A lot of the talk here on Dakka is about the best units to take in an army - hence you see frequent discussions about things such as Heldrakes, Long Fangs, Riptides, Wraiths, TH/SS terminators, Vendettas, and the like.
While those units may be the most effective for their points, tactical utility is not the only consideration some players have when building their armies.
So what I'd like to ask is which units have you decided NOT to take, even though they would be effective on a battlefield - and why?
I never took the Doom of Malant'ai when I was a 'Nid player, because it was too goddam good and way too broke, (however, my experience with the 'Nids was that the entire army was too broken, so I might be missing something)
Doom Scythe - I just don't have the courage to drop an AB! They are too frakking AWESOME for me to fill a Heavy slot with something other than an AB (not to mention how expensive the DS is compared to the ABs)
P.S: When are we getting a 6th bat-rep Hedgehog? I really want to read another White Scar's adventure
I cannot bring myself to field regular ork warbikers. They may be awesome when you get a bunch of them, and count them as troops, but I just think the models are so cool that it pains me to take them off the board from one wound. So I only run them as nob warbikers.
Other chapter's special characters. I'm an Ultramarine player. Yes, Vulcan lists are powerful, but he is too distinct. No real way to re-name him to something a little more generic. I keep thinking about a Lysander counts-as. He's just a hard-core terminator captain, fits most fluff.
With my growing Eldar army I'm passing a lot of stuff up for thematic reasons. I'm running a Saim-Hann force. If something gets mud on it, it can stay home. Jetbikes, Gravtanks, and flyers. Fast moving aspect warriors might get an exception, and guys riding in transports get a pass. But war walkers, wraith lords/knights and support batteries are right out.
There is a lot of stuff I don't field, not for philosophical reasons, but because I"m a WYSWYG kinda guy. I just don't own any.
I wrote my Guard fluff to justify my irrational refusal to field Valkyries and Vendettas. The most annoying WAAC player I know ran roughshod with meltavets in Vendettas in 5th, and I don't want to invite comparisons.
The riptide, and missilesides.
First of all, they are both very expensive kits, and I'm not sold ( ) on their worth.
Secondly, I am quite happy with the options I have currently filling my elites and heavy support slots, and those units don't really fit with the theme of my army.
Finally, because it's more fun playing 'different' lists. The other night I heard "Since the new codex came out I haven't seen a Tau list without missilesides". Not only does it provide a bit of variety for my opponents, but it means that the tactics they are used to using won't work on my army.
Supposedly they're great at slaughtering vehicles, but I just don't really like them for some reason. I can't think of a reason why they'd be awful at what they do, but I simply can't bring myself to take Dominions. Maybe if they could take 4 meltaguns in a 5-woman squad it'd be different. Just feels like too little firepower when I'd only get 2 meltaguns and maybe a multimelta on the Immolator if I tack on an extra bunch of points over taking a Rhino.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the unit and they're really supposed to be a 10-woman squad with 4 meltaguns in a Rhino, though, but that would be even more points required for only one extra weapon.
wilsjur wrote: I never took the Doom of Malant'ai when I was a 'Nid player, because it was too goddam good and way too broke, (however, my experience with the 'Nids was that the entire army was too broken, so I might be missing something)
Yes the DoM is good, but if you mean the entire Nid army is broken in an overpowered way... Your meta is effed up.
Blackhair Duckshape wrote: Night Scythes and Wraiths because the guys I play with already complain about how OP Necrons are when I use nothing but troops and Ghost Arks.
haha seriously??
I ran NS and Wraiths in my first game with them and EVERYONE got into me for an OP list... I lost the game very badly!! maybe take it a couple of times and deliberately loose
I don't field the combination of 5 x Deathmark's and 1 x Veil tech with the auto hit 2+ to wound AP 2 flamer. THAT is a little broken....
With my Eldar I never take jet bikes, even though they are pretty much the best troops choice we have. it really has nothing to do with not liking them or even general principle, I just don't have any and they're quite expensive.
I only bring my Heldrake once every 10-20 games when I play my Chaos. Using a drake just feels like playing on easy mode, especially because my meta isnt very flyer heavy, and thus most armies aren't built to have much, if any effective air support. some might call it bad list building, but we just aren't all that into flyers for the most part.
Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.
I don't take Special characters 99% because I like to name and give a story to my Commanders. I could just rename/paint a Special Character, but that kinda robs the fun out of it. When you make your own Commander, you get to pick his/her gear and make the story on why they use X/Y/Z.
I also do not take allies or use Tau auxiliaries. I'm a bit of a Tau Purist.
I've not taken units for the explicit point of dispelling the myths of certain units (whether bad or good).
The "best" units in a codex are so because they're the best for the not-strictly-40k games that get played at tournaments, and are the most mindless way to victory in a dice game.
That doesn't actually make them the best, and I like giving people who can't think for themselves some options, whether they choose to exercise them, or not.
Generally, it's not too difficult to figure out what people fawn over and then not take those.
Da Orks. I normally just pick at random what I want to play and then build an army around them, for a long time I haven't played in Tournies and the rule have changed a lot since 4th.
But if I were to make a Tournament Level Mob. I wouldn't take Stormboys, Kommandos, Tankbustas, Flash Gitz, Meganobs, No planes, Deffkoptas, Warbuggies, Killa Kanz, Looted Wagon, Trukks Weird Boys or Old Zogwort.
I would only take Burnas in a mob of 5 with 3 Meks and only as Vehicle support.
Nobs only as Bikkers
If I take a Big Mek with a SAG it would only be with 3 units of Big Gunz, ADL, and Quadgun.
Two meltaguns, the TL Faith power and Outflank to come in exactly where you want, which is behind that Hammerhead/Landraider etc. Dead tank with a good chance that the Immolator won't have to shoot at it and can try to kill a second vehicle.
As for what I leave at home, hmm... I bought a used Land Raider for my marines but have never actually used it. It's big, scary, tough, and costly in points that can be used for something else like a couple extra scoring units.
I won't take ally units. For some reason it just feels really cheap for me to pick and choose really powerful units from other armies to bolster my force. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way. Plus I play Chaos so it never makes sense from a fluff perspective.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.
That's basically the problem with all Imperial vehicles.
Infantry platoons. Yes, meatshields are good. Yes, Sabre guns are god. But I play elite IG. Veterans, tanks, and enough air support that Imperial Navy should be my primary detachment.
-Loki- wrote:I wouldn't say I don't use good units, but I don't spam them to the extent The Internet tells me I need to.
I take a single Dakka Flyrant. I take a single Tervigon and a single minimum brood of Termagants. I take no Trygons at all.
I take plenty of units The Internet tells me are absolute rubbish - Hormagaunts, Warriors, Carnifexes, Venomthropes.
The Internet lies. I still do fine.
True that, my friend!
I used to run with the 4th ed eldar Codex all the units the internet said not to, and my win/loss ration is unbelievable. People used to only challenge my eldar when they hadn't been let out of what was known as 'the red box of stupid doom' in so long people doubted my army's power, or when a new codex came out that was claimed to be 'overpowered'. The only army I hated fighting was blood angels... due to bad luck one game (And I mean HORRIBLE luck) and TH/SS termis with 4+ FnP (5th ed in both cases).
But as for units I don't take... Warwalkers. I love the models, the few times I do run them they do amazingly or die spectacularly, but I just can't take em. Why? The models are so flimsy that after a night in my case, they fall apart etc, the weapon mounts fall off with as much as a stern stare at them etc.
Psykers. Goddamn things made only one wound on *enemy* in my whole warhammer playing history - when squad of imperial psykers shot Jain Zar with their pistols. All other ways in years their either blowing themselves or blowing my own squads (in case of templates).
May be I should really consider playing Black Templars.
Tervigons I just won't use them at all, I don't think the idea of mummy being in the front lines fits with nids way of war.(they should of kept with out number).
Any thing nurgle (I play CSM and daemons) I just don't like the models or concept, there good rules wise but not for me.
Gandohar wrote: I won't take ally units. For some reason it just feels really cheap for me to pick and choose really powerful units from other armies to bolster my force. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way. Plus I play Chaos so it never makes sense from a fluff perspective.
