# Who Needs Skill?



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I was watching a battle report posted in another thread (link at bottom). It was a Necron Air Force army (6 Night Scythes and 3 Doom Scythes) versus a very competitive Space Wolves list. The Necron army destroyed the Wolves. It wasn't even close. The Crons had about 75% of the Wolves dead on turn 2 and had suffered zero casualties themselves.

I've also been following the '6th edition "powerful combinations"' thread.

These two things have led me to somewhat of a premonition but unfortunately, not a good one. 

The camera guy from the battle report makes the comment, "who needs skill?" He's referring to the Necron Air Force army, and I have to agree with him. You don't need skill to win with that army. Certainly to beat it, but definitely not to play it.

And, what about the other army's talked about in the powerful combinations thread? There are 2000 point armies spamming Manticores, Vendettas, Obliterators, or Flying Monstrous Creatures with the new double Force Org rules. You don't need skill to win with these lists either. The sheer amount of damage they could do was limited by 5th edition's rules, but that has changed.

I've got a feeling that 40k is going to devolve into a game of little skill, where the spamming player is going to win more often than not. What's worse, is he's going to win without any tactical experience. The 13 year old kid who's mommy buys him all his toys is going to find these spam lists, build them up, and completely annihilate any competent player with any decent balanced army, solely because of these unbalanced rules.

I don't expect this to happen all at once, as people need time to actually purchase these units, and I don't see it affecting friendly games too much. Honestly, if I were to agree to a friendly game and my opponent brought 9 flyers, I would probably just forfeit and find somebody else to play. The 'challenge' of trying to beat such a list is just not worth the complete lack of fun I would have playing that game.

I do see it affecting tournaments, however. In a tournament you play to win. And to win, you need the best list. The best lists are these new to the game, uber-spam lists/Air Force that require no skill to play. Space Wolves and Grey Knights were top tier in 5th but at least you still had a chance to out play your opponent and win in a tournament setting against them with a balanced list. If your opponent brings 9 Flyers or 6 Manticores, it doesn't matter what you have, you're going to lose.

So, if tournaments devolve into this type of game play it's only natural that it's going to start dripping into casual play. The veterans will naturally stay away from these types of lists, but what about the new players? What about the players starting off in 6th and all they see are the spam lists made possible with 6th editions new rules? What if that's all they have for friendly games? What if the veterans get tired of playing against these uber-lists?

Like I said before, I realize it's not happening right at this moment, but we could very well see the game over taken by these types of lists. It would be like playing a game of chess and the other player had all Queens. So unless you brought all Queens, you would have no chance. If both players had all Queens, it may be balanced again, but it won't be very fun anymore.

Unfortunately, I don't really have a solution to this problem, if there even is one. Who knows, this may never happen and we can all just keep on keepin' on, but it's something to think about.

Stay spikey, my friends. 

http://youtu.be/dS77v_jx5gU


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

But GW have said that 6th Ed is cinematic and played while eating and drinking Beer and Pretzels...right?

So surely they knew that adding Flyers and Allies to 40K would result in such lists been made and fielded...they do spend many months thinking about the ramifications of their game design, and play test the hell out of it...don't they?

I was laughing myself silly reading that 'powerful Combinations in 6th ed' Thread....having people talking about spamming powerful units and then commenting that they were non-competitive fluffy-based gamers.....bloody hilarious.

Tighten your Sphincter muscles people...you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

I also saw that silly video with all that colored milk.
Manticores beat ground, Air beats Manticores, Hydras beat Air, and Manticores beat ground. Does this mean that the ultimate list features both Air and Manticores?

Honestly, I think that the game will respond by reducing point values. We've already started doing that at my store just because the game takes longer to play. Can't speak to the pro circuit though.

But just imagine those air cav lists going at each other. The petty infantrymen on the ground would be worthless...until the game ends and the infantry are holding objectives.

You are right to fear air cav and other skill less lists, but I doubt that the Grim Darkness of the Near Future is so utterly bleak.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Also note if you kill the 10 death marks on turn 1 you auto win. Of cause he will hid them in the corner out of sight 

Which every race but orks can counter with ease. 

IG (shooting with any barrage weapon) 
GK ( use PT with flames) 
SM (drop pods) 

ETC


----------



## Da Joka (Feb 20, 2009)

I watched that video and shook my head.

The guy with the camera did such a piss poor job of telling the watcher what was going on. More so the SW player did a poor job playing his list. He spread out his shots. He caused 7 Hull Points, which is enough to destroy 2 of the flyers. Had he focused his attacks two of the Doomscythes could have been down. and that would have cut down on his loses by a lot in the later turns.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

We play narrative fluffy games(Campaigns mostly) This is disturbing for the comp players but i don't think it will bother us. (We have been playing our campaign for 2 years and it will take more than that to complete. We aren't going to change edidtions in the middle either.)


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Spam lists only truly work against someone who doesn't know how to prioritize targets.

Seriously, we go through this kind of nonsense EVERY release. "Spam X to Win!" A balanced list can unpack, play the mission better and win just about every time if they know what they're doing (and the dice don't go bad, but there isn't anything anyone can do to fix that other than play another game).

How about we try and teach people to use anything they want in their codex effectively instead and watch how the game will improve as we see combinations that we wouldn't normally just because people are playing what they like and playing it well? We have more freedom to make these combinations now (say 2 sets of Hive Guard AND 2 Venomthropes at 2K for Nids to give them mobile cover that can't be as easily assaulted AND cheap anti-tank?) that make good lists BETTER and great lists awesome.

Instead the internet wants to talk about taking X number of Y like it makes them a better player to rely on a gimmick to win. 

As long as there exist games people will try to look for an easy leg up to win. That's one of the reasons I love playing with my Sisters. There doesn't exist an easy leg up in the entire codex, forcing me to instead rely on being smart with what I play and how I play it instead.

On a side note regarding all the talk of Spam I've seen: I haven't seen anyone point out that for only 1325 of a 2K list you can bring 90 Lootas (6 units of 15 via Double Force Org). I don't know, I'd say IF you where going to spam that'd be more effective spam (if you where into spam) to bring than 9 flyers, or 9 Manticores. The WEIGHT of that kind of fire could bury other Spam armies rather effectively I think.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Why all the doomscythe and gloom?

