This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

I went 2-2-1 at a 60 player tournament with a Thousand Sons army if it helps. Running with a single obliterator and everything else marked by Tzeentch.

I like that. There isn't anything wrong with Thousand Sons.

I play (well, played - I don't play 40k anymore) a non-draigo/pally GK army and had some success with it. Not consistent success, but it could and did win games.

I don't like the model for Draigo (and his rules aren't much better) and would not ever use him.

Leafblower doesn't have the same effect here as most of our tourneys are 1750pts or less, and you just can't muster the same amount of firepower at that level (2500).
My guard uses ogryns and roughriders, with outflanking sentinels and a single veteran squad in a valk. It has won games - even against DE - there just aren't enough armoured vehicles for the lance spam armies and the two platoon blobs tend to stick around.

As for the others, they aren't armies I play, personally (was never attracted to fleabags, vampires, spikies, B&D elves or not-terminators) and since I no longer play the game, no real desire to learn how to play or beat them.

At a tournament I went to there was horde orks vs. horde guard.
Not a single tank or wound allocation nob is sight.
Does that count?

If you want variety play warmahordes

regarding 40k, until the game is rebalanced so as to make multiple builds viable, with better internal and external balance, you're going to be dealing with this GW phenomenon where of all the options a codex has, only a handful of them are worth it.

*shrug* thats just the nature of the game.

Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

Yes, There have been several GTS won by Necron lists, none of them being Scarab farm lists.

I've never used oblits or a daemon prince for my chaos list, and I only have 1 squad of plague marines.
With my Eldar I typically bring at least 2 squads of rangers, and I try and bring harlequins whenever I can.
None of my lists are all that competitive, and certainly aren't the spam lists that you see at all the tourneys.

Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?

Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?

I love those two examples. Exactly! Why do people limit themselves like that?

My DE force isn't venomspam... it's Raiderspam. Even then, I only have 9 vehicles in it.

Blame the game, not the player, in this case.

40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.

If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

None of my armies are even in that list.

I think for Daemons it was Fateweaver and crushers? Not sure, but I play mono-Slaanesh anyway which seems to be considered the weakest list of the book from memory. For Eldar I ran a hybrid of foot and mech, a fire base of Guardians and Dark Reapers with the Avatar and a Wraithlord to anchor it; the Avatar usually wandering towards the front to keep threat up while a couple of Wave Serpents with Dire Avengers in them to zoom up the sides. Not a Falcon, Fire Prism or Fire Dragon in sight. For SoB I was sort of towards the power list at the time, but also a fair bit from it. Haven't changed it all that much for the WD update, no plans on getting Uriah at the moment and the Living Saint doesn't fit in with the rest of the list. Exorcists are a given though, but more or less the reason a lot of SoB lists seem to gravitate towards similar builds is more to do with restriction.

All the lists I see are focussed on the tournament meta. It's actually pretty easy to counter those lists in a non-tournament setting with less formulaic builds.

n0t_u wrote:None of my armies are even in that list.

Mine neither and I have 4.

Dark Scipio wrote:

n0t_u wrote:None of my armies are even in that list.

Mine neither and I have 4.

Mine neither... and I have 5.

I guess we don't have the same old tired overused lists by default then.

I think outside the box all the time, I like trying new things, but at the same time I pretty much never manage to get even the standard "best" lists to work.

I will say this, though, if you can make Swooping Hawks work, you deserve a standing ovation.

Cookie cutter lists really aren't all as cracked up as they seem. Usually, I see bad players take internet meta lists and fail whereas good players take almost outlandish list and win.

Ofc, some codicies are just so crap that it takes enormous foresight and skill to win.

I have not seen ANY of those lists IRL. Except for the 2 lash, plague marine, oblit list that I sometimes run
We mainly play WYSIWYG at the local store so if you want to run 50 razorback GK lists, you better have all those razorbacks.

Yeah some units are so good you can't leave home without them like Lootas and Longfangs
(Speaking of which why the hell weren't lootas on that list)
but the whole, "army based around one unit/concept" internet meta list is pretty big fail.

The best local blood angels player don't use razorbacks at all. They're practically all jump troops with a couple of preds and MAYBE a land raider. He has just played BA's so long he knows exactly what his army needs and what's redundant. Trimming the fat off a list, so to speak.

I play guard at 1000 - 1500 points. I have more but don't field it. It's a mix of footguard and tanks. It wins a lot, but is it leafblower? No, not by a long shot.

I also run crowerifiers. Surprisingly, my Guard are the army I play if someone needs a serious beatdown. My GK by comparison are rather friendly.

I've been doing reasonably well with a summon-heavy, no cult troops, no obliterators CSM list.

I run a mix of Fast attack and predators in my Space wolf army and it does well

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

The last sentence is the most sensible. You can't blame a game that doesn't set out to be tournament-balanced for not being tournament-balanced. Generally, I find that 40k is pretty much fine for balance in a friendly environment. If you want to take it into a tournament environment it doesn't work as well. This isn't the fault of the game.

Deadnight wrote:If you want variety play warmahordes regarding 40k, until the game is rebalanced so as to make multiple builds viable, with better internal and external balance, you're going to be dealing with this GW phenomenon where of all the options a codex has, only a handful of them are worth it.

40k, when played in a friendly environment, has much, much more variety in army builds, themes, and model selection that Warmahordes. Only a handful of lists are 'worth it' if you only place worth in winning competitive games.

htj wrote:All the lists I see are focussed on the tournament meta. It's actually pretty easy to counter those lists in a non-tournament setting with less formulaic builds.

QFT

Mahtamori wrote:I will say this, though, if you can make Swooping Hawks work, you deserve a standing ovation.

Challenge accepted. I once used a six man swooping hawk squad with Exarch against an Imperial Guard army, and they (almost) won the day, it was just my bad dice rolling. Does that count, or should I try something else?

Personally I play greenwing DA and mixed Eldar. Then again, I don't play competitively much.

Ive used Ghaz once in my entire Ork career, and in that game, I won without him coming out of the transport. So No Ghaz for me. I use rokkit buggies to make my KFF wall list, leaving my Heavy support incredibly open for whatever I wish. I built kans for my army sure, but only 3, and Ive only used them twice. And the odd thing? I win, I win a decent amount of my games. But sadly, GW has made me not want to play their game anymore. Sooo onto greener pastures I guess

Reivax26 wrote:Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?

My current SW project uses just grey hunters, rune priest, and wolf guard, and its done very well.

Long fangs are easily killed and cannot move and shoot. Both of those do not fit the theme of the SW list I've been running.

In my Thousand sons list I do not have any of the usuall units, just plain old rubics and normal CSM, all of which are in rhinos. Every sorcerer has bolt of Tzeentch and I my Hq is nearly always the Ahriman himself.

Somtimes I will run a summoned deamon heavy list and use Ahriman to turn those hidden pf into spawn and then use them as meat shields.

I won a GT and played in the NOVA Invitational with Nurgle Daemons.
I played in a GT with wraithwing necrons
I came 4th in a tournament with a Daemonbomb/dual land raider (5th ed) chaos list
I came 7th in a tournament with a hybrid guard army with Ogryns.

For summer gaming, our group is trying to shake things up a little bit. Armies are meant to be small (so we can get in lots of games) and use units that are under-appreciated or seldom used. The purpose is to get everyone to try out ideas that we have either dismissed before actually trying or to think of altogether new ideas. My current Tau list for this has two squads of gun drones and a skyray. Is it awesomely effective? No. Is it fun to play around with for a few games? Yes, and it's a really nice break from the usual lists. We're hoping that the experimentation means that we come to our winter (and more serious) gaming with some new thoughts about how to play our armies (and to have a bunch of fun, friendly, hilariously sub-optimized games through the summer).

Now I just need to figure out how to get Vespid to work.... sigh. At least I'm not the IG player trying to get Ogryn to be useful.

At the GT level, many (most?) of the top-placing players mix things up a bit. Usually they will include a core of units which are well-known to be good, but mix in one or more elements which are nonstandard, either for the surprise factor, for some unusual synergy they have discovered and enjoy, and/or simple pride, refusing to use completely monotonous builds.

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.
K
Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

Somebody call this man a:

How dare people use what works in thier codex. They wouldn't be so prevalent if they didn't work.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

The last sentence is the most sensible. You can't blame a game that doesn't set out to be tournament-balanced for not being tournament-balanced. Generally, I find that 40k is pretty much fine for balance in a friendly environment. If you want to take it into a tournament environment it doesn't work as well. This isn't the fault of the game.

I would argue that it is. Competitive balance can only move to improve the game for everyone. It means that players who are of a more competitive level have a more open ended game with more variety and tactical breadth, while players who are more casual in their gaming interests have the same options available to them, can play with a wider pool of people (ie, competitive players to a competent degree), and allows them to grow in their tactical and strategical understanding of the game without feeling as if they are leaving behind some of the better aspects of their enjoyment of the game by picking better options as they improve (which will naturally happen with a group of players over time as a metagame develops, lest it stagnate, become boring, and die).

I say this as a casual player with more interest in modelling and painting (just don't bring up why I haven't finished anything in a while...) than actually playing the game.

I agree that a balanced and clear game is better for everyone. It's needed for tournament players, but it's still good for casuals. My more casual gaming buddies are the ones who fell by the wayside over the years as they didn't want to put the work into keeping up with changes and FAQs. To that end I've been quite happy with the progress of 3rd to 4th to 5th editions. Each has been clearer and better designed and more balanced than the one before.

There's a pretty darn good mix of codices which can compete and win at the top end right now. It is heavy with SM books, but so is the list of codices.

GK, BA, SW, IG, DE, Necrons, vanilla SM, Orks all regularly do well and show up in the final rounds. Chaos, Eldar, Tyranids and Daemons also show up occasionally when good players bring them, but are a bit handicapped. Tau also can beat any of the above in any given game, but have difficulty sustaining it over a tournament.

Part of this is due to the 5th ed focus on objectives over VPs, which means armies can sustain heavy casualties and still win out due to better positioning and movement. So minor mathematical imbalances in pure filling power can regularly be overcome by superior play of the mission, table, and overall game situation.

AustonT wrote:
How dare people use what works in thier codex. They wouldn't be so prevalent if they didn't work.

While I can see the OP's point about netlists, I also agree with this. The reason most units turn up (Longfangs, etc) is because they're good so naturally are picked up by players.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?