Uhh Chaos Daemons don't seem like a fluffy ally to you? Imperial Guard Regiment who has turned to Chaos as your forces arrive to slaughter a planet doesn't seem reasonable to you? Your Chaos Lord paying off a clan of Bloodaxe Orks doesn't seem right?
I think Chaos has some GREAT Allies options without it being cheap. I know this thread isn't supposed to be just what you don't use, but I'm a big fan of the allies system under correct usage and I think Chaos is one army that has a good bit of leeway with it! Either way, good on you for doing something you believe to be more fluffy than powerful.
I'm interested by all the responses, there seem to be many reasons including:
- Bad experiences with certain units
- General dislike of the unit
- Lack of models
- Transport problems
- More effective choices
- Army list theme and background reasons
- Unit is too effective
For myself the last two seem to be the main reasons. My Chaos force is Black legion, so I either don't take any marked units, or I make sure i've ght the same number of each mark (e.g. 1 each of Knorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slannesh marked units) in my army. I also don't have a Heldrake, simply because almost everyone says you need one!
For my White Scars things are a lot more restrictive - everything must be a fast unit (with the exception of scouts and some vehicles which fir the theme).
My dislike of taking 'uber' units is very simple - I want to feel that I won because the better tactician, not because I had the better codex... anyone else feel this way?
TheDraconicLord wrote: P.S: When are we getting a 6th bat-rep Hedgehog? I really want to read another White Scar's adventure
i've been playing a few doubles games recently which don't work well as battle reports, in addition last weekend my opponents didn't wanttme tot ake pics as their forces weren't looking very pretty
Hopefully I can organise another 1v1 game soon and continue my reports
My dislike of taking 'uber' units is very simple - I want to feel that I won because the better tactician, not because I had the better codex... anyone else feel this way?
It depends. In my rather competitive meta, I steer clear of übers. My opponents bring them, but I find it more fun to not. In tournaments I restrict myself less, but still avoid some things I consider to be unsporting. For example, I'll never take vendettas and sabres. If I have my AA covered, I'm happy. I won't bring either to a "friendly" game though.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.
That's basically the problem with all Imperial vehicles.
Eh, sentinels look cool, if a bit dorky, and the chimera reminds me of a BTR.
The Leman Russ is just so ridiculous though that I have to field them. The fact that it works in spite of its horrible design features just makes me love it that much more.
There are some units that fluff wise, I would love to field, but due to my playstyle, I would merely hiss and turn away from it.
For example, it isn't quite a tyranid army without Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes, but their steep cost for a single model is difficult to justify. (280 for a dakka flyrant? That's a pretty big target on its back) Rippers look fun to use, but what's the point of a troop that can't score? Shame, they'd go nicely with my malanthrope.
I refuse to take units that may be fluffy but are not the most effective choice to field when compared with other options (comparison to be taken in full, point costs and FOC and all that).
My Death Korps will not field rough riders until they become the most efficient unit to field as compared to other options available to me. This means it is exceedingly unlikely that I will field rough riders in the foreseeable future.
I am a hardcore roleplayer. And my general on the tabletop uses the most efficient means available to achieve victory. That means I use the most efficient means available to reach victory as well.
Unless you are an ork, or possibly playing one of the more delusional Necron lords, your fluff should not be used as an excuse to take suboptimal choices - because your warlord, your avatar on the field of battle, would surely choose the path that is perceived by you to be the most likely to victory?
Having some sort of twisted "pride" in avoiding conventionally powerful units is foolish at best and psychotic at worst. But if you insist that your warlord is too poor at his own job to understand the most efficient options, then that's naturally your choice.
mynamelegend wrote: I refuse to take units that may be fluffy but are not the most effective choice to field when compared with other options (comparison to be taken in full, point costs and FOC and all that).
My Death Korps will not field rough riders until they become the most efficient unit to field as compared to other options available to me. This means it is exceedingly unlikely that I will field rough riders in the foreseeable future.
I am a hardcore roleplayer. And my general on the tabletop uses the most efficient means available to achieve victory. That means I use the most efficient means available to reach victory as well.