The expansion of flying vehicles seems very natural. Taking 9 scythes is obviously going to be a game breaker if all the other codexes in the game were fixed. But they are not. New codexes will arrive and skyfire will make these lists seem rather stupid. 

Also how can you hold objectives? 2/3rds of the missions require you to actually camp on objectives flyers wont do it and you have to hope you can kill your opponent outright. I am very optomistic about the new rules and like the diversity flyers have given the game.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

As a non player I don't claim to understand a great deal about the mechanics of the game but, should I start playing again, if someone dumped 9 flyers on a table in front of me they would be greeted with a short laugh followed by "You can fuck off!". 
Spam lists are only a problem if you allow them to be, if you don't agree with them, then don't play against them. If, on the other hand, winning is really that important to you, go buy 9 flyers and win win win!


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

:goodpost:
I'm of the same line of thinking Norm. I have Flyers for all 3 of my armies, bought back when they were Skimmers mind, but I don't plan on having too many and don't even use them in 1250 point or smaller games. When the game re-balances I may field them in smaller games but by then spamming them will have been outmoded and actually having bought so many will be a waste of money.

I got into 40K for a fun and casual game and fortunately found a like-minded group. Competitive play seems to be for the codex hopper and those who can afford to build the "hot list" or game-winning spam list. I'd rather learn how to use what I have to win as the game changes and become more skillful than buy my wins.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Archon Dan said:


> Competitive play seems to be for the codex hopper and those who can afford to build the "hot list" or game-winning spam list. I'd rather learn how to use what I have to win as the game changes and become more skillful than buy my wins.


I would like to introduce my competitive Sisters of Battle army then. :laugh:

While I'm only pretending to take any level of offense, there are people, like me, who play competitively at tournaments with what the Internet (in it's infinite wisdom) tells me shouldn't work. Heavy Flamers not worth their points? Exorcists too unreliable? Repentia useless?

Tell that to ALLLLL the things they kill -anyways-.:biggrin:

I admit I haven't won a tournament yet (close games or my dice going cold on me for no reason) but I have fun and most days I hit upper middle (just below the Top 3) or have placed in the Top 3.

To me, this is proof that even the lowliest army can be competitive with the right attitude and the right player.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

Oh, poor, poor little Space Wolves player. 
It's so unfair!
Getting beaten by the nasty man spamming powerful units...

Would that be the same Space Wolves player fielding fifteen Long Fang Missile Launchers, three Cyclone Missile Launcher Terminator Wolf Guard and four Rune Priests?


----------



## Archaon18 (Feb 17, 2012)

The problem will always arise when you happen to fight the one list that has a chanc to hurt you, like if the Airforce guy encountered a hydra-spamming Gaurd list with Manticores or even with a single manticore which killed his Deathmarks.


----------



## ARMYguy (Feb 8, 2012)

I use a manticore in my IG army for a while but now i dont use it anymore, because its just too unreliable. I Cant imagine what having 9 of them is like though....


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Archaon18 said:


> The problem will always arise when you happen to fight the one list that has a chanc to hurt you, like if the Airforce guy encountered a hydra-spamming Gaurd list with Manticores or even with a single manticore which killed his Deathmarks.


That's the thing with spam lists. Once you have a counter they fall apart pretty quickly as all one trick ponies do.


----------



## XT-1984 (Aug 23, 2011)

Hahaha awsome battle report (more for the milk chugging though). 

Personally my Daemons would laugh at this list. Half the time it'd be a close game and the other half I would just wipe him off the table turn 1.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> That's the thing with spam lists. Once you have a counter they fall apart pretty quickly as all one trick ponies do.


And that's why the balanced army list is better. Even an intentionally imbalanced one can be effective if it covers everything you need.

When I build a list I generally look at the following things (I've included notes on how I usually answer these questions with my army as well in _italics_):
- Does it have enough units to reliably hold objectives? _Generally speaking I like about an additional troop choice for each 500 points over 1,000. Though if I'm going to a tournament I'll take 4 troops at 1,500 just to be safe._
- Does it have ways to kill vehicles? _Generally speaking this means melta, but with 6th it also means Krak grenades, Melta Bombs too._
- Can it deal with TEQs? (this is more a 6th Edition addition, but even in 5th you needed a way to deal with Hammernators) _Generally I throw Exorcists shots into them, but you can do a lot with weight of fire too. _
- Does it have ways to kill MEQs or units that are geared around shooting instead close combat? _For my Sisters this means Repentia and Death Cultists._
- Can it get across the board effectively? _Because objectives can be across the table, or those secondary objectives can require getting into position to kill their Warlord mobility is a must. And while 20+ bodies in power armor can be hard to kill , they are a slow moving target so the army requires use of it's ability to take vehicles. Trying to outpace faster armies is impossible though and in these cases the vehicles become a way to keep the army from getting picked apart by massed fire from my opponent's army.
-_ Can it play the missions? _This is pretty straightforward, can the army play every mission in the book in some form or fashion? I don't play an army that can win by tabling every single game (though I have thought about building a Death Company Army as a fun themed army that would do that) so it's important that my army can hold objectives, or completely kill enemy units (usually by careful target priority).

_Overall this is how I build a list. I mean, unit selection is important too, but these are the general things I do to ensure my army doesn't get caught short changed by a mission or deployment type I didn't prepare for.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I think some of y'all are underestimating the difficulty of beating some of these spam lists. Let's say you have a balanced list and you want to add some Skyfire to handle Flyers. So you add a unit of Havocs (or whatever) with Flakk missiles and maybe even a Quad Gun. 

Now you've potentially weakened your army against other lists, because you had to get rid of something to add these new units, but at least you're balanced and should be able to take down two flyers a turn. 

Now let's say you get paired up against the Necron Air Force list above in a tournament. All of his units start in reserve so first turn your Flakk missiles and Quad Gun are useless. Turn 2 rolls around and most of his units come in and focus fire on your Flakk and Quad Gun. Sure the Quad Gun has intercept but that can only at most take down one flyer and then it forfeits its next shooting phase. So all of the Necron Air Force is firing on your only air defense, they are not going to survive. Now what? 