I'm guilty of this one, but not by my design. My Space Wolves 13th Company has had a pair of small Long Fang units in the build since The Eye of Terror codex. And only one of them has a missile launcher, and that's because the models I had available required me to field a missile launcher, because that's what I had.

I find it pretty funny when you are an older player (I'm 30, been playing for 15 years) and you can see new Editions/Codex books make a new-found fad/crutch out of something you have been using for years on end.

Reivax26 wrote:Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?

I've never run a leafblower, and I've done reasonably well for myself with my guard army.

There are lots of people who think outside of boxes. You apparently just haven't come across many of them yet.

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

I havent seen any of these lists at my local club, i think the problem may be that you go to alot of tourneys? or your local meta is too competative?

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

Don't blame it on players that want to be competitive at a competitive event.

Maybe competitive 40k tourneys just aren't for you?

I like to run stormtroopers an 9 tanks in my IG...
and for my tyrainds, I run hormogaunt/venomthrop spam.

kinratha wrote:I like to run stormtroopers an 9 tanks in my IG...
and for my tyrainds, I run hormogaunt/venomthrop spam.

You're clean, move along

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.

No, as can be seen by most of the replies in this thread, you are not forced to take a net list, nobody puts a gun to your head and says "spam that unit." If people play the lists they found on the internet it is their choice and to claim otherwise is rather silly. I'm sure that an unconventional list could do pretty well in the hands of a good player.

I have to say since 4th ed came out I avoided tourneys like the plague. The last ever tourney I went to (to take part in) I saw almost identical GK lists everywhere, went with my cousin to observe a tourney he was in a year or so ago, he came back saying it was like playing the same army again and again. The tourney scene is all the same these days. You want rage... go tourney... you want fun... go local games club...

I would add the KFF and lootaz to that list for orks.

If there is a unit which is ridiculously efficient(like Long Fangs) or can do something no other part of your army can do as good (plague marines), or multiplies the power of your entire army by being present(lash princes), leaving them out is not "Thinking outside the box". It's handicapping yourself.

What the op is trying to do here is telling people how they should have fun. People play long fangs, lash princes, leafblower IG or battlewagons for other reasons than WAAC netlisting. They play them because they like playing that way.

That aside I run an infantry HEAVY CSM list with a couple summons now, it does pretty well (about 60-40) untill I hit a tankspam list and even then its 50-50ish...

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.

40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.

If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

Or play non-competitive games with people that you can trust to not go too far out of their ways to win.

40k isn't that unbalanced. If you're running across mech spam a lot, then just tailor your list to destroy mech spam. The penalty to relying on net lists is getting destroyed by those who don't.

If you're not willing to do what it takes to show them the error of their ways, then stop whining.

The reason you see nothing but "broken" or "cheese" lists is because the game is too fething expensive not to build paint and base an army that's not going to totally bring the rape.

If you can pay 130pts for a 12 12 10 fast skimmer with 3 twin linked las cannons why would you even consider any other fast attack options? If you can get 2 wound psycher terminators all standard with str 5 storm bolters and str 5 powerweapons at i 5 AND theyre troops on top of it why would you ever play vanilla marines?

Dont ask these questions when the answers are obvious.

n0t_u wrote:None of my armies are even in that list.

I think for Daemons it was Fateweaver and crushers? Not sure, but I play mono-Slaanesh anyway which seems to be considered the weakest list of the book from memory. For Eldar I ran a hybrid of foot and mech, a fire base of Guardians and Dark Reapers with the Avatar and a Wraithlord to anchor it; the Avatar usually wandering towards the front to keep threat up while a couple of Wave Serpents with Dire Avengers in them to zoom up the sides. Not a Falcon, Fire Prism or Fire Dragon in sight. For SoB I was sort of towards the power list at the time, but also a fair bit from it. Haven't changed it all that much for the WD update, no plans on getting Uriah at the moment and the Living Saint doesn't fit in with the rest of the list. Exorcists are a given though, but more or less the reason a lot of SoB lists seem to gravitate towards similar builds is more to do with restriction.

Khorne
Slaanesh
Nurgle
Tzeentch

Slaanesh and Nurgle have some really good matchups and some really bad ones. Khorne is all around good and has the added benefit of being good against GK (Blessing of the Blood God on 2 Thirsters, 3 princes, and hounds? Yes please). Tzeentch looks okay on paper but not having all of their shooting available at the outset of the game is an issue. I've tried the mono-Tzeentch list and as good as I think it is, it folds badly against lots of armies.

I was placed 5th in a tourny with my chaos list(i posted it on here not too long ago) , ahead of a 9 oblit, dual lash list. Anything is possible! Plus i have success with my sang. guard army for ba. Finally my DE arent venomspam there raiderspam

How about an Imp Guard Army with out any heavy choices, just one elite choice, headquarters units made up of Tech-priest Enginseers with servitors and no melta weapons of any type.

I do get some anguish off of some players when I show up with 3 Valkyries and 6 Vendettas and all of the Troop squads throw demo charges...along with Marbo....

All but Marbo ride in Air Cav style.

Hoping to see Vultures available as a Heavy choice in 6th...

Feth wrote:How about an Imp Guard Army with out any heavy choices, just one elite choice, headquarters units made up of Tech-priest Enginseers with servitors and no melta weapons of any type.

I do get some anguish off of some players when I show up with 3 Valkyries and 6 Vendettas and all of the Troop squads throw demo charges...along with Marbo....

All but Marbo ride in Air Cav style.

Hoping to see Vultures available as a Heavy choice in 6th...

That is really badass.

hah hah hah, a Wahmbulance... On a serious note my friends dark eldar is unbeaten and doesn't have any venoms, also it has incubi and a mega killy archon in it. Not a cookie cutter in sight, however they just burn't down the bakery and stole the slaves...

Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?

I can see the point in many of the other complaints you listed, but you covered 3 very different GK builds, all with a fair bit of variation.

It sorta seems like you just don't like it if anyone plays GK at all.

I have jumpy BA, 4 venoms, 2 raiders, 2 ravagers for dark eldar, ....

Purifiers aren't super nasty either IMO. I use them and I have only done so-so in my times playing them, and people still complain for some reason.

I play them because I love their fluff and how the army functions on the TT. Its most like the old codex in a way.

Granted, I could optimise my list alot more then it is but overall I think the Anti-GK rants that go on are baseless whining by second rate generals who simply can't/won't man up and take it.

Slaanesh and Nurgle have some really good matchups and some really bad ones.

Mono-nurgle is the worst, at the very least things in other lists can hurt vehicles, the only thing mono-nurgle is good against is Tyranids, anything with mech will hurt them, anything faster than them will outrun them, sure they'll survive but that's all they can do. They can't hurt vehicles in the slightest.

Feth wrote:How about an Imp Guard Army with out any heavy choices, just one elite choice, headquarters units made up of Tech-priest Enginseers with servitors and no melta weapons of any type.

I do get some anguish off of some players when I show up with 3 Valkyries and 6 Vendettas and all of the Troop squads throw demo charges...along with Marbo....

All but Marbo ride in Air Cav style.

Hoping to see Vultures available as a Heavy choice in 6th...

You can take vultures as a FA option as per the forge world rules for them.

Gonna play a DKoK list using FW rules, that means no veterans, no chimeras and no air support, because they're not in the Krieg pdf.

Now now, my artillery IS 25 points cheaper and my guardsmen are harder to break...

Net lists are only of use in tournaments. Any list can be countered if your opponent knows you're going to use it.

Ailaros wrote:40k isn't that unbalanced. If you're running across mech spam a lot, then just tailor your list to destroy mech spam. The penalty to relying on net lists is getting destroyed by those who don't.

If you're not willing to do what it takes to show them the error of their ways, then stop whining.

Ill agree until you through Grey Knights into the mix. Im sorry, no matter how hard people try to argue the other way, I personally think the GK are just way over powered. Any of the other codices are fine, sure some seem to be a little harder to take on, but over all I think the rest of them are where they should be. GK OTOH, are just nuts, its the Chaos Demons in Warhammer fantasy all over again

It's really not nearly as bad as chaos daemons were. You need something to blow up the dreads and/or tough transports (LR or SR), and you need stuff to pop transports and kill regular marines, which most of the stuff in the codex (not Paladins) is as durable as, but more expensive. It also really helps to have some sort of psychic defense.

My BA are doing quite well against GK, where my Chaos needed a little dice luck. The BA are a little cheaper, a bit faster and shootier, and they bring psychic defense.

I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Kingcracker is quite correct about the Grey Knights though. Just think about my original post. The rest of those armies only had 1 build that people spam at tournaments or even in normal games, the GK's have 3. That should tell people everything they need to know about them.

Has anyone tried a Sea of Green Ork list against the Grey Knights before? I would be interested to see what would happen in that game.

You missed tremmorcrons from the necron section


My BA are DOA, so more fluffy than heavy hitters.

My nids are more of an army which i built around units i like.

My DE only has 2 venoms, and no rav's. (wych cult)

And my daemons are classic fateweaver with added slaanesh daemons.
However, daemons struggle with anything but a cookie cutter list in tournaments, so dont expect too much change as fluffy daemon armies really dont do a great deal.




Edit: The sea of green is a nice idea unless they run purifiers.
In which case the sea hits an island.

You're forgetting the new wave of Nidzilla. Three tervigons, two Trygon Primes, a couple of units of required gaunts, Doom of Malantai and as many outflanking genestealers as you can afford. i've played against that same goddamned list fielded by four people at my FLGS, with Orks, Dark Eldar and Space Wolves, and the only time I didn't lose was when I scored a tie in the seventh turn of a capture and control mission because the last two members of a ten-strong meganobs unit that had Cybork bodies thanks to Mad Dok Grotsnik just made it to the other objective and passed their break test because two of them were killed. I look back on that game as the highlight of my 40K history now. If sixth edition doesn't fix a few things, I'm heading to merry old England with a baseball bat.

I will be the first to say that 6th had better be good and fix whats wrong with the game because if it doesn't then my models will be hitting Ebay and I will be taking my business to Privateer Press. Always did like the way those Menoth models looked anyway.

Crafter, i feel your pain.
While ive only gone against 1 swarm-bringer list, they seemed more content in sitting back and flooding me with termies.

I wouldnt have minded, but the main bulk of the army was:

Tervigon
Tervigon
30 termigants
30 termigants
30 termigants
tervigon
tervigon
tervigon

Now, while i dont mind the idea of if somethings worth doing, do it well, this takes the piss a bit.
More so that the game was triple objective.