Unless you are an ork, or possibly playing one of the more delusional Necron lords, your fluff should not be used as an excuse to take suboptimal choices - because your warlord, your avatar on the field of battle, would surely choose the path that is perceived by you to be the most likely to victory?
Having some sort of twisted "pride" in avoiding conventionally powerful units is foolish at best and psychotic at worst. But if you insist that your warlord is too poor at his own job to understand the most efficient options, then that's naturally your choice.
Because everyone knows that every general has everything he needs at his beck and call for every scenario AMIRIGHT?!
MrMoustaffa wrote: Vendettas, because I don't care if it craps rainbows and dispenses candy, I'm not paying 70 bucks for a single flyer that looks like an apache front end welded to a dumpster with wings.
That's basically the problem with all Imperial vehicles.
Eh, sentinels look cool, if a bit dorky, and the chimera reminds me of a BTR.
The Leman Russ is just so ridiculous though that I have to field them. The fact that it works in spite of its horrible design features just makes me love it that much more.
rigeld2 wrote: Because everyone knows that every general has everything he needs at his beck and call for every scenario AMIRIGHT?!
Actually, if you and your opponent agree to playing scenarios, for instance, without Heavy Support options? That makes for very interesting alternative game rules to the normal 40k ones. But as long as that has not been agreed, the limits of FoC, codex, ally matrix and points are the only standard limits on your general's resources available for the particular battle in which you partake.
You'd still field the most efficient options within the available rules if you play such an alternate game, and of course you still have to be within your available budget - if you are physically unable to procure Vendettas for monetary reasons for instance, you're of course entirely forgiven for choosing to not field what you do not have.
But it is safe to assume that if you have the Vendetta model, your general has access to the selfsame unit.
Choosing to see playing to win and roleplaying as mutually exclusive traits is an arbitrary distinction - if you refuse to find a simple justification for an optimal choice, then it is nobody's fault but your own when you lose, and crying "WAAC powergamer!" at someone who is no less a roleplayer than you, but has chosen to play a superior general, is not going to make you look any better.
Heldrakes-(Only because I can't afford to buy one and ruin it with my lack of proper painting skills and no airbrush)
Nurgle Bikers- Or really anyone on a bike, I hate bikes for some irrational reason, likewise I refuse to mount my Khorne lords on Juggars (although I'm toying with the idea of modeling a Cyber T-Rex and running it as a Juggarnaut)
Noise Marines- Just hate the model, thinking of converting some up though
I point blank refuse to update my guard army, much to the chargrin of the staffers at my local GW.
My force is a mechanised infantry company. Men, and the transports to get them to where the imperium wants them to be. Yeah, I have two Russ (battlecannons and bolter's make me happy). They have names, (the newer one is "Samburgs revenge" and the older one is "Old reliable") and fill the role, along with the hydra's, of defending my column of Not-so-armoured transports.
You know what doesn't fit the theme? Aegis defence lines and aircraft. No....just no. My company commander wouldn't have the imperial navy at his beck and call so neither do I.
I built it as a mechanised infantry force before I knew that it was the meta bomb in 5th. I like to think this more or less proves that I went to the trouble of buying, building and painting 6 veteran teams in 6 chimera (and a company HQ in the same) because I liked the idea of a mechanised infantry company with some armoured support, not because I saw a cool list on the internet.
rigeld2 wrote: My point is that saying "I'm role playing a good general so I never take bad units." is ludicrous - that sentence has no basis in reality.
I guess I'm just not understanding your point overall.
Does it have any more basis in reality than saying "I refuse to take vendettas because I roleplay a ground army", or "I refuse to take Predator tanks because they look boring and boxy"?
Are you picturing the Space Marine Captain standing there, watching the enemy tanks roll up, and when asked why he refused to send out his own tankhunter predators, he responds with "Well, they're so boring and boxy, you know?". Maybe you're playing a captain who refuses to be gauche, I don't know, but it seems unlikely.
Still, it's a viable choice too.
Refusing to take certain options based on roleplaying/fluff, hating the models, or even if you want to make some sort of stand against fliers, is an accepted limitation.
As long as you accept that if someone doesn't abide by the same, and your restrictions result in a decline of your game capacity, that does not make him a "powergamer", "WAAC", or any of those other empty terms losers tend to throw at winners.