You're screwed. You were screwed before the game started. You literally had no chance of winning. And, again, what's worse is the other player needed no skill to beat you.

So how do you win? A number of people have posted that if you had hydra spam then you would have no problem beating them. Great, so its one spam list to beat the other. And a different spam list to beat the first. It's 40k rock, paper, scissors. That is NOT what I started this game to play.

Let me add again that I do agree we all have a lot of control over our friendly games. This is more of a tournament setting observation, but I like going to tournaments. It would be a shame if they all turned into spam rock, paper, scissors.


----------



## Biellann (Sep 6, 2010)

Didn't watch the whole youtube video, but his HQ and the deathmarks were the only things on the board turn 1 correct? Wouldn't any list involving Eldrad be able to nullify the hiding of them in a corner, giving you a higher chance of killing them all turn 1, hence winning the game?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> I think some of y'all are underestimating the difficulty of beating some of these spam lists. Let's say you have a balanced list and you want to add some Skyfire to handle Flyers. So you add a unit of Havocs (or whatever) with Flakk missiles and maybe even a Quad Gun. _We have no proof Flakk Missiles replace other missiles yet, unless there is a new rumor I haven't seen yet. Additionally with most of the CSM becoming cheaper this will be easier to do in the future than it is now._
> 
> Now you've potentially weakened your army against other lists, because you had to get rid of something to add these new units, but at least you're balanced and should be able to take down two flyers a turn. _Potentially but you're talking about a codex that hasn't dropped yet and this may be less of an issue for a 6th edition army than it is for a 3rd/4th/5th edition army._
> 
> ...


40K has always had attempts at Spam, this is only the most recent version. Don't Panic, adjust your expectations and be prepared to deal with Flyers. And if anyone brings Spam show them how wrong their attempts at cheese are.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

If Flakk missiles arent a firing option for missile launchers then a lot of us are really going to be screwed when it comes to AA, arent we? Because now we have to take a dedicated AA unit, useless against ground targets. Let's just assume they can be fired from missile launchers. It's also not particularly pertinent to the point I'm trying to make. My point is that you can add one or two AA units to balance your list and still not be able to win against certain spam armies. 

This whole tabling the other player turn 1 strategy goes back to underestimating the difficulty of beaing this list. All he needs to do is hide his starting units out of line of sight. Very few armies have the capability of even getting to an out of sight unit first turn let alone bringig enough fire lower to wipe them out. It doesn't matter if all you have to do to win is wipe his starting force turn 1, if you can't do it. Maybe if you're entire army was in drop pods so half your army came down turn 1, then you'd have enough fire power. But guess what? Now you're spamming drop pods.

Play the missions, ignore the flyers? Watch the battle report and see the damage the Necrons did. The units inside didn't even need to disembark and the flyers still destroyed 90% of the Space Wolves army. You can't just ignore the flyers. And because the units inside can disembark even if the flyer moved they can contest or control objectives last turn. The opponent will be playing the missions too.

Yes, there has always been spam. But 6th edition has brought another level of spam. I call it super spam, or supam if you like.


----------



## crisissuitguy (Jan 8, 2010)

Competitively it doesn't bother me too much, only due to the fact that the L.A. bunker has its tournaments at 1999pt+1t. so we play with only one force org. It's a funky thing to do but it keeps cheese from overloading the stores circuits


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Only problem with the Necron Scythes is that their primary weapon is the TL Tesla Destructor, so each 6 is 2 more auto-hits, so they can potentially get a lot of hits.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Play the missions, ignore the flyers? Watch the battle report and see the damage the Necrons did.


Pardon me if I don't count 1 Battle Report as the defining point of 6th Edition. It's already been established the Space Wolf player relied on spam as well and had poor (if any) target priority. 

Basically using 1 Battle Report (especially one where you can see that someone is making a LOT of mistakes) as proof of a WHOLE edition being full of super-duper cheesy spam is a bit over the top. Necrons currently have some of the best looking stuff -now- but we haven't even seen the rules being capitalized on in full force yet. Give it time, we'll see a shift in power again and the internet will latch onto something else.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

The Necrons are just an example. They're an example of what can be created with the new rules. All I'm trying to say is I don't like the fact that these lists can even BE created.

It seems that the more toys armies get, or the more codecies that come out, or the more complicated rules get the more room there is for abuse. The abuse gets worse each edition (even if people wouldn't generally play it). Actually let me rephrase, the POSSIBILITY for abuse gets worse each edition. You have agree that the Necron Air Force is a much more abusive/powerful list then Iron Warrior Oblit spam was back in 4th.

But now Oblit spam is pretty commonplace and people don't seem to mind. Will Flyer spam, etc become commonplace in 7th edition? That's the 40k I don't want to play, where skillless power lists become common.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> You have agree that the Necron Air Force is a much more abusive/powerful list then Iron Warrior Oblit spam was back in 4th.


I didn't play in 4th (I played 3rd, skipped 4th and then picked the game back up in 5th), but as you worry about increasing potential for rules abuse I look at the increased flexibility that the game gives. There will ALWAYS be someone who will try to bend the rules over and gain an advantage.



Iron_Freak220 said:


> But now Oblit spam is pretty commonplace and people don't seem to mind. Will Flyer spam, etc become commonplace in 7th edition? That's the 40k I don't want to play, where skillless power lists become common.


Oblits are also highly expensive (both models and points), have less flexibility in the current codex than they did in the old one and cap out at 9 models in a normal army (you -could- bring 18 I guess, but 6 full units of Lottas (that's 90 Deffguns) look like a better investment for points and of spam than 6 full units of Oblits. They even cost the same amount, but the Orks get a SIGNIFICANTLY greater number of guns to fill the board with and don't suffer so much shooting flyers).

Flyer spam is only an issue NOW. Don't assume it'll still be valid a year from now. A year ago people where complaining about Venom Spam Dark Eldar and Razor Spam Marines. This year it's Flyers. Who knows what it'll be a year from now.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

You're not going to agree with me on anything, are you? 

Well I've said my piece. No sense arguing over something I have no control over. I hope the game retains its level of skill, but you're right. We're just going to have to wait and see what happens.

In the meantime, stay spikey and roll on.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Zion said:


> This year it's Flyers. Who knows what it'll be a year from now.