Now, i dont mind a challenge, but what can i really do against that with daemons? XD
I simply started chewing through units, and end game he had all 3 objectives while i was pinned in a quarter of the board, with well over 100 termigants left alive.
That much spawning is worrying since i couldnt keep up with it.

Just find it funny he missed out on a trick.
Could have taken 3 units of 30 gargoyles to go with it lol.

Reivax26 wrote:I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Kingcracker is quite correct about the Grey Knights though. Just think about my original post. The rest of those armies only had 1 build that people spam at tournaments or even in normal games, the GK's have 3. That should tell people everything they need to know about them.

This isn't them being broken. All the newer books have multiple good builds; that's a sign of better design. It's the older books which have fewer viable builds.

Reivax26 wrote:Has anyone tried a Sea of Green Ork list against the Grey Knights before? I would be interested to see what would happen in that game.

I've known multiple people who've played that matchup. It can work quite well, though you really want shoota boys rather than sluggas. Purifiers ruin your day in HtH, so it's better to drown them in bullets, as against shooting they die just as fast as regular SM.

Reivax26 wrote:I will be the first to say that 6th had better be good and fix whats wrong with the game because if it doesn't then my models will be hitting Ebay and I will be taking my business to Privateer Press. Always did like the way those Menoth models looked anyway.

Your first post made a lot of assumptions about ow and why people play their lists. It makes the same Charlie Brown buzz as when someone says something along the lines of, "I love that you play DA instead of BA or GK because at least you play an army you like," both make basic assumptions about how and why a person plays. I've played Blood Angels for over a decade. I played a Rhino Rush army in the twilight of the 90's, a Jumper army in early 4ed, and a hybrid jump/scout/AV13 army in the PDF. Now I'm back to a Rhino Rush and have gone full circle. I made my list for the first tourney after the new BA book dropped and it has remained unchanged since; net list my eye. And yet it IS in fact a Razorspam/AV13 list because 5ed made the game about objectives and the best and most durable way for me to capture them is mounted RAS; if you don't like it boohoo. I do in fact still have what would now be a DoA army, my 6 chaplains, and Land Speeders. All sidelined until they work again:just like my Rhinos were.
For me 5t edition has been the worst edition so far; I don't like the way the game plays now and I feel the rules encourage WAAC net listing *shock* and that's what we get, but you know what? I still love 40k. No other games literature has convinced me that it is as interesting and engaging. Which means when the 6ed book drops I'll buy it, I'll read, I'll learn it, and I'll play it. But putting conditionality on "how good" it is and "it better fix" is childish. If you like the way Menoth look and you want to play Warmahordes, don't blame 6ed. Blame your disinterest in 40k or your interest in PP. They put out a great product. I played 40k briefly in 2ed, you want gakky rules 2ed had them in spades. GW puts out a markedly better product now than they ever have before. It's more expensive than it should be and its geared towards competition; if you can't accept that there's the door. I for one love that the internet has given us a resource and a community that shares things like netlists. I love that the internet gave me Brother Edwards BA to serve as a baseline for my own army, that the powerarmor only crowd at BnC will playtest your newest netlist on Vassal nearly any hour of the day. I love the discussion, critique, and ideas I get from Dakka. Those things come with netlists, Wardices, and other boohoo gak. Deal with it. If your answer to the tournament meta and a new ruleset is to pack up your ball and go home, then do so. Don't bitch about it first.

While I do not have a SW army, I have always wanted to make one that was max HQs, Lone Wolves, and Dreads.

I think it would be pretty cool.

My SW list runs two vindicators and not a single LF in sight. Only 1 - 2 HQs and even Bloodclaws depending on if I feel like leaving the terminators at home.

The primary issue is a list that does really well at a tourney gets copied, and that's ok.

The reason being anyone that makes a copy-cat list is only 80% as good as a player that makes their own lists and understands their codex.

It's just that more of the copy cat fools are around at these big gatherings, so the odds are in their favor to do well.

Units that work well are one thing, but the spam is just generic fools with no insight or tactical ability.

The only army in your list that I have, is chaos. I run chaos lords with demon weapons, no more than 6 obliterators, chaos dreads, normal CSM, raptors, that's pretty much it, and I do very well against the stuff you list.

I recently used a fabius bile list in a tourney, and it turns out even against 3 BA dreads with the keep killy claws, I did well.

Some players can't think for themselves, that's ok, I enjoy playing predictable players with very different than meta list and beating the stupid out of them.

The lack of originality in some builds is more of a reason for me to exploit other players lack of skill in building a list. I enjoy nothing more than going against IG leaf blower lists with my Orks. Nothing like Grazzy coming in with Snikrott from his table edge then blowing apart those artillery vehicles.

As far as IG goes, yes, to some degree all builds will be the same, differing only in infantry hordes or mech vet lists. Yes, as 2,500 points, I do run two melta vets and one plasma vet in chimeras. After that though, Yarrick, 5 ogryns in a chimera and 3 penal legion squads. Alot of Leman russ tanks.

I have posted threads before on my builds and all I usually recieved in response was "that wont work, you need this and this" or, "those units are horrible, this list will not win". Why, because it isnt the normal list. Still win, still lose, just like the standard best builds.

I would like to see a tournament where you have to build a legal army but some one else has to play it. Make the worst build you can, and see how they match up.

I like my guard mix list. It has regular infantry-blob, vets, LRBT, Hydras and Vendys. It does quite well.

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

my blood angel army is all DOA and my nilla marines all have bikes
my chaos marines dont run anything that doesn't have the mark of slaanesh,same goes for my daemons
my imperial guard are nothing but mass troop spam and 4 russ's
my deldar only have 2 venoms, 3 at the most
my eldar are 90% wraith
I play sisters of battle......this army couldnt get more unique if it tryed XD

I tend to win most games I play :3

although I have to agree with what AustonT said, you see these "net list" builds for a reason.....they consist of good units and people want to win games.

Mannahnin wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Kingcracker is quite correct about the Grey Knights though. Just think about my original post. The rest of those armies only had 1 build that people spam at tournaments or even in normal games, the GK's have 3. That should tell people everything they need to know about them.

This isn't them being broken. All the newer books have multiple good builds; that's a sign of better design. It's the older books which have fewer viable builds.

Reivax26 wrote:Has anyone tried a Sea of Green Ork list against the Grey Knights before? I would be interested to see what would happen in that game.

I've known multiple people who've played that matchup. It can work quite well, though you really want shoota boys rather than sluggas. Purifiers ruin your day in HtH, so it's better to drown them in bullets, as against shooting they die just as fast as regular SM.

While I agree with Mannahnin on the build side of the argument, pretty much every codex has 2 or 3 really good builds that get spammed heavily. My argument about the GK is the fact that if you look at the tourny scene, ANY tourny scene, the GK just flood it, hands down. The reason? Mainly because they are OP and people like to WAAC, so bringing the GK is a better chance at that goal. And sure, the GK arnt AS bad as the Demons were for Fantasy, I mean they literally BROKE the damn game. But GK arnt that far behind in that regard. I mean you want to talk about balance, well explain to me how they are SO much better then a vanilla marine and at such a low cost, not to mention they get upgrades that are just incredibly WTF.



Again, no one will talk me out of my view on them, but every other army out there is pretty good in my book

AustonT: You are quite correct in that I have grown disheartened with 40k and I am not alone in that regard.

I really hope that 6th and the Chaos Codex actually make me want to play again. I have enjoyed this game for the last 12 years that I have played it but over the last few years there have been so many things that have irked me about the game that its taking the fun out of it.

I do agree that for the most part, the internet has helped the gaming community . It is good to bounce ideas around with people who play a similar army to yours, to learn from their mistakes so hopefully you won't make them too. The only downside to this is the people who simply get on sites to "Troll" around and put down everyone's list who uses a unit that is outside of what is percieved to be the best units in that dex.

A friend of mine recently started playing and after posting a list he was wanting to do on one of the other gaming sites he go so much negative feedback on the list that I had to talk him out of quiting the game before he had even really learned how to play.

I play vanilla marines and hybrid guard. My guard list has max 2 melta guns and 3 plasma guns. Marines, well it doesn't even matter what kind of list :p

I keep building my own lists every week. Moving and taking out what i feel useful and what i dont. I know alot of people dont use plasma, but i use it ALOT.
Right now im moving to mostly a list build around my armored mech or bikes.

I've done all of this but one, as it was just simply daft to not run a single squad of long fangs.

This is more whining about the meta and WAAC lists. Don't play at tournaments if you don't want to see this.

I know its not an efficient way of making an army, but I buy whats cool first... then make a list with what I got.

My own personal gripe, I hate special characters, I dont like playing with or against them. It just feels so... unoriginal. I enjoy the customization of the game!

Texanity wrote:I know its not an efficient way of making an army, but I buy whats cool first... then make a list with what I got.

My own personal gripe, I hate special characters, I dont like playing with or against them. It just feels so... unoriginal. I enjoy the customization of the game!

So playing only ultramarines instead of forces that feel like White Scars, Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, or a MoF list makes the game MORE original? I don't follow.

Lobukia wrote:

Texanity wrote:I know its not an efficient way of making an army, but I buy whats cool first... then make a list with what I got.

My own personal gripe, I hate special characters, I dont like playing with or against them. It just feels so... unoriginal. I enjoy the customization of the game!

So playing only ultramarines instead of forces that feel like White Scars, Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, or a MoF list makes the game MORE original? I don't follow.

Seeing as 4th edition you had traits rather than needed SC's, it's a valid complaint.

As a Necron player, I don't own a single scarab swarm. With a limited budget, I've ended up being more of a Wraith Wing type of player. Other viable lists (of varying degrees) I have seen or heard of (apart from Scarab Farm and Wraith Wing) include: Destroyer Wing (nerfed a bit but if synchronized with other units is just about as deadly as ever), Maximum Threat Overload, Tremor Spam, Barge Wing, Scythe Wing, Tesla Spam, SpeedCron (I've only seen one player use this build and it has been to great success. build includes: Overlord(s) on CCB, Triarch Praetorians w/ voidblades and particle casters or Lychguard in Nightscythes, Troops in Night Scythes, Tomb Blades, and Doom Scythes. Mech Armies beware!), Ark Wing, Ark of Destruction (another build I have only seen one player use. Includes: Overlord(s) in CCB, Warriors in Ghost Arks accompanied by Harbingers of Destruction, 2x Annihilation Barges accompanied by 1 Doomsday Ark), Overlord Court Overload, C'tan Hammer... and that's all I remember. Two of the builds from the Oldcrons have been fairly nerfed (though still playable): Silver Tide and Monolith Phalanx.