My point, is that arbitrarily limiting yourself to NOT taking certain units is fine, as long as you don't whine at people who don't follow suit.
Again an exception is made for when this arbitrary limit is mutually agreed upon ahead of time, IE: "We'll play a game without any Heavy Support choices" - bringing Leman Russ tanks in such a game would be grounds for complaint.
Losing to someone who brought them when you yourself refused to because they're so boxy and boring does not make you a better gamer or roleplayer, it simply means he is a better general.
My point, kept shorter: Limit yourself however you want and for any reasons you want, but just because I don't doesn't mean you have the right to whine about it when I win.
A few too many people who say things like "well my fluff doesn't allow me to field any meltaguns in my army" or "Oh, I just hate the look of tanks and drop pods, and I'm my own chapter that hates psykers, so I play footslog vanilla marines with a generic captain", will later claim that their loss is because they face "WAAC" players.
Well, if I roleplay, and you roleplay, we both roleplay. If I also choose to play the competitive tabletop wargame with the stated goal of victory within the game's parameters, and you do not, then you can't complain if I achieve that victory, and you do not.
I suppose I should have kept my point more simple - "You do what you want, on the single condition that you don't look down upon me and label me 'WAAC powergamer' if I don't play in the same way you do".
Truly and honestly, people who choose to roleplay in a different manner have my thumbs-up. As long as they don't start looking down upon me because I roleplay in a different way.
Sadly, way too many people who do the - completely and entirely fine - choice of limiting their choices based on fluff or model preferences, suddenly start complaining when others don't follow suit. It's a bit of a problem on this forum, and it never ceases to annoy me.
If I come across as a jerk when stating it, then my communications skills clearly need improvement.
I never take special characters. It just kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. Oh, Ghazghkull Thraka decided to show up for his 50th fight this week? How neat.
I never take allies, flyers or fortifications either, because I'm growing old and crotchety and therefore they are nothing but shameless money grabs by GW.
Hedgehog wrote: So what I'd like to ask is which units have you decided NOT to take, even though they would be effective on a battlefield - and why?
For my Wazdakka biker army I refuse to take Lootas, instead opting for Deffkoptas for my ranged anti-vehicle as they just suit the theme I was going for.
Cyaneye wrote: There are some units that fluff wise, I would love to field, but due to my playstyle, I would merely hiss and turn away from it.
For example, it isn't quite a tyranid army without Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes, but their steep cost for a single model is difficult to justify. (280 for a dakka flyrant? That's a pretty big target on its back) Rippers look fun to use, but what's the point of a troop that can't score? Shame, they'd go nicely with my malanthrope.
Stone crusher I could justify, though
... so basically you can't justify any monstrous creatures, since they all have extremely steep costs in the currect codex?
But seriously i don't take a lot of things. lootas, meganobs, wraith units, fire prisms( i may start), warwalkers etc. on the ork front it's the difficulty and cost of getting good sized units of them. On the eldar side it's mainly a fluff thing i have taken an aspect heavy path of command.
I don't ever plan on using Plaguebearers in my CD army. I've never been a huge Nurgle fan to begin with, and I prefer my daemons armies aggressive and fast. Not that I don't see their worth, I just want no part of it
Hive Guard. It isn't a matter of "fluff" or "principles" or anything, its just that in games sub 2000 points they don't fit in with my tactics. For the points, they're good. Like, really good. But, my army needs every elite slot dedicated to units that can APPEAR IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR ARMY AND KILL A SQUAD. Erm, right... but I like Ymgarls better, in every way, than Hive Guard. Which sucks, cause I bought and painted 6 of them.
Anything in the Fast Attack section of the Tau codex that does not have a markerlight on it.
I hate the fact that our fast attack section is stacked so heavily (counting forgeworld here) that I'll never get to run XV9 suits. Even throwing in a single barracuda because I love the model is probably not going to happen.
Also more than one riptide. No particular reason, I think that I'd just feel dirty if I ran 3 riptides as my elite slots.
I refuse to 'spam' units that are considered extremely good.
No Wraith-spam, no AB-spam, no flyer-spam for my Crons.