My guess would be Spam spam, armies made of little more than tins of Spam which, instead of moving, shooting, assaulting will just be thrown at each other until one player is rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> You're not going to agree with me on anything, are you?


I'm not exactly known for supporting the "sky is falling" mentality (in fact I am quite sure that I once posted something to the effect of "this is not Warseer. This is Heresy-Online and the sky does not fall here." Though I may not be quoting myself exactly). When people give knee-jerk reactions to something (especially spam) it creates the mental image to some individuals that this new super-duper-uber cheese the internet is complaining about is the newest and bestest way to win. And then three months later a new army comes out and they jump ship to a new codex.

I'm for teaching people to play the game using the rules, not abusing them to create a fun, challenging environment for everyone. And as strange as it sounds this means sticking to an army and learning it. No, I mean LEARNING it. Study that codex until you know exactly where to find ANYTHING in it. Know you're strengths, know your weaknesses. Know what your army is good at, and what it needs to avoid doing. Then learn everyone else's army too. Read all the FAQs, codexes, supplements and everything else you can. This game goes deeper than "Spam X to win" and that includes flyers. 

To master 40K, and stand a chance to win EVERY game you play and not just look across the table and pack up the second you see what they're bringing you need to know these kinds of things. And with this kind of balanced mindset of how rules interact, and who can bring what and what everything generally does means you can't get hung up about someone who wants to Spam something. 

But that's just my $.02 (which is worth significantly less in Europe I'm sure) on becoming a better player. Set aside the assumptions about how awesome something is and start looking at how you can counter something. And chances are you won't even have to adjust much to do it.



Iron_Freak220 said:


> Well I've said my piece. No sense arguing over something I have no control over. I hope the game retains its level of skill, but you're right. We're just going to have to wait and see what happens.
> 
> In the meantime, stay spikey and roll on.


I understand your position and about eighteen months ago I would have shared it. But I've begun to move past that. Heck, two months ago I was aggravated about flyers and what they mean to the game, but after I stopped jerking my knee about like it was possessed and thought about it I started to see the good things about it, and the bonuses these new options provided (having the ability to get some Forgeworld models helped) I begun to realize there were advantages. Now if I want to shoot a flyer, I can scoot my Exorcists 12", and I essentially lose nothing. I still snap fire either way, and often can use the extra movement to get out of the Flyer's LOS or to get a better firing arc (like their rear armor). A year from now I'm sure there will be all sorts of ways to nuke flyers, we just need to wait and see.



normtheunsavoury said:


> My guess would be Spam spam, armies made of little more than tins of Spam which, instead of moving, shooting, assaulting will just be thrown at each other until one player is rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated.


Soooooo....a new brand of Marine then?


----------



## TyphoidLmJ (May 20, 2012)

First of all. Whats with puking milk in the trash can? What the hell?

I like what Zion is saying here. If someone says "Person or Group X in Game Y is no good" that usually says to me that they could not find a good way to use them. You can use pretty much anything and make a go of things, just use some imagination. :read:Rommel used 88MM AA guns as very effective anti tank guns, just turned them on their sides. I dunno, I haven't really played against alot of flyers in general. 

That being said, overpowered armies aren't any fun to play against if things are that lopsided. I played a game eons ago when I first started, maybe like 1200 Pts, and this kid brought a dreadnought. Prob 25% of his points cost, and I hit it first turn with a lucky lascannon shot, and it blew. The look on his face was horrid. The rest of the game was awkward mop up, cause the game ended the minute that Dread ate it, and we both knew it. I didnt have much fun cause the game sucked, frankly, if I wanted to just own, I would have gone around beating on first timers. I still remember the game only because it was so freaking lame to win like that. I am not usuallly on that side of a one sided game like that, and I didnt like winning any more than I liked losing. I like competitive play, that means, even, back and forth combat, not win at any cost. 

I used to play alot of Final Fantasy Tactics. The gospel according to the web is that Rafa (Heaven Knight) is useless because her powers distribute randomly. I use her whenever I play, her natural speed is the best in the game, and if you up her magic, her power hits for over 600 HP a hit by the end of the game. I have seen her hit a group of 4 enemies for over 3600 HP of Damage. Way off topic, I realize, but hey, rather that than using "Thunder God Cid" and excalibur.:nono:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

TyphoidLmJ said:


> I like what Zion is saying here. If someone says "Person or Group X in Game Y is no good" that usually says to me that they could not find a good way to use them. You can use pretty much anything and make a go of things, just use some imagination. :read:Rommel used 88MM AA guns as very effective anti tank guns, just turned them on their sides. I dunno, I haven't really played against alot of flyers in general.


It's not often I get a thumbs up like this. Pardon my while I do the Dance of Joy.

And I'm back. Returning to the actual topic, a good example of something I've found great use for in 5th (I haven't gotten a chance to try them in 6th yet) are Repentia. A full sized squad of them has done a great deal for me that according to the internet they shouldn't do. Even if they only kill a single unit they've already gone a long way to making up their points, preventing me from getting charged by something I didn't want to be charged by (usually Terminators or a Dreadnought) and if left alone and they get into the enemy's line they'll kill a unit a turn -easy- (less easy if that unit wears Terminator Armor but the point remains). 

But if I listened to the internet I would have never used them and found a way to make them work for me. 



TyphoidLmJ said:


> That being said, overpowered armies aren't any fun to play against if things are that lopsided. I played a game eons ago when I first started, maybe like 1200 Pts, and this kid brought a dreadnought. Prob 25% of his points cost, and I hit it first turn with a lucky lascannon shot, and it blew. The look on his face was horrid. The rest of the game was awkward mop up, cause the game ended the minute that Dread ate it, and we both knew it. I didnt have much fun cause the game sucked, frankly, if I wanted to just own, I would have gone around beating on first timers. I still remember the game only because it was so freaking lame to win like that. I am not usuallly on that side of a one sided game like that, and I didnt like winning any more than I liked losing. I like competitive play, that means, even, back and forth combat, not win at any cost.