SC tend to be one trick ponies that its easy to find away around.

The purpose of the post was to see if anyone was having success with unorthodox lists compared to what the normal lists are for those armies that are seen in tournaments.

The one good thing about netlists though is that once you figure out their flaws they are usually not that hard to beat. Its those crazy lists that show up that throw everything into disarray. I love when that happens.

Buttons wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Blame the game, not the player, in this case.

40k is such a horribly balanced system, and poorly written at that. New codecies are written in ways to promote new units/models as being more powerful in order to push more model kits, rather than preserve any idea of a stable metagame. Because of this, 40k will always be a game that purposely centers itself around a select few 'net lists' above all else.

If you don't like that, I suggest you pick up a different game.

Or play non-competitive games with people that you can trust to not go too far out of their ways to win.

So, where is this imaginary line drawn then? At what point does competent tactics and strategy suddenly become "too far?" Furthermore, at what point does hamstringing your own play end up becoming patronizing to your opponent? It's an entirely arbitrary mindset, put in place to excuse poor design.

With such a mindset, you can call just about anyone or anything "metagaming" if you're not happy with it.

We shouldn't, under any circumstances, be excusing poor design, but rather, demand better rules for everyone, regardless of playstyle or habit.

Reivax26 wrote:I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Using good units =/= being a douche.

KingCracker wrote:My argument about the GK is the fact that if you look at the tourny scene, ANY tourny scene, the GK just flood it, hands down. The reason? Mainly because they are OP and people like to WAAC, so bringing the GK is a better chance at that goal. And sure, the GK arnt AS bad as the Demons were for Fantasy, I mean they literally BROKE the damn game. But GK arnt that far behind in that regard. I mean you want to talk about balance, well explain to me how they are SO much better then a vanilla marine and at such a low cost, not to mention they get upgrades that are just incredibly WTF.

Citation needed. There are plenty of people out there that play Grey Knights that have always wanted a Grey Knight army but didn't want to build an almost all-metal army. Now they have plastics and people flock to them. We really don't know why people play Grey Knights, so let's not claim that most people only play them because they're "OP".

Reivax26 wrote:
Kingcracker is quite correct about the Grey Knights though. Just think about my original post. The rest of those armies only had 1 build that people spam at tournaments or even in normal games, the GK's have 3. That should tell people everything they need to know about them.

Right... so one of the newer codices having more viable options makes it broken? Well, all my fellow GK players, it looks like we can't even field our army because someone might cry. Sorry, but AustonT pretty much hit the nail on the head: If you don't like it, either duck out or take it like a man. Not every GK player is a WAAC douchebag, which is contradictory to the attitude I seem to be detecting from this thread as of late - correct me if I'm wrong about this.

My Tyranid army uses Hormagaunts, a Flyrant, Warriors and Carnifexes. All no-no's, according to the internet. It also does not have any Tervigons, something that the internet says is required for Tyranids to not spontaneously combust on turn 1. Granted, I'll be getting a Tervigon soon, and a Tyrannofex (another no-no). I still win as well.

Don't listen to the internet and think it represents the greater playerbase. While a lot of people run net lists, a lot more don't, they just don't talk about it on the internet. Your local meta is different even to the local meta a few towns over due to different people playing there. The internet has a greater amount of people playing the tournament scene, which is again different to most local scenes, requiring very efficiently built lists. Which, given GW's tendency towards poorly internally balanced codices, means they all end up looking the same.

Most people think outside the box. Most people also don't post, or even read, internet message boards.

If it weren't for the under-priced missile launchers, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Long Fangs in a Space Wolf list, any more than Devastators in any other Space marine list.

Hell, using the Black Crusade codex rules in 3rd/4th edition meant that Long Fangs were the only HS choice I could even take for my Space Wolves 13th company !

Testify wrote:Net lists are only of use in tournaments. Any list can be countered if your opponent knows you're going to use it.

Right...

Because list tailoring is SO much better than net listing...

Its not about Grey Knight players being douchebags, I don't blame the people that play them. Its GW's fault for making a Codex that is that broken.

I didn't blame Chaos players back in the day when they were an awesome army that was really close to unbeatable when played right, I just tried to figure out how to stop it with the army that I was playing at the time.

I didn't blame the Alaitoc players back when they had their Disruption Table and could totally shaft an opposing army before the game started. It wasn't the players fault that the army had the option to do that.

I believe that in previous editions the game was more balanced across the board but it seems apparent that in this edition the codexes seemed to grow more and more powerful as time passed to the point that certain ones just had broken units that really were quite ridiculous when combined with the rules of the current edition.

Here's to hoping that Wound Allocation gets a serious overhaul because it is the most abused thing in the game.

I've taken 2nd and 3rd place versus a bunch of net lists in a few tournaments using lists like the following. Mind you this is just one of my practice ones (I usually do a little trimming on things that don't work too great during practice). Over all though I tend to run a rather combined arms list. Chimeras, heavy weapons, at least one blob squad, Harker's squad is a staple of mine, air craft, and a few tank variants.


HQ - 250 points
Company Command Squad
Power Sword on commander
Plasma Pistol on commander
Vox
2x Body Guards
2x Plasma Guns
Astropath
Chimera dedicated transport
Medi-pak

Troops - 240 points
Veteran Squad
Harker
3x Melta Guns
Demolitions Doctrine
Chimera dedicated transport

Troops - 635
Platoon Command Squad
Power Sword on commander
Plasma Pistol on commander
Medi-pak
2x Plasma Gun
Vox
Chimera dedicated transport

Infantry Squad
Power Sword on Sergeant
Melta Bomb on Sergeant
Vox5

Infantry Squad
Power Sword on Sergeant
Melta Bomb on Sergeant
Vox

Infantry Squad
Power Sword on Sergeant
Melta Bomb on Sergeant
Vox
Commissar
Power Sword on Commissar

Heavy Weapons Squad
3x Lascannon

Heavy Weapons Squad
3x Lascannons

Fast Attack - 130 points
Vendetta

Fast Attack - 130 points
Vendetta

Fast Attack - 130 points
Valkyrie
Rocket Pods

Heavy Support - 150 points
Leman Russ

Heavy Support -165 points
Leman Russ Demolisher

Heavy Support -170 points
Leman Russ Vanquisher
Lascannon

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Using good units =/= being a douche.

KingCracker wrote:My argument about the GK is the fact that if you look at the tourny scene, ANY tourny scene, the GK just flood it, hands down. The reason? Mainly because they are OP and people like to WAAC, so bringing the GK is a better chance at that goal. And sure, the GK arnt AS bad as the Demons were for Fantasy, I mean they literally BROKE the damn game. But GK arnt that far behind in that regard. I mean you want to talk about balance, well explain to me how they are SO much better then a vanilla marine and at such a low cost, not to mention they get upgrades that are just incredibly WTF.

Citation needed. There are plenty of people out there that play Grey Knights that have always wanted a Grey Knight army but didn't want to build an almost all-metal army. Now they have plastics and people flock to them. We really don't know why people play Grey Knights, so let's not claim that most people only play them because they're "OP".

Yea, its definitely the plastic that made the GK such a popular army to play......has dick to do with the near broken rules they have

Why is it always the players that gets blamed and not the company?

Especially companies that makes it SO OBVIOUSLY the new shinny things they want to sell happen to be the most efficient.

It isn't really about blame. We all know who is to blame and it isn't the players. The part that players can control is the part where we choose what to play.

The reason why I started the thread was to see if anyone had been successful with army builds that were outside what was considered to be "Optimal" by whatever percentage of people.

LunaHound wrote:Why is it always the players that gets blamed and not the company?

Especially companies that makes it SO OBVIOUSLY the new shinny things they want to sell happen to be the most efficient.

^This.

Honestly, you can't blame the customers. It's like complaining that a restaurant's best dish sells too much while no one orders their dirt and poop steak. Gee, I wonder why.

LunaHound wrote:Why is it always the players that gets blamed and not the company?

Especially companies that makes it SO OBVIOUSLY the new shinny things they want to sell happen to be the most efficient.

Because when you attack the company or the author and play tester either or both sets of defending white knights come to attack. It's a no-win scenario.

KingCracker wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Using good units =/= being a douche.

KingCracker wrote:My argument about the GK is the fact that if you look at the tourny scene, ANY tourny scene, the GK just flood it, hands down. The reason? Mainly because they are OP and people like to WAAC, so bringing the GK is a better chance at that goal. And sure, the GK arnt AS bad as the Demons were for Fantasy, I mean they literally BROKE the damn game. But GK arnt that far behind in that regard. I mean you want to talk about balance, well explain to me how they are SO much better then a vanilla marine and at such a low cost, not to mention they get upgrades that are just incredibly WTF.

Citation needed. There are plenty of people out there that play Grey Knights that have always wanted a Grey Knight army but didn't want to build an almost all-metal army. Now they have plastics and people flock to them. We really don't know why people play Grey Knights, so let's not claim that most people only play them because they're "OP".

Yea, its definitely the plastic that made the GK such a popular army to play......has dick to do with the near broken rules they have

Lots of people jumped on to Grey Knights at release, before they were established as a powerful army, but I'm sure that's because most Grey Knight players are WAAC doucebags, right?

How many times do I have to say this: not all Grey Knight players are douchebags. It just seems to be the army that draws the most powergamers to it because it is the easiest army to win with in this edition that we are playing in. If you want to play Grey Knights play them, I really don't care. As long as you are a good guy who plays a good game and good times are had then I am all for it.

I don't care to lose to a nice guy who is playing a really good list but I do care to lose to a powergaming douchebag who is only playing an army for the purpose of tabling everyone he plays in the most cutthroat way possible. I like to have fun when I play and laugh at the crazy stuff that happens.

Reivax26 wrote:How many times do I have to say this: not all Grey Knight players are douchebags. It just seems to be the army that draws the most powergamers to it because it is the easiest army to win with in this edition that we are playing in. If you want to play Grey Knights play them, I really don't care. As long as you are a good guy who plays a good game and good times are had then I am all for it.