I refuse to take units that may be fluffy but are not the most effective choice
I use the most efficient means available to reach victory
and crying "WAAC powergamer!"
Uhm..
Isn't using the most efficient means available to reach victory the definition of WAAC?
your fluff should not be used as an excuse to take suboptimal choices
Why not? The fluff is nothing but the story that surrounds your army.
And if I want to play melee-Crons without Wraiths and make a story around it than I can do that.
when asked why he refused to send out his own tankhunter predators, he responds with "Well, they're so boring and boxy, you know?"
No, he will simply respond: "Our army doesn't have predators anymore, they got destroyed in the last skirmish."
Kangodo wrote: Isn't using the most efficient means available to reach victory the definition of WAAC?
No. WAAC means "win at ALL costs", which includes cheating, rules lawyering, etc. Playing an optimized list with good tactics is just being good at the game.
Meh, I still think that there is a line between WAAC and a cheater.
Anyway, OT...I refuse to take wraiths despite how much I love the little buggers. I already take plenty of scythes, ABs, D&D squads, and MSS overlords so i think I can cut my opponent a break somewhere
Ive wanted to, theyre not the same as Looted Wagons when it comes to kitbashing but its basically expected to be since they fit the mentality of a speed-freak ork perfectly.
But they just....suck...lol... anything and everything pops them and koptas can do the job faster thanks to scout and has a chance to avoid the damage it takes.
Peregrine wrote: No. WAAC means "win at ALL costs", which includes cheating, rules lawyering, etc. Playing an optimized list with good tactics is just being good at the game.
Never heard the definition that included cheating.
Rules lawyering, however socially %^*& it might be, is still legal within a game.
If you cheat, you lose.
If you lose, you aren't winning.
So I really do not see that as 'winning' at all costs.
Its only cheating if you get caught. Thats what most people live by.
Been hearing people taking 2+ armor saves on their broadside drones, which is not a thing anymore. To any non-tau, they wouldnt know any better and allow it.
I suppose I should have kept my point more simple - "You do what you want, on the single condition that you don't look down upon me and label me 'WAAC powergamer' if I don't play in the same way you do".
Truly and honestly, people who choose to roleplay in a different manner have my thumbs-up. As long as they don't start looking down upon me because I roleplay in a different way.
Sadly, way too many people who do the - completely and entirely fine - choice of limiting their choices based on fluff or model preferences, suddenly start complaining when others don't follow suit. It's a bit of a problem on this forum, and it never ceases to annoy me.
If I come across as a jerk when stating it, then my communications skills clearly need improvement.
Uhm, your OP specifically mentioned people who role play without WAAC lists as psychotic
I also don't take repentia. Dunno, the models put me off. My sisters are professional (if fanatically devoted) soldiers, not screaming half-naked nutjobs...
Cyaneye wrote: There are some units that fluff wise, I would love to field, but due to my playstyle, I would merely hiss and turn away from it.
For example, it isn't quite a tyranid army without Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes, but their steep cost for a single model is difficult to justify. (280 for a dakka flyrant? That's a pretty big target on its back) Rippers look fun to use, but what's the point of a troop that can't score? Shame, they'd go nicely with my malanthrope.
Stone crusher I could justify, though
... so basically you can't justify any monstrous creatures, since they all have extremely steep costs in the currect codex?
You sir are not playing Tyranids!
I do run MC's, but they're the ones that can be run cheaply with minimal upgrades. My list currently runs a Harpy, Mawloc, and Malanthrope, altogether running less than 450 points for those 3 Granted, they aren't the biggest or baddest, but they let me sink more points into more bodies.
Hive Tyrant and Carnifex both start at 160, but don't do very well naked, and by the time I spend upgrades to make them decent, they already cost close to a land raider for a single model.
I won't take any unit that has the letter E in its name. No Vendettas, no Leman Russ, no Chimera, no Veteran squad. In fact the entire fast attack and heavy support sections are closed off - even the Hydra flak tank unit has the word 'battery' in it. Just a Company Command Squad and/or Lord Commissar and Infantry Platoons filled out with Infantry squads and the mandatory Platoon Command Squad. I could use Ogryn squads, Ratling squads, and Guardsman Marbo under this restriction but I don't feel like it.
