4.....


On a side note Im surprise this thread was revived. Neato.


----------