I don't care to lose to a nice guy who is playing a really good list but I do care to lose to a powergaming douchebag who is only playing an army for the purpose of tabling everyone he plays in the most cutthroat way possible. I like to have fun when I play and laugh at the crazy stuff that happens.

I think you need to tone it down a bit there.

While there are obviously douchebag competitive WAAC players out there, there are also douchebag fluffbunnies and even douchebag casual gamers out there. It's quite fine to be someone who makes an optimised, hard list and tries as hard as possible to win (ie, someone who wants to win at all costs), or even runs an army simply because it is the best. This doesn't make them a douchebag, it is, afterall, a competitive game. The goal is to complete your mission objective, which means defeating your opponent. If someone enjoys that aspect of the game, it doesn't make them a douchebag.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:I would like to say that I am really happy with all the responses that I have gotten on here. It really does make me feel better to know that not everyone in the gaming world is a douche lol.

Using good units =/= being a douche.

KingCracker wrote:My argument about the GK is the fact that if you look at the tourny scene, ANY tourny scene, the GK just flood it, hands down. The reason? Mainly because they are OP and people like to WAAC, so bringing the GK is a better chance at that goal. And sure, the GK arnt AS bad as the Demons were for Fantasy, I mean they literally BROKE the damn game. But GK arnt that far behind in that regard. I mean you want to talk about balance, well explain to me how they are SO much better then a vanilla marine and at such a low cost, not to mention they get upgrades that are just incredibly WTF.

Citation needed. There are plenty of people out there that play Grey Knights that have always wanted a Grey Knight army but didn't want to build an almost all-metal army. Now they have plastics and people flock to them. We really don't know why people play Grey Knights, so let's not claim that most people only play them because they're "OP".

Yea, its definitely the plastic that made the GK such a popular army to play......has dick to do with the near broken rules they have

Lots of people jumped on to Grey Knights at release, before they were established as a powerful army, but I'm sure that's because most Grey Knight players are WAAC doucebags, right?

Lots of people jumped on GK because it was the flavor of the month. But then MORE people jumped on and flooded the game with GK because they are pretty fething broken. Theres a difference.

Reivax26 wrote: The part that players can control is the part where we choose what to play.

This is my point exactly. It really doesn't matter how broken one army is vs another. If you don't like it, you always had/ have the option of playing them too; it's not as though one person is allowed GK while another isn't. If you don't like it, either buy the army yourself or man up and deal with it.

Besides, GK get 1 dex every 10 years. Let us have our moment, it'll be swatted away by the next marine 'dex anyway.

And then there a players like me who have had GKs for years, our entire collection is metal(even Crowe is metal!), and we really couldn't care less about your whining. We didn't whine when our army sucked tyranid wang

Grey Templar wrote:And then there a players like me who have had GKs for years, our entire collection is metal(even Crowe is metal!), and we really couldn't care less about your whining. We didn't whine when our army sucked tyranid wang

Those are the exceptions really, those are just those that stuck by their army through and through. Nothing wrong with that, admirable really.

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

I used to run an entirely Khorne demons list, when I won, I stomped face, or got my gak pushed in. I also used to run a bunch of ogryn, and artillery, and conscripts with my guard. I also played Eldar, well into 5th ed, and didn't spam bikes or anything like that. You must be playing too many tournies or something, I play with my friends, and noone is super cheesey. Get some friends that play 40K and make it a weekly thing is my suggestion, you are right though, if all I ever saw was Driago wing, scarab spam, or crap like that, I would be discouraged too.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:And then there a players like me who have had GKs for years, our entire collection is metal(even Crowe is metal!), and we really couldn't care less about your whining. We didn't whine when our army sucked tyranid wang

Those are the exceptions really, those are just those that stuck by their army through and through. Nothing wrong with that, admirable really.

Id agree with that as well. Itll be the same feeling when those long time Chaos blokes finally get a good codex

The entire problem of 'standard' lists is down 100% to the boring desire of so many gamers to play only a single TAC list and never ever change it.

When you're only going to build one list, you build the one that is the most effective against the most opponents.

Instead, players should be encouraged to tailor their lists. Agree with your opponent before the game with regards to what codex you will be playing, and once you know what army you'll be facing, build a list to fight it.

Even tournaments should include sideboards or alternate lists.

Or play scenarios with unorthodox FOC rules. Homebrew, if you must.

Reivax26 wrote:Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?

Yes. I run none of those things

Kaldor wrote:The entire problem of 'standard' lists is down 100% to the boring desire of so many gamers to play only a single TAC list and never ever change it.

When you're only going to build one list, you build the one that is the most effective against the most opponents.

Instead, players should be encouraged to tailor their lists. Agree with your opponent before the game with regards to what codex you will be playing, and once you know what army you'll be facing, build a list to fight it.

Even tournaments should include sideboards or alternate lists.

I kinda like this idea, sort of like a side deck (if anyone here didnt play magic, yugioh etc a side deck is 15 cards you can swap with the cards in your deck between play) it would be cool to have an extra 500pts army where you can swap out units between rounds

Kaldor wrote:The entire problem of 'standard' lists is down 100% to the boring desire of so many gamers to play only a single TAC list and never ever change it.

When you're only going to build one list, you build the one that is the most effective against the most opponents.

Instead, players should be encouraged to tailor their lists. Agree with your opponent before the game with regards to what codex you will be playing, and once you know what army you'll be facing, build a list to fight it.

Even tournaments should include sideboards or alternate lists.

Because list tailoring is so much better. This isn't warmahordes.

Reivax26 wrote:
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?

Yes. I've seen multiple accounts where nothing but psyammo strikes and psyfledreads do well. Granted, that still uses psyfledreads, but it's hard to get away from that without spamming Razorbacks (which also does well).

For a 1000 point list, I have a nasty terminator (not paladin) list I use that seldom fails me.

Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?

Define "Leafblower". Do you mean the actual Leafblower list, or do you mean "any list with chimeras and at least one hydra in it"?

liquidjoshi wrote:Besides, GK get 1 dex every 10 years. Let us have our moment, it'll be swatted away by the next marine 'dex anyway.

This arguement does not hold water.

BA did not swat away the SW codex. Its doubtful that DA/BT will swat away GK.

Alright, maybe not exactly the next codex. But how often have GK been updated? How many codex have we had? Chaos will probably do it, if DA don't. Codex creep is the reason why GK are percieved as OP, and the reason why they will decline again. But hopefully most GK players will keep playing even when the power level drops. I know I will.

imweasel wrote:

Testify wrote:Net lists are only of use in tournaments. Any list can be countered if your opponent knows you're going to use it.

Right...

Because list tailoring is SO much better than net listing...

If me and you meet up in my basement for a battle every now and then, and I *know* you're always going to bring the same type of army, say, mech eldar (for the sake of argument), I'd be a fool not to build a list around countering mech eldar.
It isn't underhand or cheating (though it could be considered such if the lists are SUPPOSED to be secret).

imweasel wrote:Because list tailoring is so much better.

Uh, yeah. It is.

I really don't understand this view that list tailoring is dirty or underhanded. It should be viewed as the default way to play the game!

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?

Yes, LF's aren't the only highly abuseable spam unit in that book, only one of several.

Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?

Again, much like SW's, none of these are necessarily required for an abuseable GK list.

Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?

Yes, there's also FNP bubbles!

Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?

Define Leafblower, this is probably the most nebulous term in 40k right now that people slap on any IG list with a chimera.

Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?

How quickly people forget Raiders...

List tailoring is scum (provided we're talking about the variety where you know roughly the composition of your opponent, rather than simply just his codex).

Kaldor wrote:The entire problem of 'standard' lists is down 100% to the boring desire of so many gamers to play only a single TAC list and never ever change it.

When you're only going to build one list, you build the one that is the most effective against the most opponents.

Instead, players should be encouraged to tailor their lists. Agree with your opponent before the game with regards to what codex you will be playing, and once you know what army you'll be facing, build a list to fight it.

Even tournaments should include sideboards or alternate lists.

Net lists are, and I find this ad infinitum more likely, the result of people hashing out ideas or asking for advice in a general setting where the local playstyle and awarenesses aren't known. If the Eldar player is bad at remembering his start-of-turn psychic powers, then taking the Farseers out isn't a priority. If the Space Wolf player absolutely loves his worgs and seriously think two feet (or four claws) on the ground is how a real Space Marine should play, then anti-tank isn't going to be good even if generally speaking taking care of Rhinos/Razors is a problem against Space Marines.

If those "standard" lists were due to people's unwillningness to adapt, then you'd never see them win in Tournaments, because all it takes is a single player willing to adapt for him to constantly win each tournament.

Sideboards are a great concept, but it requires codexes to be somewhat even. When you've got several codexes which are basically mono-builds in terms of potentially successful "standard" lists, a sideboard for a strong or varied codex will further tip the balance out of the weaker codex' favour. For instance, Dark Eldar benefit strongly from the fact that players opt for the more hard-hitting S8+ weapons for anti-tank rather than S6 dice-spam which is more potent against Dark Eldar vehicles.

I entered a tournament last thursday and used nurgle daemons, not very common, especially not a common competitive army

I play vanilla marines at the tournament level and I try and take all the advantages I can. I have always been of the opinion that any faction can win at a tournament as it boils down to the player skill (and a bit of luck) in the end. Admittedly, there are factions that are easier to "auto-pilot' than others, but no faction is so handicapped that it's useless. Far from it in my experience.

That said, I see no problem with others playing whatever faction and in whatever form is necessary to win... this is the point of a tournament. Following the path of least resistence in this case is warranted... as frustrating as it may be.

I still use monoliths as necrons

Kaldor wrote:

imweasel wrote:Because list tailoring is so much better.

Uh, yeah. It is.

I really don't understand this view that list tailorings dirty or underhanded. It should be viewed as the default way to play the game!

Because you learn nothing. And it only works IF the expected list shows up.

GimlisonofGloin wrote:

Id agree with that as well. Itll be the same feeling when those long time Chaos blokes finally get a good codex

I base my armies on model preference as opposed to "must have" case in point

I've got a Baron Sathonyx/hellion based army for my D.E. with mandrakes, because I like the models. My Wolves long fangs are kitted out with plas/las-cannons because I like making sure stuff stays dead. My mighty wolf guard pack is 7 wolf guard with 6 power swords/ 1 thunder hammer w/storm bolters on bikes, the point cost is totally worth your opponent going " Wait, those guys are what?"

