Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have recently took it upon myself to build a non-scoring Blood Angel Army at 2000 Points with 9 Dreadnoughts, 20 Death Company and Mephiston. Having it built last weekend and gotten 7 games in with it versus a varying amount of lists and only playing 2 Kill Points mission with it. The results of each match up but 1 has been me tabling my opponent by turn 5 on average (Fastest was end of turn 3 against Tyranids).

I have had a varying degrees of player responses about this army. About 5 of them found the army to be completely un-fun to play against and have told me in game that they felt helpless about fighting it. One player explained to me that he felt the list was devoid of strategy and felt like robotic. All of them at first were intrigued by the army when they noticed it had a large amount of dreadnoughts but after 2 turns in, their faces turned sour very quickly.

I think it comes down to two components of the army, Mephiston and Blood Talons.
A) Firstly I only put Blood Talons on Death Company Dreadnoughts and thus far the max 1 dreadnought has killed in 1 charge, has been 21 models. (While another only hit twice but manage to cascade into killing 7 of 8 terminators). While Blood Talons are amazing and can be considered slightly over the top, I think one of the crucial flaw of them is the fact that DC dreads are WS5 instead of 4, making these things into highly lethal tools.

B) Mephiston, the first special character in all my gaming experience that actually feels under-priced (at 250) and kills in 90% of his games more than his point cost (Only had 1 game where he died before killing his points worth, 2 Exorcist and a Cannoness decided to kill him in 1 round of shooting). He has caused much grief to most of opponents.

The point of this thread, is that firstly I am not a giant jerk and I usually don't build lists to win, I build lists to make a game competitive and challenging to both players but I always stick to a certain theme. (Biker heavy White Scars, Wraithguard heavy Iyanden, etc...). I first started 40k with Blood Angels and it was nice to refit that suit for a new theme, a Death Company Army built to never score and to only win by tabling my opponents in 2 of the 3 missions. While I understand how jerkish that sounds, I felt it described the exact fluff predicament of a Death Company theme army which does not care for objectives and only cares to satisfy their killing intent. This is also the first Close Combat Army I have actually finished in 40k as CC oriented lists never interested me since the days of 3rd Edition Blood Angels. When I first thought of this army, I thought it would be incredibly hard for me to table my opponents if they played conservatively and would offer me a new type of challenge in the game of 40k. But it seems that I have built an army that has tabled more opponents in a week than I have ever tabled in the last 2 years of gaming and it seems to generate huge negative feelings.

I think most people look at the army with the context "that's unique and cool, I wonder how it plays" and they play against it. Within that short experience they change their original statement to "this is plainly dumb, what a jerk for building a list with the only intention is to table me." But my retort to you all, isn't the bottom line of any list to kill your opponent?

Should I shelf the army for tournaments, or keep playing with it until people get a better feeling on how to beat it? The reason I post this is I literally felt like the last 2 games I played caused my opponents to never wanting to play 40k ever again.

Adapt or Die, simple as that.

There is an interesting article pertaining to this subject on a new blog I cam across. Here is the link.
Capture and Control: For the Love of the Game

It sure doesn't sound like it'd be much fun to play against. If you start finding that nobody ever wants to play against you a SECOND time, then I think you'd have your answer!

What an extensive first post...

Simply place yourself in your opponant's shoes. How would you feel seeing someone unpack an army designed only to spoil your day?

"Wow, that... That sure is a lot of dreadnoughts."

Not much fun from the other side of the table. Is it?

It's also rather counter to the fluff, which has it that dreadnoughts are respected, revered (and farely rare) beings awoken only rarely and at great need. They are not spammed like... Well, like cans of spam coming off a production line, in fact.

I would love to play against that list. I feel like my 2000 Point Vulkan list would match up pretty well against it. I'd post it, but I don't want to let my victims know what they're in for!

All good-natured, intended-as-joking hubris aside, I really don't fear that list so much. With a psychic hood and an abundance of TH/SS Terminators and twin-linked meltas I feel like I'd give you a run for your money.

Well, it's 40K, anything can exist and fluff is what we will it.

If someone likes to play competitively and another likes to play carebear style, then it's up to each player to find this out before they set up a game.

It's a game that cares not for the self-imposed rules of fluff and 'fun'...

9 medium armour vehicles and 20 marines - doesn't sound especially difficult for a well-designed army to deal with.

Azezel - aren't all armies designed to do that?

A few chainfists or eviscerators would probably do the trick.

Vulkan melta/TH Terminator spam has it in the bag.