Having played against someone who has tried Venomspam as an actual army build, even the most _obviously_ broken army isn't invincible. Sure Sisters gain an advantage there (low armor save, wounded on 4s), but it doesn't means I automatically counter his army by having something he's not good at killing either. The point is even the most broken army (which is something Venomspam was considered at the time) has times it's obviously weak, but those kinds of weaknesses always exist.

Now I've had one sides games that happen because my dice go hot (I am starting to believe the more it annoys my opponent the more 6's I'll roll as Jacobus' nigh-invincible Rhino (3 Railguns, a ridiculous amount of pulse rifle shots, as well as missiles led to it being stunned once, it becoming immobilized less than 4" from his front lines and losing it's Storm Bolter. In 6th that would have been 3 Hull Points, from 7 different sources) and my Exorcists collectively firing 18 missiles a turn....four turns in a row) but never because of some kind of uberspam build. I've never even understood the mentality that comes with trying to push those kinds of lists either.

You better believe though that if I'm sitting across the table from that kind of list I'll do my darnedest to pull that army apart at the seams, and then tell you how I did it. I don't buy that spam lists are a true way to play, or even a decent path to victory. Smart playing with a sound list (and a cool head when all your plans start to go south, as well as a refusal to quit just because it goes bad. Things look bad? Play to tie. You can learn a LOT about countering someone's strategy by pushing for a tie. When you play to win you only look for the big counters, when you play to tie you look for anything you can get. It can be a real eye opener on what you need to do to shut a particular army down let me say) have been better chances on the board than any spam army or netlist of the week.

And I'll be honest. Spam lists might work the first time, or the second, maybe even the third. But be assured I'll find that lynchpin and pull it out and watch that army burn eventually. And there is no lynchpin to yank out of my army to do the same.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Not really getting how more FOC options eliminates the need for skill.

Sure, if you're running a single FOC at 2k and they're running 2 you could be at a disadvantage but the same could be said for people who don't use all their slots properly or otherwise makes a non-optimized list.

What do you do to combat the rising tied of new spammy optimized list?
Man up and optimize your own shit. Then you're on a level playing field and skill comes back into focus.

At least the new FOC rules give *everyone* the chance to spam the crap out of things, you don't have to rush out and buy the new army du'jour to get the edge, you just add a couple units and carry on.

Part of the skill of the game is army list optimization. If you can't hack the new rules then maybe your skill level isn't up to snuff anymore. Time to practice.

As for fliers...that's going to be a little tougher until new codices start coming out but dedicated anti-air units aren't useless against ground targets. A hydra flack battery can lay waste to light and medium-armored vehicl'es in this glance-happy new edition, for example.

Nor do you always need a dedicated unit...15 Lootas can potentially pour out enough fire that even at BS1 they're going to score at least a couple glances and a pen. It's not perfect, but I don't see it being much worse than back when everyone said you needed something to handle a monoloith and an anti-psychic unit, etc.


----------



## Starsplice (Jul 17, 2012)

Zion said:


> And I'll be honest. Spam lists might work the first time, or the second, maybe even the third. But be assured I'll find that lynchpin and pull it out and watch that army burn eventually. And there is no lynchpin to yank out of my army to do the same.


I want to play against you so badly. Not because I have spam lists, but because we think the same on the battlefield, and that warrants a solid game one way or the other. 

In regards to the thread. This sounds like in magic:the gathering the deck that plays itself. While the human just operated the card draw and execution. Everything is so linear that the deck or army list in this instance plays itself. Sure it works, sometimes. but Warhammer is so much better at stopping this. because of the options between allies and good/gutsy commanders. A self running list isn't the answer to everything. Players make mistakes. 

I see this personally as an opportunity to learn how to stop "cheese" or Flier spam with a well balanced list and good tactical decisions. usually flier spam has skimped on troops and ways to stop me from capping points. Sure they have lots of air strength, but 40K is still about infantry. Plus fliers have to leave the board and still roll for reserves, they can fail. especially if you ally with IG and take a Officer of the Fleet to increase reserves to come on the board with a 4+. 

Also with the new summer end FAQ coming out and Flakk missiles and what not, I feel the game will stay balanced even with fliers. Sure the air may be strong, but it won't win games. It will just improve your odds of winning. if played properly and well done. A list is only as ever as good as the commander. And a little luck


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm gonna be brutally honest here. 

I understand and have been deeply involved with game theory for nearly 20 years. 

There are a few core concepts related to game design. 

1) Variance (the "dice") 

2) Forced Interaction (the "skill")

3) Some others (victory conditions, pace, etc)

and 4) Rock/Paper/Scissors. 

This is quite an intentional component to a lot of game design within both the progressive games and static games. In progressive games (such as 40K) silver bullets, to the addition of new options, the designer will intentionally undermine a previously successful strategy to shake up how the game works. 

This is the element that is being discussed here with the addition of flyers and their immediate impact. 

So lets build our current Rock/Paper/Scissors

Flyers > Traditional Ground Armies 

Now, lets assume an army includes 5 skyfire-capable cannons (fortification etc). I am not even sure how you would do this extreme skyfire inclusion right now... but it's part of the example rather than a current reality.

Lets assume that with this investment in anti-flyers, the army becomes quite the favourite vs. flyers (I haven't tested, so that's just an assumption for this discussion) 

heavy anti-flyer ground army >> Flyers >> Traditional ground army

Lets now assume that while the cannons aren't terrible against ground units by virtue that the cannons could also have interceptor, but that the investment is too significant to avoid them having a poorer match up... 

heavy anti-flyer ground army >> flyers >> traditional ground army >> heavy anti-flyer army

40K is more complex than 3 options, of course. So ground-shooty, ground-assault, balance-ground, mech, vehicle spam, balanced w/flyers, balanced w/fortification, ground-shooty w/fortification, ground shooty w/fortification + air support... etc etc etc. 

Currently, the investment necessary to create an anti-flying list would be pretty significant, and creates a pretty distinct rock/paper/scissors effect. This means that skill (interaction) becomes less important. 

Missile launchers will get skyfire missiles soon. Wolves will of course highly benefit from this if long fangs stay the same in a world with those new missiles. Skyfire weapons will slowly become part of the upcoming codecii. This means the investment to become "anti" flyer becomes far more competitive and makes the rock/paper/scissors effect a subtle component which can then be mitigated more by the impact of variance and interaction. 