My army lists are made with the intention of what I think would be fun, couldn't care less about the win/loss because at the end of the day, this is the part people forget about, it's a game with little plastic army men.

Reivax26 wrote:How many times do I have to say this: not all Grey Knight players are douchebags.

Like saying not all Nazis were douchebags.

Semi-joke aside, I've seen fun GK players become dicks because of the environment. They'll start GK because it seems cool and get a ton of "OMG THATS SO CHEESY" or the indirect half behind your back "GKs are so broken, X is so cheesy. Can you imagine why Ward would give all Y rule Z for like 4 points?"
After 2-3 months of getting that every time you go to the club, it probably does rub in.

Yes. I run my Dark Eldar without running Venom spam. I run 3 maybe 4 venoms max in 2000 points and i've won the last 3 tournaments i've been in.
I even run 5 man units of Wracks and Wyches without a Haemonculi and i do great. Not only generic internet lists win all the time despite what some may think.

terranarc wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:How many times do I have to say this: not all Grey Knight players are douchebags.

Like saying not all Nazis were douchebags.

Wow... *REALLY?*

Does playing Greenwing Dark Angels count as out of the box? Granted, I've changed to a more netlisty list since then, but still.I miss my plasma devs sometimes.

Yes playing Dark Angels that are not Deathwing/Ravenwing is thinking outside the box. A friend of mine plays them that way but he does include one Deathwing squad as an elite in a Land Raider and does have one Ravenwing Land Speeder. However he does use 2 Whirlwinds as his other Heavies. Dark Eldar player was laughing at them until the Plasma Cannons in his Tac squads ripped the Raiders apart and then he started raining down Whirlwind templates on the stuff inside.

Hilarious to watch

Play at 1500 points. All of those lists fall apart at 1500 points because spamming is exponentially harder.

oni wrote:Play at 1500 points. All of those lists fall apart at 1500 points because spamming is exponentially harder.

This. There was an article some ex playtester for GW did talking about how 40k is balanced. Basically, it's balanced around 1500pts. Yes, they used to do official tournaments at much higher caps, but the game itself is balanced at 1500pts. It very obvious at the list building stage - it lets you bring a decent sized army but with the need to make some 'hard choices' on what you bring. You might not be able to fit that third Trygon or second Crusader. Higher points levels let you bring more fun toys, but it gets spotty because some codices simply scale better as you go higher. Staying at 1500pts keeps it somewhat reasonable and doesn't let you take that 'unbeatable' lists you see floating around.

You could do quite a few of those style lists at 1500. There just wouldn't be as much spamming of the units.

rigeld2 wrote:

terranarc wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:How many times do I have to say this: not all Grey Knight players are douchebags.

Like saying not all Nazis were douchebags.

Wow... *REALLY?*

Yeah, not only a Godwin, now I feel even less reprehensible when I power game my GK. Every time I see a comment like this, it's one less fluffy choice, and another Paladin/Purifier/DCA squad. feth 'em.

daedalus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

terranarc wrote:

Reivax26 wrote:How many times do I have to say this: not all Grey Knight players are douchebags.

Like saying not all Nazis were douchebags.

Wow... *REALLY?*

Yeah, not only a Godwin, now I feel even less reprehensible when I power game my GK. Every time I see a comment like this, it's one less fluffy choice, and another Paladin/Purifier/DCA squad. feth 'em.

Yes because you powergaming is the result of one person commenting on the internet.

But seriously though, nazi's already? Did godwin really need to be brought up against a player type?

-Loki- wrote:

oni wrote:Play at 1500 points. All of those lists fall apart at 1500 points because spamming is exponentially harder.

This. There was an article some ex playtester for GW did talking about how 40k is balanced. Basically, it's balanced around 1500pts. Yes, they used to do official tournaments at much higher caps, but the game itself is balanced at 1500pts. It very obvious at the list building stage - it lets you bring a decent sized army but with the need to make some 'hard choices' on what you bring. You might not be able to fit that third Trygon or second Crusader. Higher points levels let you bring more fun toys, but it gets spotty because some codices simply scale better as you go higher. Staying at 1500pts keeps it somewhat reasonable and doesn't let you take that 'unbeatable' lists you see floating around.

Crowe
3 psyfleman
5 squads of 5 purifiers in rhinos

1500

It can be done, however, being a grey knight player myself, I do not play netlists like this, how could you ever feel like you have won a game if your using tactics and list you got from the internet.

I have a 1500 tournie in August using 6th edition rules, should be interesting.

Nope, I use Long Fangs, Lone Wolves, Thunderwolves, Rune Priests and Grey Hunters. Oh, and Riflemen dreads.

I mean, otherwise I'd be taking Skyclaws, Blood Claws, ... oh, yea. Crap.

People choose a codex for various reasons, be it aesthetics, fluff, or love of the models. When you start plunking down loads of money (CASH HERE!), you might be more inclined to invest in the better units.

It's not my fault that GW made Necron Wraiths so damn points efficient and the models look totally amazing.

As a counterpoint to my Space Wolves and Necrons, I do play Chaos Daemons. Just cracking that book is outside the box (and no, I don't run Fatecrusher... yet...!)

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Yes because you powergaming is the result of one person commenting on the internet.

You've obviously missed the 50-something page "omg gk are the UNFARE +1000 durr" thread that existed for about 4 months. Personally, I went from expecting my DH to lose, but playing them anyway because I liked the badass models, to having an army that might be competitive enough for me to pay attention to what I was doing. This happened just in time for the entire Internet to lose their collective minds, however large or small they might be. In this gargantuan thread, I saw all kinds of allegations, some valid, most absurd, being tossed around. It was about 90% hyperbole, but the way this stuff works is without any sort of reality check, it gets so completely sensationalized that you'd never have thought that anyone playing GK anywhere has lost a single game and if they actually DID, then it was due to the masterful playing of the opponent such that they were able to defeat such a codex, and truly a testament to how much GK players are talentless newbies, regardless of how long they've really been playing or what other armies they play.

But seriously though, nazi's already? Did godwin really need to be brought up against a player type?

Such that you have to ask that question sort of confirms what I'm trying to say, no?

Grey Knight players are not Nazi's. How messed up in the head do you have to be to even post that on here.

Anyway....this is not a thread to whine about GK's, thats in a different thread somewhere on here. Someone had mentioned earlier that he was using a Grey Knight list with a bunch of their regular Terminators and that the list was still performing well. He was using the Psyfleman's but to be honest if I could get one or a Chaos equivalent then I would. I do applaud him for being successful with his army though.

So far I have to admit that I am really happy with this thread with the exception of the Nazi comment

i try to mix up my lists as much as possible. yes i play a venom spam for tourneys, but in all honesty, its what works. ive experimented with tons of other builds, and have at least 10 of every other model barring characters ravagers (only 5) and jetfighters (3). in the case of wyches, i own more then 60, and have played everything possible under the DE codex. including almost "1 of everything" - the end result it that my play style prefers the venoms.

as for "net lists" being inside the box and unorginal, there has to be some distinction. a new player who locates a list online, buys the models and takes it to a tourney may fare well, and definitily fall under the category. however there ARE people who experiment with diffirent units, and diffirent styles of play, elmininating fail units and taking more of what works. for me, ive always taken troops as a primary, and go from there. my first "real army" was orks, and through trial and error wound up at a trukk spam list. i continued that idea with dark eldar, and now my necrons.

there is nothing wrong with playing a "spam" or particular build. the problem, and often those who cry "foul" or "unorginal" or "cheese" are those who dont know how to beat those lists. ive played games against people with my venomspam and beaten them, only to hear "CHEESE!!" crys from across the table. after i offer to switch armies list for list and rematch, then beat them a second time, those crys usually stop. learn how to fight against a build with your army, learn how to properly use it, and youll have much less issue with "netlist/spam" armies.

imweasel wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

imweasel wrote:Because list tailoring is so much better.

Uh, yeah. It is.

I really don't understand this view that list tailorings dirty or underhanded. It should be viewed as the default way to play the game!

Because you learn nothing. And it only works IF the expected list shows up.

Learn nothing? I'll need you to elaborate a little more.

im making a tallarn list with rough riders and an outflanking infantry platoon ogryns and hellhounds i want it to be a fast in your face list not sure if this counts

imweasel wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

imweasel wrote:Because list tailoring is so much better.

Uh, yeah. It is.

I really don't understand this view that list tailorings dirty or underhanded. It should be viewed as the default way to play the game!

Because you learn nothing. And it only works IF the expected list shows up.

Nope, I can only see it as a positive. If you list tailor to, say, orks by bringing lots of flamers and they bring a Kan wall, you're going to have to find another way of dealing with it. That makes you a tactically better general, and discourages predictable netlists as they can be easily countered. Assuming both sides know the codex the other is bringing, as opposed to the actual units of course.

Crimson that would definetly count. Kudo's for originality.

Darthspader: I do agree with your posts. There is a big difference between a new player playing one of the lists and an experienced player who through trial and error has built his army the way that suited him best. If that ended up being really close to a "netlist" that is understandable.

A friend of mine once asked me why I hadn't painted any of my 3k Wolf Army. I told him that when I was comfortable with the army and I found a build that worked for me, I would paint them. Sure enough after about 6 tournaments over the span of a year, I came up with a list that just worked for me from one end to the other and painted it.

Nowadays through programs like Vassal and using counts as models that would be much easier than it was back then I guess. I never could get Predators to work in my 3rd ed Wolf army lol

Reivax26 wrote:This has been bothering me for some time now but I have let it build up until I just can't take it anymore. I want to see some originality in armies, especially those in tournaments.

Has anyone here had success with a Space Wolf army that doesn't use Long Fangs?
Has anyone had success with a Grey Knight army that isn't Draigowing/Purifiers/Henchman Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Blood Angel list that isn't doing Razorspam/AV13 Spam?
Has anyone had success with a Chaos Marine list that isn't running Dual Lash Princes/Plaguespam/Oblit Spam?
Has anyone had success with an Imperial Guard army that isn't a Leafblower?
Has anyone had success with a Dark Eldar army that isn't Venomspam?
Has anyone had success with a Necron army that isn't the Scarab Farm list?

I get so freakin tired of seeing the same old lists over and over and over. Can't anyone have an original thought in their heads anymore or has 40k turned into a game where it is required of you to look around the net to find the netlist for your particular army that is the best one for it supposedly.