Eh. It's different, and sometimes people have trouble adapting to different right away. If they give it time, they'll beat it. Plus some armies will be the natural paper to this army's rock.

MikhailLenin wrote:I have had a varying degrees of player responses about this army. About 5 of them found the army to be completely un-fun to play against and have told me in game that they felt helpless about fighting it.

Emphasis added. I think that's their big mistake - trying to *fight* the army. It's built with a glaring inherent flaw, they should base their plans around that.

Azezel wrote:
It's also rather counter to the fluff, which has it that dreadnoughts are respected, revered (and farely rare) beings awoken only rarely and at great need. They are not spammed like... Well, like cans of spam coming off a production line, in fact.

Tell that to Matt Ward, his new fluff section likes to state otherwise but I know where you are going with this.

Azezel wrote:
"Wow, that... That sure is a lot of dreadnoughts."

Not much fun from the other side of the table. Is it?

I think that is true but at the same time I feel that is created mostly from the lack of understanding of how to counter the list. There is not much different between that logic with this list and with lists that spam AV12 Chimera Hull, or Killa Kans spam with 300 Boys, or BW spam with nobs, or the old Tyranid MC spam. People might not like those lists but they develop the ability to play against them. Perhaps I am fooling myself into thinking this is just a temporary relapse.

If Cruddace would have written Blood Angels you would have been able to take 9 dreads in 3 groups of 3 but they would have cost 200 pts each with a WS of 3 and there would have been a better options for only a few points more with better stats across the board.

sonsoftaurus wrote:
I think that's their big mistake - trying to *fight* the army. It's built with a glaring inherent flaw, they should base their plans around that.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I'm not trying to come off as some brilliant tactician or whatever, but I know exactly what I'd do.

I faced a 4 of the furioso in a game last weekend. They are a handful when combined with fast vindicators and baal preds. The dreads with WS5 and furious charge and stacking str 7 power weapons will eat anything they get the charge on. I don't know that the weapon skill is the problem but fleet combined with I4 or I5 on the charge is the problem. They do not have grenades though and can be baited into cover due to their rules so that the I can be taken away. The more serious problem is dealing with these dreads and two baals and two vindicators shredding your AT units at the same time.

Meph is just nasty any way you look at him. Compare him to a winged hive tyrant with adrenals for pretty much the same cost. It is a joke really especially when you factor in how easy it is to get him a cover save vs a winged tyrant. He is only lacking 2d6 for armor pen to be the best MC in the game. With str 10 though it does not really matter on the extra d6 for armor pen.

I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

If people build an army that will clearly lose, can they reserve the right to call someone who beat them "un-sportsmanlike"...because the other guy won?

I mean, look at the real world, nobody wants to go into a fire fight with the Navy SEALS or SAS, why? because they'd be outgunned and those guys have better training....oh boo hoo, nasty elite Special Forces, how dare they have the upper hand?!? I don't believe for one minute that Force commanders call for a sit-rep, deduce that their are only 5 insurgents in a building, sit down, do some math and decide, right, we'll only send in one SAS operator, with a knife and a pistol, and one hand tied behind his back....just to make it a fair fight.

God forbid that our wargames should come close to representing "real life".....I think some people need to stick with playing Chess or Connect Four....I believe these games offer "equal chances"

Kinda reminds me of my and others IG leafblower lists. Opponents just don't like to face it and seem not to have fun in casual games.

i.e I had a 1850 pt game against melta spam SW. I deployed 11 vehicles and finished with 8. I lost 3 chimeras. My volume of fire was over whelming. I felt dirty...

Tourneys... OK. comes with the territory. Fun games, not so much.

MikhailLenin wrote:

I think that is true but at the same time I feel that is created mostly from the lack of understanding of how to counter the list. There is not much different between that logic with this list and with lists that spam AV12 Chimera Hull, or Killa Kans spam with 300 Boys, or BW spam with nobs, or the old Tyranid MC spam. People might not like those lists but they develop the ability to play against them. Perhaps I am fooling myself into thinking this is just a temporary relapse.

I'm glad you took my comments in the spirit they were intended.

For my part - if I played against that I'd hunker down on whichever objective had the most cover and take pot shots with my meltas/eviscerators (and I have a ton of 'em). But even if I won, I'd not be having much fun, y'see.

I respect you setting a self-imposed challenge, and by god you succeeded, no doubt. Now you know that it can be done, erm, don't do it?

Hell, this is harder than it looks.

Long story short, you can build an army to win games, or you can build an army to win fun games.