Allies will be the primary way to lower the investments needed to handle anti-air. If they reprint a marine codex in the near future, wolves, blood angels, etc can easily take an ally contingent that includes razorbacks with skyfire weapons. etc. 

In short, it's time to relax a little. It's not the end of the world as we know it. 

When you go to play some casual games, have two lists... if someone shows up with a ton of flyers, pull out the list with enough anti-air defense that you gain the edge based on interaction. They will soon get bored of a one-facet army - "scoutiing" your FLGS to see who plays tons of flyers is really not a problem. 

Tournament play, do what you need to do to give your skill the necessary edge to equalize against non-flyer and flyer lists. Perhaps 2 skyfire inclusions is a big enough edge, with a low enough downside that you can play around the disadvantage and gain enough of an edge against the highest amount of possible opposing armies. 

It's funny because overwatch was a major concern locally for those who enjoyed assault armies. They quickly started running with multiple wave assault strategies since engaged units can't overwatch.

I enjoy balanced lists, and as such my current wolf list has a fortification and a flyer, fenrisian wolves to tie up assault targets, and jump packs/TWC to get in to assault quickly once they are engaged, long fangs of course, and shootie-ness to fill out a lot of the points. This was all made possible by the inclusion of blood angel allies. It's not what I would call highly competitive, but it is versatile, and very fun to play and I will tell you that people aren't sure how to deal with it.


----------



## ARMYguy (Feb 8, 2012)

The problem with table top games is the fact it has lists in the first place. I will always side that the most balanced and fun games are real time strat on the pc because you can at any time make the counter to any kind of spam. Not so when it comes to these games. Someone makes a spam list and you can just lose, or not play.

This problem cant really be fixed though, on a table game.


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

ARMYguy said:


> The problem with table top games is the fact it has lists in the first place. I will always side that the most balanced and fun games are real time strat on the pc because you can at any time make the counter to any kind of spam. Not so when it comes to these games. Someone makes a spam list and you can just lose, or not play.
> 
> This problem cant really be fixed though, on a table game.


Outside of a tournament, I don't think it would be particularly hard right now to have a few fortifications to bring in to a list against someone who is clearly spamming flyers


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I hope that Flyers aren't going to dominate this edition. I think it was a retarded idea to put them in, and the rules for them are stupid. That aside, I support the argument that we always see "power lists" which are then eclipsed by newer, better lists.

The problem is that GW is absolutely fucking god-awful at addressing power lists. All it would have taken to shut Nob bikers down (when they were terrors in tournaments) was a 10 second FAQ saying "Nobz squads cannot be mounted on Bikes when taken as a Troops choice from a Warboss". Likewise Leafblower/Aircav/Vetspam could have been fixed with a quick points adjustment. 15 Long Fangs as standard could have been avoided by adjusting their weapon costs. And so on and so forth. GW doesn't do it because they are under the impression that not everyone has the internet.

Are you fucking kidding me? 5yr old kids have mobile phones with the internet. Certainly anyone who can spend hundreds of pounds on toy soldiers has the internet.

Yes, these lists eventually find counters. My point is that it shouldn't take 2-3 codex releases before it happens. They could be shut down at source within a month of them entering the mainstream consciousness, if GW had the inclination.

So roll around to 6th Edition and Flyers, and oh look, it's books that HAVE flyers that are rejoicing. Books that don't... aren't. And guess what? It's going to take multiple codex releases to fix them. Again. Entirely unnecessarily. Because all it would take to end their dominance is to remove the part about needing to snap fire to hit them. Just cut that one sentence out of the rulebook, and suddenly they're managable again, for everyone.

The problem isn't overpowered armies, or flyers, or anything declared "OP" by the internet. The problem is GW's inability to patch their own rule system to fix things which are obviously broken.



> Outside of a tournament, I don't think it would be particularly hard right now to have a few fortifications to bring in to a list against someone who is clearly spamming flyers


You mean apart from the bit in the rulebook that says you can only have 1 Fortification? And the fact that I shouldn't have to buy TERRAIN PIECES to deal with an enemy army?


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

Sethis said:


> You mean apart from the bit in the rulebook that says you can only have 1 Fortification? And the fact that I shouldn't have to buy TERRAIN PIECES to deal with an enemy army?


They aren't terrain pieces anymore are they? 

But that aside. If your issue is that you have to buy new parts for your army... you are in for a losing battle in the world of table-top gaming. 

I had to buy blood angels in order to do what I thought was necessary for my space wolves to be effective and remain fun.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

aranelthemithra said:


> They aren't terrain pieces anymore are they?
> 
> But that aside. If your issue is that you have to buy new parts for your army... you are in for a losing battle in the world of table-top gaming.
> 
> I had to buy blood angels in order to do what I thought was necessary for my space wolves to be effective and remain fun.


And in that vein I bought two Avenger Strike Fighters and some Penitent Engines to bring myself flexibility and options in the new edition.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

What happens when the Necron Air Force comes up against IG Air Cavalry or the like? Or for that matter an IG list full of Hydras?

Answer: It proves no more extraordinary than any other list of that ilk and skill comes back into it.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

When I played, when I was younger, I'd always play with fluffy armies and I'd always get owned which did little to boost my confidence, but I genuinely don't like playing competitive games or with competitive lists because then it comes to down a matter of maths and the enjoyment goes out the window.


----------



## Digg40k (Sep 7, 2008)

I buy the models I think look cool with stats/rules I think are cool and fluff, that is in my opinion, guess what? Cool.

I wouldn't play anybody running any kind of spam competitive list, not because I look down on them or think it's morally wrong in anyway as it's a game. But because the opponent I want to play against is the same kind of player as myself, someone who is going to pick their army based upon their likes/dislikes whether that be looks/stats/rules/fluff. I get kicks out of fielding a unit I love if it does very well or very badly.

I genuinely love the whole "cinematic play whilst drinking some beers and order a pizza in" vibe. For me it's what the game is. That ethos can't be polluted by spam competitive lists in tournaments, that's why there are tournaments.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

How would someone define skill in 40k? In the end it does all come down to luck though.

I'd say skill is being able to write a balanced but still somewhat competitive list and then use it to it's full effectiveness on the battlefield - Maneuvering, picking targets etc.