Ok, not really. I only really seriously don't feel like using IG flyers. There are other units in the codex that don't fit in with what I'm doing but I'm not exactly intentionally refusing to use them. Incidentally, if anyone wanted to play with the above restriction the easiest army to do it with is Orks. Codex Space Marines can only do it if you use a special character HQ and a number of armies can't do it at all.
I don't think that I'd take Penitent Engines. At least not for matches that were at all serious. Just can't justify taking them over an Exorcist or Rets.
I remember somebody saying that they're good for hordes, though. So maybe my tune'll change if my local meta is full of Ork and IG players.
Melissia wrote: I also don't take repentia. Dunno, the models put me off. My sisters are professional (if fanatically devoted) soldiers, not screaming half-naked nutjobs...
I quite like the repentia's fluff. "Fanatical zealots trying to atone for their percieved sins" fits the Sisterhood's identity as devoted religious warriors. But yeah, I'm with you on the look of the models. Not really a fan of them. I'll probably greenstuff them some robes or something when I eventually get some.
Raxmei wrote: I won't take any unit that has the letter E in its name. No Vendettas, no Leman Russ, no Chimera, no Veteran squad. In fact the entire fast attack and heavy support sections are closed off - even the Hydra flak tank unit has the word 'battery' in it. Just a Company Command Squad and/or Lord Commissar and Infantry Platoons filled out with Infantry squads and the mandatory Platoon Command Squad. I could use Ogryn squads, Ratling squads, and Guardsman Marbo under this restriction but I don't feel like it.
Ok, not really. I only really seriously don't feel like using IG flyers. There are other units in the codex that don't fit in with what I'm doing but I'm not exactly intentionally refusing to use them. Incidentally, if anyone wanted to play with the above restriction the easiest army to do it with is Orks. Codex Space Marines can only do it if you use a special character HQ and a number of armies can't do it at all.
I'm taking this as a challenge now... does this include wargear or just the unit name?
Troike wrote: I quite like the repentia's fluff. "Fanatical zealots trying to atone for their percieved sins" fits the Sisterhood's identity as devoted religious warriors. But yeah, I'm with you on the look of the models. Not really a fan of them. I'll probably greenstuff them some robes or something when I eventually get some.
I prefer to have my Sisters be "Elite Soldiers of God", as it were, instead of "angry mob of surprisingly well equipped fanatics".
mynamelegend wrote: I refuse to take units that may be fluffy but are not the most effective choice to field when compared with other options (comparison to be taken in full, point costs and FOC and all that).
My Death Korps will not field rough riders until they become the most efficient unit to field as compared to other options available to me. This means it is exceedingly unlikely that I will field rough riders in the foreseeable future.
I am a hardcore roleplayer. And my general on the tabletop uses the most efficient means available to achieve victory. That means I use the most efficient means available to reach victory as well.
Unless you are an ork, or possibly playing one of the more delusional Necron lords, your fluff should not be used as an excuse to take suboptimal choices - because your warlord, your avatar on the field of battle, would surely choose the path that is perceived by you to be the most likely to victory?
Having some sort of twisted "pride" in avoiding conventionally powerful units is foolish at best and psychotic at worst. But if you insist that your warlord is too poor at his own job to understand the most efficient options, then that's naturally your choice.
This argument is inherently flawed for certain organisations, such as the Imperial Guard.
A Guard colonel, the highest battlefield rank outside special characters, has no say in what units are under his or her command.
Heck, a Warmaster or Lord General has no real say over what units are under his or her command.
What happens is, the commander overseeing the theatre says to the Munitorium, "I need three more regiments of drop troops."
The Munitorium passes the note around internally until it finds a unit kind of like drop troopers that it can get to the CiC in a reasonable amount of time, and goes to the Navy to say "Please get these guys and take them to that theatre."
Ten months later, and the CiC gets his requested reinforcements, only they're not Drop Troops, they're Light Infantry, because really what's the difference? They get their aircraft from the navy anyway. Only to the Warmaster, it's an important difference because the Light Infantry will have field guns that can't be loaded onto a Valkyrie, such as autocannons.