Delephont wrote:
I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

If people build an army that will clearly lose, can they reserve the right to call someone who beat them "un-sportsmanlike"...because the other guy won?

I mean, look at the real world, nobody wants to go into a fire fight with the Navy SEALS or SAS, why? because they'd be outgunned and those guys have better training....oh boo hoo, nasty elite Special Forces, how dare they have the upper hand?!? I don't believe for one minute that Force commanders call for a sit-rep, deduce that their are only 5 insurgents in a building, sit down, do some math and decide, right, we'll only send in one SAS operator, with a knife and a pistol, and one hand tied behind his back....just to make it a fair fight.

God forbid that our wargames should come close to representing "real life".....I think some people need to stick with playing Chess or Connect Four....I believe these games offer "equal chances"

Life and death and games played for fun are two different things unless you are an ancient Roman. I don't see any problem with running those lists especially in tournaments. If you are just playing for fun running that same list over and over against friends might get old but to each their own. I would not refuse to play him but I would not fault others for refusing to play him either though because these games are not about just one person enjoying themselves.

Delephont wrote:
I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

If people build an army that will clearly lose, can they reserve the right to call someone who beat them "un-sportsmanlike"...because the other guy won?

I mean, look at the real world, nobody wants to go into a fire fight with the Navy SEALS or SAS, why? because they'd be outgunned and those guys have better training....oh boo hoo, nasty elite Special Forces, how dare they have the upper hand?!? I don't believe for one minute that Force commanders call for a sit-rep, deduce that their are only 5 insurgents in a building, sit down, do some math and decide, right, we'll only send in one SAS operator, with a knife and a pistol, and one hand tied behind his back....just to make it a fair fight.

God forbid that our wargames should come close to representing "real life".....I think some people need to stick with playing Chess or Connect Four....I believe these games offer "equal chances"

Ya, its called a 'nids list IMO. Sad, but I've boxed my 5th ed 'nids.

Azezel wrote:

MikhailLenin wrote:Long story short, you can build an army to win games, or you can build an army to win fun games.

There are some, like myself, that would say that the most challenging games are also the most fun.

I have a few tricks up my sleeve for those rat bastard Leafblowers I'm bound to come across at 'Ard Boyz. I'm actually looking forward to it.

Byte wrote:

Delephont wrote:
I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

If people build an army that will clearly lose, can they reserve the right to call someone who beat them "un-sportsmanlike"...because the other guy won?

I mean, look at the real world, nobody wants to go into a fire fight with the Navy SEALS or SAS, why? because they'd be outgunned and those guys have better training....oh boo hoo, nasty elite Special Forces, how dare they have the upper hand?!? I don't believe for one minute that Force commanders call for a sit-rep, deduce that their are only 5 insurgents in a building, sit down, do some math and decide, right, we'll only send in one SAS operator, with a knife and a pistol, and one hand tied behind his back....just to make it a fair fight.

God forbid that our wargames should come close to representing "real life".....I think some people need to stick with playing Chess or Connect Four....I believe these games offer "equal chances"

Ya, its called a 'nids list IMO. Sad, but I've boxed my 5th ed 'nids.

I have been tempted but I am sticking it out because I don't feel like playing another army and I figure I will just take it as a challenge to work with a average to sub par codex.

Vepr wrote:

Byte wrote:

Delephont wrote:
I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

If people build an army that will clearly lose, can they reserve the right to call someone who beat them "un-sportsmanlike"...because the other guy won?

I mean, look at the real world, nobody wants to go into a fire fight with the Navy SEALS or SAS, why? because they'd be outgunned and those guys have better training....oh boo hoo, nasty elite Special Forces, how dare they have the upper hand?!? I don't believe for one minute that Force commanders call for a sit-rep, deduce that their are only 5 insurgents in a building, sit down, do some math and decide, right, we'll only send in one SAS operator, with a knife and a pistol, and one hand tied behind his back....just to make it a fair fight.

God forbid that our wargames should come close to representing "real life".....I think some people need to stick with playing Chess or Connect Four....I believe these games offer "equal chances"

Ya, its called a 'nids list IMO. Sad, but I've boxed my 5th ed 'nids.

I have been tempted but I am sticking it out because I don't feel like playing another army and I figure I will just take it as a challenge to work with a average to sub par codex.

I tried to stick it out but SWs were handing me my bug butt.

Play the way you want man. But, I'll let you know what happened to me.