How would you define it?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

VX485 said:


> How would someone define skill in 40k? In the end it does all come down to luck though.
> 
> I'd say skill is being able to write a balanced but still somewhat competitive list and then use it to it's full effectiveness on the battlefield - Maneuvering, picking targets etc.
> 
> How would you define it?


I'd go with that and add in the ability to play your strengths against an opponents weaknesses.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

VX485 said:


> How would someone define skill in 40k? In the end it does all come down to luck though.
> 
> I'd say skill is being able to write a balanced but still somewhat competitive list and then use it to it's full effectiveness on the battlefield - Maneuvering, picking targets etc.
> 
> How would you define it?





Magpie_Oz said:


> I'd go with that and add in the ability to play your strengths against an opponents weaknesses.


Pretty much this, although I don't quite get your comment about 'balanced but still somewhat competitive list'...the 2 aren't mutually exclusive .

I only ever build 'all comers' lists, and in the Armylist Forums this type of list is prevelent so obviously many other gamers have the same ethos. Such lists have to be balanced so they can handle all the various Firepower niches that need to be covered...anti-infantry, anti-light Av, etc etc. - all the units chosen are built efficiently and are therefore competitive.

Just saying:victory:


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

Ah my PHD in hindsight agrees with that statement.

That said you can never have enough auto cannons.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

VX485 said:


> Ah my PHD in hindsight agrees with that statement.
> 
> That said you can never have enough auto cannons.


So long as AC's aren't 'all' you bring, then I agree. For IG if you also field Plasma/Melta/Lascannon and Blasts/Template weaponry (so basically high strength, low AP and/or high RoF) you're golden....something IG do exceedingly well.


----------



## clever handle (Dec 14, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> When I was played when I was younger, I'd always play with fluffy armies and I'd always get owned which did little to boost my confidence, but I genuinely don't like playing competitive games or with competitive lists because then it comes to down a matter of maths and the enjoyment goes out the window.


I play fluffy emperor's children - 6 squads of 6 (not all troops though...) with icons et al. I did pretty good in 5th, but am getting destroyed in 6th (1 game every 2 weeks doesn't allow for a lot of expermintation)


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I'm playing catch up since I went to the movies so this will be long. Sorry kids!



Words_of_Truth said:


> When I was played when I was younger, I'd always play with fluffy armies and I'd always get owned which did little to boost my confidence, but I genuinely don't like playing competitive games or with competitive lists because then it comes to down a matter of maths and the enjoyment goes out the window.


1. Is it in your codex? Then it's fluffy. Seriously. There isn't ANYTHING in ANY codex in ANY combination that be fluffy on some level (even if it does seem dumb (Let's bring ALL the Grey Knight Paladins to EVERYGAME)).

2. I don't do a lot of maths to work out what to use on what. You can know how to use a unit effectively without needing to resort to math. Math is just how some people determine what works best for them. I usually only break it out to prove a point since you can't use "well it works for me" to win a debate on anything, especially not on the internet.

3. Competitive can be both fluffy and fun. You just need to find the list that works for you (trying different things works) and form a basic strategy on what you want to use and how.



Digg40k said:


> I buy the models I think look cool with stats/rules I think are cool and fluff, that is in my opinion, guess what? Cool.
> 
> I wouldn't play anybody running any kind of spam competitive list, not because I look down on them or think it's morally wrong in anyway as it's a game. But because the opponent I want to play against is the same kind of player as myself, someone who is going to pick their army based upon their likes/dislikes whether that be looks/stats/rules/fluff. I get kicks out of fielding a unit I love if it does very well or very badly.
> 
> I genuinely love the whole "cinematic play whilst drinking some beers and order a pizza in" vibe. For me it's what the game is. That ethos can't be polluted by spam competitive lists in tournaments, that's why there are tournaments.


Nothing wrong with this sort of approach, but I favor the "all-comers" approach. I build my armies well before hand at different point levels (even a couple different configurations if I'm trying different things out) and pull one out regardless what my opponent is playing. To me it fits the nature of 40K's background (that an army may be pitched against another with what they have on hand, and it may not be the optimal build but it's what the army has to work with) and gives me a challenge as well (namely how to best use what I've got to best effect).

Different strokes and all that.



VX485 said:


> How would someone define skill in 40k? In the end it does all come down to luck though.
> 
> I'd say skill is being able to write a balanced but still somewhat competitive list and then use it to it's full effectiveness on the battlefield - Maneuvering, picking targets etc.
> 
> How would you define it?


I wouldn't say 40K only comes down to luck. There is a lot you do to mitigate that luck (taking 2 or 3 Predators for example to mitigate the misses for example). 

For me I'd say there are several kinds of skills you can master in 40K: building balanced lists for example takes practice to master and get right, as does deploying effectively, effective target priority, or how to levy your strengths against your opponent's weaknesses. 

And that's just the stuff I'm aware of, there are likely even more skills you can learn and master as well.



HOBO said:


> I only ever build 'all comers' lists, and in the Armylist Forums this type of list is prevelent so obviously many other gamers have the same ethos. Such lists have to be balanced so they can handle all the various Firepower niches that need to be covered...anti-infantry, anti-light Av, etc etc. - all the units chosen are built efficiently and are therefore competitive.
> 
> Just saying:victory:


That's my mindset at least. I prefer not tailoring my lists since I like to do the occasional tournament (locally we hold a 40K one at least once a quarter) which means my games are all good practice for dealing with what I'm facing with what I've got. I don't really see the same thing being done as effectively with Spam armies.



clever handle said:


> I play fluffy emperor's children - 6 squads of 6 (not all troops though...) with icons et al. I did pretty good in 5th, but am getting destroyed in 6th (1 game every 2 weeks doesn't allow for a lot of expermintation)


You may need to go and dig through the rules and see what's changed in relation to what used to help you win. Some changes likely need to be made to help improve your odds of winning. 

Alternatively look at what has made your opponent's armies so much better all of a sudden and see what you can do to mitigate it. 

Either way some critical thinking and patience will need to be applied. Your dealing with uncharted territory for your army so some failure will occur. Take each loss in stride and try to be objective with how you lost. Was it something you did? Did they just play a better game? If so was there anything you could do to change how their game played? Were your dice just against you? 