Edit: Oh, and as to the original point of the thread, I don't take Psykers in my Guard, or any ground vehicles heavier than a Tauros, because I play an Elysian mono-regiment army.
Blackhair Duckshape wrote: Night Scythes and Wraiths because the guys I play with already complain about how OP Necrons are when I use nothing but troops and Ghost Arks.
haha seriously??
I ran NS and Wraiths in my first game with them and EVERYONE got into me for an OP list... I lost the game very badly!! maybe take it a couple of times and deliberately loose
I don't field the combination of 5 x Deathmark's and 1 x Veil tech with the auto hit 2+ to wound AP 2 flamer. THAT is a little broken....
What flamer is that? I only know the one that is S8 but works against Ld?
As much as I want to as it would fit well into my main army, Vanguard Vets. Way too expensive for what they do. And they rack up a high bill if you start changing anything at all on em.
I play with the units I want to play with, I hate netlists, if find in 40k your a better tactician if you only use the units you like instead of going for "Netlist X" but that's my opinion.
With Orks I never use lootas mainly because I don't have the models and also because there too expenisive to buy tbh and I find that I like other units way more than lootas on the table.
With CSM I wont use Noise marines mainly because there an arm and a leg to buy and they just don't appeal to me, I use standard Forgefiends and a Warpsmith in my CSM army.
That said me and a few other people in my FLGS made a house rule of "no SC" in our games with each other because we find that some SC you can pull off so much cheese it isn't funny, plus we find that the game becomes much more tactical and we like to put ourselves on as our warlords mainly because we like the idea of claiming sectors in our own names making a own mark in the 41st millennium... we think that is badass .
I tend not to take any sort of dedicated assualt troops in Codex: Marines army. They have gear you can get on other units for cheaper plus 1 or 2 attacks at no extra strength. They will always get outstabbed by a stabby unit, and usually outshot by shooty units, there isn't much point, even though they would help defend my list against melee units.
DE - Incubi, trueborn(I know!), flyers, wracks. Incubi, trueborns and wracks because I can't fit them into my lists, flyers because I feel a little unfair since my friends aren't prepared for flyer... Also not a fan of flyers.
Necrons - Flyers, most vehicles. I still use anni barge because the kit is cheap and unit is cheap as well, can squeeze it into my list easily, but mostly avoiding vehicles because my DE is a skimmer force, so I don't want to play another vehicle heavy list. Flyers because... well, same reason.
I dont like SCs at all, never have, though im tempted to take darkstrider. Also i dont really like or take vehicles of any kind. Just not my thing.
Oh,prepared to be shocked, I have zero intentions on getting a riptide. I think its a bit silly and too expensive pts and moneywise. I honestly would have preferred samurai lookin melee drones over the riptide lol
I wont ally or use fortifications either because i dont think bringing a building with you to "that pinnacale moment of this massive battle" that you happen to be representing.
Peregrine wrote: No. WAAC means "win at ALL costs", which includes cheating, rules lawyering, etc. Playing an optimized list with good tactics is just being good at the game.
Never heard the definition that included cheating.
Well, it might not be actively cheating... But say the rules require certain things, your opponent forgets them and you only remind him when it's good for you. IMO that's still cheating. Forgot reserves? Too bad. Forgot Ordnance extra dice for armor penetration? Too bad. Forgot Pinning check for the exploding transport? "HEY! You forgot the pinning check!"
For the bugs, I too generally leave the doom at home. Mostly because my group fields semi-competitive lists at best, save the one WAAC player in our group. my favorite list has a walking tyrant with a strangler, 2+, and regen, a troop tervigon w/ extra powers and regen, 20 devilgants on foot, with hive guard for AT and a pair of zoeys for buffs. Then I take my 9 LW/BS warriors + prime and boldly walk them across the board, albeit in front of a venomthrope. See??? Not only do I leave the ueberunits at home, but I bring the ones The Internets says are bad. I also love bringing my near 700 point unit of screamer-killer fexes. Nothing says "I LOVE WASTING POINTS" like a unit of 3 MC that cost over 200 pts each.
(not to mention how expensive the 
I really want to read another White Scar's adventure 
) on their worth.
...