Sorry but I am just in a really bad mood right now and someone on one of the other sites has filled my Rage meter to the top

My Dark Eldar army is a Coven.
2-3x Haem (venom Blade, Liquifier Gun), with 3 Grots (Aberration w/ Venom Blade, Liquifier Gun) in Raiders (Flickers, Night Shields),
2x 10 Wracks (Acothyst w/ Venom Blade, 2 Liquifier Guns) in Raiders (Flickers, NS)
2-3x 3 Wracks (Acothyst w/ Hex Rifle) in Venoms (extra cannon, Night Shields)
2x Talos (TL-Liquifier Guns, TL-Haywire Blasters)
And a Razorwing (monoscythes, flickers, ns).
And I win the majority of my games with it.

I also want to try a 150 Warrior foot and a 30 Grotesque lists next too.

The Space Wolf list I'm starting on is going to boast as many as 11-12 Drop Pods, 3+? Dreads (I forget if wolves get them as heavies. And I'll be building Bjorn.) It will possibly have Long Fangs, but mostly because it gets me more pods :p and they'll quite probably have meltaguns.

I'm hoping just through sheer amount of melta that it wont just fall over... But who cares, Drop Pods are cool.

There's plenty of alternate lists that work, it's just a running theme in I've seen on a lot of games - That certain people will just copy something that works for someone else, rather than figure out what works on their own.

Ive been seriously considering making an Arhc Arsonist themed army for awhile. 3 units of burnas in wagons, and 3x3 burna buggies. I think it could work TBH, using a KFF and clever maneuvering with the buggies, they will be able to put some hurting on exposed units and have little worry of being blowd up. And burnaboyz are always a fun treat, whether its burninating or mass powerweapons, either way that would so some damage Im thinking.

I still play Dark Angels if that counts.

I have never figure out what a leafblower if for IG, but I like running armor heavy Guard lists at the expense of troops because, well, I like tanks. I played Armored Company back in the day and I loved fielding alot of Leman Russes. It is balanced out in our group though because my love are armor is well known, so everyone is ready for it when we play.

Leafblower is basically maxing out your long range ordinance for a first turn ranged alpha strike. Squadrons of Basilisks/manticores, lots of lascannons and autocannons, Vendettas, etc...

The idea is to take out a large chunk of your opponents army early on in the game.


It was really good till people realized it had a hard counter in other alpha strike lists, outflankers, deep strike armies, and infiltrators.

-Loki- wrote:

oni wrote:Play at 1500 points. All of those lists fall apart at 1500 points because spamming is exponentially harder.

This. There was an article some ex playtester for GW did talking about how 40k is balanced. Basically, it's balanced around 1500pts. Yes, they used to do official tournaments at much higher caps, but the game itself is balanced at 1500pts. It very obvious at the list building stage - it lets you bring a decent sized army but with the need to make some 'hard choices' on what you bring. You might not be able to fit that third Trygon or second Crusader. Higher points levels let you bring more fun toys, but it gets spotty because some codices simply scale better as you go higher. Staying at 1500pts keeps it somewhat reasonable and doesn't let you take that 'unbeatable' lists you see floating around.

40k isn't balanced at any point level really. Try dealing with termie spam at 1500. It's not easy.

This whole thread started by OP seems to be like a bunch of:



I started the hobby in a store that some folks here would label "WAAC," but that label is dumb. We brought hard lists because we wanted a challenge and we knew "fluff" battles or list comp was just not a challenging way to play. Now that I moved to a new area that doesn't have stores with this mentality, it's super odd. And I win a lot more... and that's not necessarily my goal. I want a hard game and I don't like facing crap like Draigowing, Deathwing, Eldar Mech Spam, etc. but I just use my all-comers tournie list and proceed to play my best. I would actually prefer more Draigowings and Deathwings as they are the hardest armies for me to beat! Oh, and I got alpha spanked real hard by Dark Eldar. Was refreshing to meet a good DE player!

Give me a challenge and if that means give me then so be it.

imweasel wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

oni wrote:Play at 1500 points. All of those lists fall apart at 1500 points because spamming is exponentially harder.

This. There was an article some ex playtester for GW did talking about how 40k is balanced. Basically, it's balanced around 1500pts. Yes, they used to do official tournaments at much higher caps, but the game itself is balanced at 1500pts. It very obvious at the list building stage - it lets you bring a decent sized army but with the need to make some 'hard choices' on what you bring. You might not be able to fit that third Trygon or second Crusader. Higher points levels let you bring more fun toys, but it gets spotty because some codices simply scale better as you go higher. Staying at 1500pts keeps it somewhat reasonable and doesn't let you take that 'unbeatable' lists you see floating around.

40k isn't balanced at any point level really. Try dealing with termie spam at 1500. It's not easy.

My 1500 pt army is pretty spammy. 3 of everything except my hq. Not the greenwing one, but the netlisty one.

Why can't people just have originality and face losing. It doesn't matter if you lose.

(I prefer the painting)

heroscaper1515 wrote:Why can't people just have originality and face losing. It doesn't matter if you lose.

(I prefer the painting)

Yes, how dare I enjoy winning.

I LIKE to win. Winning is fun. Why am I a bad person for wanting to win? I love to have a good fling with a crazy list on occasion, with friends, but when we are going to play, I'm going to play to win, and i'm not exactly playing to win if i bring a bunch of random units with no synergy. But apparently, if i'm not bringing a list with no core or no units that work in conjuction with one anouther, i'm "not having fun." I'm "unoriginal." I'm "afraid to lose."

Ok guys, next time i go to the flgs, i'll bring a SAG big mek and put him in a battlewagon with a killkannon all by himself, and i'll footslog some burnas up the field supported by kans with skorchas. Of course, every competitive list brings boyz, but being competitive is WAAC and unfriendly, so i'll just bring grots and a bunch of five-man units of stormboyz. Weee, look at how original and creative I am! Am I having fun yet?

I think my Imperial Titan/Armor Legion is pretty outside the box .

Luna's Legion, Fighting in the Name of the God Empress!

loota boy wrote:

heroscaper1515 wrote:Why can't people just have originality and face losing. It doesn't matter if you lose.

(I prefer the painting)

Yes, how dare I enjoy winning.

I LIKE to win. Winning is fun. Why am I a bad person for wanting to win? I love to have a good fling with a crazy list on occasion, with friends, but when we are going to play, I'm going to play to win, and i'm not exactly playing to win if i bring a bunch of random units with no synergy. But apparently, if i'm not bringing a list with no core or no units that work in conjuction with one anouther, i'm "not having fun." I'm "unoriginal." I'm "afraid to lose."

Ok guys, next time i go to the flgs, i'll bring a SAG big mek and put him in a battlewagon with a killkannon all by himself, and i'll footslog some burnas up the field supported by kans with skorchas. Of course, every competitive list brings boyz, but being competitive is WAAC and unfriendly, so i'll just bring grots and a bunch of five-man units of stormboyz. Weee, look at how original and creative I am! Am I having fun yet?

Being original does not mean "Being Stupid" as your hypothetical situations seem to be.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

loota boy wrote:

heroscaper1515 wrote:Why can't people just have originality and face losing. It doesn't matter if you lose.

(I prefer the painting)

Yes, how dare I enjoy winning.

I LIKE to win. Winning is fun. Why am I a bad person for wanting to win? I love to have a good fling with a crazy list on occasion, with friends, but when we are going to play, I'm going to play to win, and i'm not exactly playing to win if i bring a bunch of random units with no synergy. But apparently, if i'm not bringing a list with no core or no units that work in conjuction with one anouther, i'm "not having fun." I'm "unoriginal." I'm "afraid to lose."

Ok guys, next time i go to the flgs, i'll bring a SAG big mek and put him in a battlewagon with a killkannon all by himself, and i'll footslog some burnas up the field supported by kans with skorchas. Of course, every competitive list brings boyz, but being competitive is WAAC and unfriendly, so i'll just bring grots and a bunch of five-man units of stormboyz. Weee, look at how original and creative I am! Am I having fun yet?

Being original does not mean "Being Stupid" as your hypothetical situations seem to be.

Sorry for the rant, but i just object to the "If you aren't being original (whatever that person defines original as) and you are trying to win, you aren't having fun." I'll have fun my own way. I don't need an original list to have fun. On occassion, i enjoy rolling up some rediculous list with a crazy theme, but that doesn't neccessarily mean i will end up having more fun playing that list than with a good 'ole battlewagon brigade. I LIKE playing my battlewagon brigade. It's tried and tested, and reliable. I have fun playing it. Why would I have more fun playing some other list just because it doesn't look like other lists? Just because it isn't built for success and competitive play doesn't mean it is going to be more fun to play than one that is.

I once rolled up a list with maxed koptas and looted wagons, with lots of boyz with weirdboyz, just for the hell of it. I played against an eldar player who was trying out some wraithwing with lots of seers. After that I played a game with my wagons against a standard razorback list. Guess what? I had more fun in the second game. Big units of koptas and boyz weren't as fun as I thought they'd be. But the next game was just two competitive, standard lists going at it, with plenty of vehicles on the field. It was fun. It also sounds a lot like the games that so many people on here find "boring" and "unoriginal."

1000pts tournament, 120 man Ork horde, 6 Killa Kans vs my Karamazov, LR Crusader and 10 termie GK list, I wiped the Orks and lost only 1 GK. I won all games (inc a 4 MM Imperial Fist Dread list) only to lose to a double Lash list in the final, 1 objective to none)

I also have consistently good games with my Necrons, no Immortals or Scarabs, a Triarch Praetorian and Stalker army backed by 80 warriors.

Being original does not mean "Being Stupid" as your hypothetical situations seem to be.

There's only so much originality available if you are trying to win.
For example, with Nids your elite slots are pretty much, Doom or not? After that it's Zoeys or Guard? Then all 3 slots maxed (depending on points).

A Ripper based army could be fun, but won't win anything realistically.
On top of that, good units are normally easy to figure out. Which is why you see some people with "net lists" who don't get online to find them.

Thinking "outside of the box" is when you play something other than the 1 or 2 lists proliferated across the 'net for each given army.

Especially ones that have "special" names like they're some kind of "Magic the Gathering" builds. "Deathstar", "Draigowing", blah, blah.

Deadnight wrote:If you want variety play warmahordes

regarding 40k, until the game is rebalanced so as to make multiple builds viable, with better internal and external balance, you're going to be dealing with this GW phenomenon where of all the options a codex has, only a handful of them are worth it.

*shrug* thats just the nature of the game.