Heck, if your on good terms with your opponents, you could even try asking them what you can do better. Chances are if they're a good opponent they'll tell you what your doing that they're taking advantage of (sometimes nicely). Sometimes it's stuff you can fix, sometimes not (some armies just have built in weaknesses, for example Sisters don't like being hit with S6+ weapons make them sad since it negates any Feel no Pain saves they may have), if not you may have to see how you can turn that weakness in your favor (for Sisters this weakness is offset by being cheaper than a Marine which means I can bring more to the table for the same points level) or how you what you can do to mitigate this weakness.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

HOBO said:


> So long as AC's aren't 'all' you bring, then I agree. For IG if you also field Plasma/Melta/Lascannon and Blasts/Template weaponry (so basically high strength, low AP and/or high RoF) you're golden....something IG do exceedingly well.


I like to take a mix in the army. But only the same weapon for each squad. I lean towards AC over HB.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Zion said:


> I'm playing catch up since I went to the movies so this will be long. Sorry kids!
> 
> 1. Is it in your codex? Then it's fluffy. Seriously. There isn't ANYTHING in ANY codex in ANY combination that be fluffy on some level (even if it does seem dumb (Let's bring ALL the Grey Knight Paladins to EVERYGAME)).


The fact it's dumb makes the list unfluffy. For example I'm doing a Khorne Daemon List...but I'll add Fateweaver in, don't worry it's still fluffy.., no it's not because it's a not a khorne daemon list. True fluffy lists don't go with certain units because they ain't fluffy, just because it's in a codex doesn't mean it fits your army.


----------



## TyphoidLmJ (May 20, 2012)

Words_of_Truth said:


> The fact it's dumb makes the list unfluffy. For example I'm doing a Khorne Daemon List...but I'll add Fateweaver in, don't worry it's still fluffy.., no it's not because it's a not a khorne daemon list. True fluffy lists don't go with certain units because they ain't fluffy, just because it's in a codex doesn't mean it fits your army.


There is truth to that, but do you feel it makes a difference if there is actual thought put into the reasoning behind bringing certain things? I play mostly Alpha Legion for regular troops, and several large squads of TS for cult troops. 
I also use some (mostly) unconverted Space Marines painted as Deathwatch to act as my Chosen. Rather than saying something lame like "Renegaaades who never bothered to repaint thier armor...." I put together some justification for why I have what looks like regular SM in a chaos army.

Put together with my Imperial Guard allies, I reason it as having a Commisar modeled as a Radical Ordo Xenos Inquisitor who brings some IG and a Kill Team to the table. Being that both the Alpha Legion and the Thousand Son's (allegedly) stay[ed] loyal, could it not make sense that perhaps they made common cause with an Xenos Inquisitor, especially a Radical? I mean, look at how far out on the edge Eisenhorn gets towards the end.

In the GK omnibus, there was a fallen Inquisitor, I think he was named Valinov, and he was manipulating everyone to bring about the rebirth of some demon. Now he had Sisters, Guard, and Chaos cultists, all fighting together against the Grey Knights for a while. 

I think if someone has a non-fluff combo trying to pass off as "fluffy", they had better have a damn good story to back it up. I have tried to do that with what I have. I mean, if Black Library decided to take the list and write a book about it, what you have to ask yourself is, would other people find the premise believable? If not, then you shouldnt field it.:no:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Words_of_Truth said:


> The fact it's dumb makes the list unfluffy. For example I'm doing a Khorne Daemon List...but I'll add Fateweaver in, don't worry it's still fluffy.., no it's not because it's a not a khorne daemon list. True fluffy lists don't go with certain units because they ain't fluffy, just because it's in a codex doesn't mean it fits your army.


I was talking about fluffy for a codex. Fluffy in Codex doesn't necessarily mean fluffy in your army for what you're playing.

I only brought it up because I've seen a lot fluff players who argue things in a codex aren't fluffy. If they weren't on some level then GW wouldn't let you do it.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Obliterators...You don't need skill to win with these lists either. The sheer amount of damage they could do was limited by 5th edition's rules, but that has changed.


I think you've made pretty valid points all round, but I must disagree with this.

I didn't realise just how much Chaos are *crying* for a new Codex until 6th. I won all the way through 5th on skill and bad opponents, but in 6th? God damn, Chaos need an update. 18 Obliterators? That's way too many points to be viable, but more importantly just isn't as good as other armies' alternatives to 'Ermuhgurd two FOCs', like Scythes and Manticores or hell, even Master of the Forge and his wonderful Dreadnought brigade.

So Chaos. Chaos need skill.

Midnight


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Zion said:


> I was talking about fluffy for a codex. Fluffy in Codex doesn't necessarily mean fluffy in your army for what you're playing.
> 
> I only brought it up because I've seen a lot fluff players who argue things in a codex aren't fluffy. If they weren't on some level then GW wouldn't let you do it.


Well that's not I was on about, maybe themed would be best to describe what I meant.


----------



## Antonius (Jan 10, 2012)

Personally, i don't go for gimmick lists. Heck, i even have no two identical units, except mech infantry squads (not a complete vetspam IG list). Yet i still have a high W/L ratio, and still cover almost all of my bases (yes i play a mech list, but I would not tolerate any less because of a personal leaning toward armoured warfare and painting tanks). Makes victory seem sweeter and also keeps me on my toes, and actually i prefer it to WAAC power lists (and is more economical for my wallet).

All comers are the most fun to play in a friendlier setting, and in all fairness, powergaming gets you nowhere and makes you few friends. People pay enough to get into official tournaments (particularly the ones GW does in the UK), for little to no reward other than simply winning (and being a dick makes the win you got worthless). People should build armies they want, not what the internets tell them is DA BESTEST EVERRRR, because as i think has been seen before, the "power" lists work best in the hands of those that conceived them, not the copycats who want to win at all costs. 

Apologies for the rant (i just feel slightly disgruntled about WAAC powergamers). I don't build lists to fluff, but just go for what i like the look of or think is effective myself, and then add fluff to bring it all together, and fluff lists are good and all, but then it depends on what you want out of 40k as a game and a hobby.

Antonius


----------