Don't be that guy.

I play SM Raptors drop pod army. I lose alot but is fun to play and would be cool if done in real life

You can make competitive armies while using a unit or 2 that is unorthodox or that requires skill to use. I find those lists are actually the most rewarding to play.

I got to the final table of 2 tournaments with my Daemons at 2k using 2 squads of 5 Nurglings as tie up units. I also took Skulltaker who a lot of people will tell you isn't competitive. He isn't competitive until he instant kills a Trygon and then all of the sudden people know who he is. Before they got their new dex I had him take the Decievers head off during a game....now that was epic!

loota boy wrote:

heroscaper1515 wrote:Why can't people just have originality and face losing. It doesn't matter if you lose.

(I prefer the painting)

Yes, how dare I enjoy winning.

I LIKE to win. Winning is fun. Why am I a bad person for wanting to win? I love to have a good fling with a crazy list on occasion, with friends, but when we are going to play, I'm going to play to win, and i'm not exactly playing to win if i bring a bunch of random units with no synergy. But apparently, if i'm not bringing a list with no core or no units that work in conjuction with one anouther, i'm "not having fun." I'm "unoriginal." I'm "afraid to lose."

Ok guys, next time i go to the flgs, i'll bring a SAG big mek and put him in a battlewagon with a killkannon all by himself, and i'll footslog some burnas up the field supported by kans with skorchas. Of course, every competitive list brings boyz, but being competitive is WAAC and unfriendly, so i'll just bring grots and a bunch of five-man units of stormboyz. Weee, look at how original and creative I am! Am I having fun yet?

I don't think anyone has said it's bad to want to win.

But if the only way you can enjoy the game is by winning, then you're in the wrong hobby.

imweasel wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

oni wrote:Play at 1500 points. All of those lists fall apart at 1500 points because spamming is exponentially harder.

This. There was an article some ex playtester for GW did talking about how 40k is balanced. Basically, it's balanced around 1500pts. Yes, they used to do official tournaments at much higher caps, but the game itself is balanced at 1500pts. It very obvious at the list building stage - it lets you bring a decent sized army but with the need to make some 'hard choices' on what you bring. You might not be able to fit that third Trygon or second Crusader. Higher points levels let you bring more fun toys, but it gets spotty because some codices simply scale better as you go higher. Staying at 1500pts keeps it somewhat reasonable and doesn't let you take that 'unbeatable' lists you see floating around.

40k isn't balanced at any point level really. Try dealing with termie spam at 1500. It's not easy.

I know it's still possible in some instances. I never claimed 40k was a paragon of balance, because that would just be silly. However, 1500 is what they aim at when playtesting.

I play a CSM army with twin lash DPs and 2 x 2 oblits - however everythig in my army is Slaanesh - my troops are all noise marines with sonics in squads of 6, and everything has MoS. I also use a defiler because I like the model even though it isn't 'optimum'. I also have a squad of 6 raptors becquse I like the models, although they've been pretty useless in game. The oblits are the only thing that isn't technically fluffy [I think they're an Iron Warrior thing?] but without them I have no anti-tank/anti-terminators.

I see what the OP means though, I hate seeing twin lash DPs with Khorne beserkers and plague marines - it makes no sense fluff wise [unless it's a Black Legion army, but then you should have Abbadon as one of your HQ's right? And your army will all be in Black Legion colours right?]

I decided to make a Slaanesh army and use lash princes because they fit the theme, [even though lash is wildly overrated, especially after the FAQ] but that means I have to make sacrifices to keep my army fluffy [or as fluffy as possible with this bland dex]. The theme of the army and fielding interesting models is far more important to me than winning, and I feel like I can make a themed army that may not always win, but won't always lose either.

Defiler...Not optimum? A battle cannon wielding super Dreadnought with Fleet and loads of attacks? Are we talking about the same unit?

Squigsquasher wrote:Defiler...Not optimum? A battle cannon wielding super Dreadnought with Fleet and loads of attacks? Are we talking about the same unit?

Attacks at WS3! Enjoy never hitting anything of note!

Deadnight wrote:If you want variety play warmahordes

regarding 40k, until the game is rebalanced so as to make multiple builds viable, with better internal and external balance, you're going to be dealing with this GW phenomenon where of all the options a codex has, only a handful of them are worth it.

*shrug* thats just the nature of the game.

Maybe in your corner of the world, but not everywhere. My gaming group builds forces we like and think are interesting to play and don't just play the "latest/greatest" perfect units. I use possessed units in my chaos marine armies and pretty much every other unit in the CSM book as well.

I had a grey knights force before the current incarnation of the codex which turned into a radical daemonhunter inquisitor and his private army and marine allies from a chapter he was corrupting. Initially it was only multiple units of scouts because it made more sense for the neonates to be more open to corruption first. The scouts were supported by many units of Inquisitorial stormtroopers with chimers and rhinos along with 3 daemonhosts as well. The army was hardly predictable and not exactly a powerhouse, but it had a cool backstory and concept and was neat to play on the table.

Generally when I a buy a new army I add in samples of ALL available units in the army collection and eventually they all see the table top. I play units no one else will touch because I love the models. Not everyone is obsessed or paranoid about only certain options in the book and ignoring the rest. That is the weakness of a lazy mind. They can't find a way to use those items to their benefit so they avoid them, meanwhile only focusing on those aspects of the list that are obviously hard hitting. Lazy, lazy, lazy...

Skriker

Kain wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Defiler...Not optimum? A battle cannon wielding super Dreadnought with Fleet and loads of attacks? Are we talking about the same unit?

Attacks at WS3! Enjoy never hitting anything of note!

Hyperbole much? WS3 hits everything up to WS6 on a 4+.

METAL BOXES!

And yes we can think out of the box its just when your about to poor hundred if not thousands of dollars into a hobby often you try to cover all the bases

(you build an effective list, that you also love!)

its simply to expensive (especially here in Australia) for me to go willy nilly with neat army builds. Add to this the time involved.....

Well that's my reason for being an in the box thinker

YAY PLAUGE MARINES ( i can be a little out of the box when it comes to modeling/conversion). But to have a look around especially on the modeling and painting forums and you will find some people with too much time and money doing the most awesome of stuff with crazy jack-in-a-box chaos spawn builds and melee guardsmen. Plenty of people think outside the box just not so much in the army list forum as, that's mostly for, well MAKING THE BEST OF YOUR LIST and that is not out of the box thinking. As the current rules have been around awhile theirs not allot to be discovered anymore, most things have been tried and the best things nailed down. Now when 6th edition drops expect to see some crazy change@@@@!!

Oh and to the above, Defiler is a great unit! I mean its not the toddler destroying competitive powerhouse the obliterator is. But i have been satisfied with it almost every game i have played (even when it took its sweet time playing with mangled fire warriors...).Not that that's evidence but its a bit off topic so it will have to do.

Enjoy your day

By the way i hope that no part of my post seems at all aggressive just offering my opinion!>

If you were WAAC, you wouldn't be playing CSM.

I love how the fluff folks always want to dictate how others play. When the rules match the fluff, I suppose you'll have a more fluffy game. 30 marines should be a massive army and a terminator should be able to wipe half a tyranids army solo. And if you have a named space marine? Oh. My. God. Board wipe.

But the game is more advanced chess and I want a challenge. And I do enjoy people who bring the heat. If I know I'm playing against a non-competitive list, I won't use my tournament 2K (or any point variant) and move on. I won't complain about it.

If I want a fluffy time I'll read a book or play Space Marine or Dawn of War. I want to play a game of 40k, so act like a grimdark badass and stop bellyaching if someone brings a hard list!

You gotta also remember that this game is run by a publicly traded business. While they want to appease the customer, they are also appeasing the shareholders. Thus, don't be surprised that new models come out, rules/codices are changed, and look! A new flavor of the month intended to sell gobs of models. It's how the company stays in business!

And the slams on Warmahordes are silly. I play it on and off and the rules are 100% more clear than 5E WH40K, has some badass models, and doesn't make any pretense about being a game where you bring a tough list or don't plop down models. I love that notion, it's just I love my GW models a lot more!

TheKbob wrote:If I want a fluffy time I'll read a book or play Space Marine or Dawn of War. I want to play a game of 40k, so act like a grimdark badass and stop bellyaching if someone brings a hard list!

And the slams on Warmahordes are silly. I play it on and off and the rules are 100% more clear than 5E WH40K, has some badass models, and doesn't make any pretense about being a game where you bring a tough list or don't plop down models. I love that notion, it's just I love my GW models a lot more!

No one is bellyaching about someone bringing a hard list. The key here is that some people always play an army the same way as everyone else and it gets boring seeing the same army in the hands of all 3 of your opponents on the same day. For me army composition is about me expressing my interests in my minis, in having a fun game and most importantly putting my own touch on my force. I won't just grab someone else's list off of a website and play it because it is supposed to be super awesome, than I am to grab someone else's magic deck idea that isn't built to suit my playing style or interests. I like when an opponent puts down an army that is uniquely theirs and not just another repeat of the same exact build that all the other cool kids are playing these days.

As for your second paragraph I agree. The Warhmachine rules are so much better written, then minis have come a long way and are very well done and it is an interesting game to play. The only thing that keeps me putting up with GW rulesets is the fact that I also still really like my GW models a lot. I even continue to buy new armies, because of the minis. My Flames of War minis are well detailed for 15mm, but they aren't uber amazing models to any great degree....

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

loota boy wrote:I LIKE to win. Winning is fun. Why am I a bad person for wanting to win? I love to have a good fling with a crazy list on occasion, with friends, but when we are going to play, I'm going to play to win, and i'm not exactly playing to win if i bring a bunch of random units with no synergy. But apparently, if i'm not bringing a list with no core or no units that work in conjuction with one anouther, i'm "not having fun." I'm "unoriginal." I'm "afraid to lose."

Not exactly...if your army is exactly the same as everyone else's force using the same army then you aren't being very original. My chaos armies are almost always slightly different on the table every time I play them. I have so many minis that I want to see all of them on the table from time to time. Winning isn't about stacking the deck in your favor all the time. It is about using the tools you have and sound tactics and making it happen. I don't see a win with the latest "uber list" to be all that exciting, but that is me. I like winning. Who doesn't? But if I have the choice of putting a force on the table that I know will wipe my opponent out with little to no effort or one that will ensure a hard fought and interesting battle, I'll take the second path every time.

Skriker