My group of friends used to play around four years ago, then we all quit. Why you ask (I'll pretend people care). They all quit because I was playing a Fish of Fury Tau list that no one could beat. I was unbeaten, I had not lost one game in two years of playing. Granted it would be different now, but that's how it was.

Personally, I think you should play the list you want to play. At the end of the day though, the game is only as strong as its community in the area, and if they are being babies because you're beating them, it's their fault.

Given that it has no scoring units, can this army even be said that it was made to win?

I can't imagine any semi-serious tournament venue I've attended where this would get far. @OP: Are you just playing in your FLGS? If you want to step out of your comfort zone and don't have a local tournament scene, you could download Vassal - it lets you play 40k on your computer with people from all over the world. I'd be happy to illuminate you to the weaknesses of your list.

LOL Every list has a weakness. EVERY LIST. You can not build a list that can beat anything thrown at it automatically. The game boils down to about a 50/50 of Skill/FOC layout.

If you honestly call this list lame, or whatever you all want to call it, then this isn't a good game to play for you.

People go into games with the same tactics and attitudes. They use the same units, and then they wonder why they lose to something new and innovative.

This list has flaws, it's not invincible. People are just sore losers and don't enjoy the game if they lose and can't figure out how to beat someone when their normal tactics don't work. It's blunt but true. People play the game to win. No matter how you look at it, when you set your models down, you want to win. When you play basketball, you plan to win. There is a fluff side to the hobby, and then there is the gaming side. Mixing the 2 when you deal with people other than yourself will give you varying degrees of agreement on what constitutes "fair". All's fair in love and war...hammer...

Well everyone wants to win, just to what level they take it is a different story. Everyone wants something different from games; some what the challenge, others want battles full of fluff, some just want to model and paint, and others want to bring armies that aren't made to slaughter and still have a chance. Nothing wrong with any of those, just something to work around. I like having a diverse good of players but there are times I will avoid certain people just because I'm not in the mood to play their "style". Sometimes I want to be able to bring out some Zzap Guns, a Big Mek with a SAG, and some Flash Gitz and not be completely slaughtered. I don't do tournaments because I like to "screw around" too much in games, but I understand that what I find fun is completely different than the guy across the table.

I should also note that annihilation is my least favorite game type, I prefer more objective based missions just about any time. When I see people with lists designed to table the opponent, it does bore me a bit since I then know that game will be no different than the rest of the mindless killing fields. Well I also think that tabling the opponent is kinda too easy of an option to begin with but that is more of my personal opinion there so whatever. Its not about holding objectives much, it about contesting them or tabling the opponent.

This isn't something only war gamers deal with but practically all gamers. I remember back when my friends and I used to play Half-Life 2 and go server hopping, now we just goofed around the majority of the time (building ramps and getting to places you shouldn't be able to for example) and we only played like once a week at best, however other people would join and complain that we're not playing at a full blown tournament skill level since they play 24/7 and expect others to do the same. Or we might get a WAAC player with admin power that abuse their power to "win". Hence we kinda just stuck to ourselves and found new servers when people started to find us. Just an example and I think the basic concepts apply.

@OP

Your list sounds like it was built to be a pain to play against. I think other people are justified in not wanting to play against such a list in a casual game.

If I watch a gimmicky list table someone quickly, I'm certainly not going to play against that person. IMO it's not worth it if you completely destroy the other person's game experience.

Hoodwink wrote:LOL Every list has a weakness. EVERY LIST. You can not build a list that can beat anything thrown at it automatically. The game boils down to about a 50/50 of Skill/FOC layout.

If you honestly call this list lame, or whatever you all want to call it, then this isn't a good game to play for you.

People go into games with the same tactics and attitudes. They use the same units, and then they wonder why they lose to something new and innovative.

This list has flaws, it's not invincible. People are just sore losers and don't enjoy the game if they lose and can't figure out how to beat someone when their normal tactics don't work. It's blunt but true. People play the game to win. No matter how you look at it, when you set your models down, you want to win. When you play basketball, you plan to win. There is a fluff side to the hobby, and then there is the gaming side. Mixing the 2 when you deal with people other than yourself will give you varying degrees of agreement on what constitutes "fair". All's fair in love and war...hammer...

You are quite short-sighted if you think that everyone plays to win. Of course we like to win rather than lose, but that doesn't mean that we're heartbroken if we lose and/or feel as if we have failed if we lose. It may be a nice bonus, but it is not always our objective in playing. I, personally, play this game for the narrative and social aspect. I play to have a good time with the people I play with. When I put my models down I don't think "Okay, I need to win" I think "Okay I want to have a good time." When I win, sure I'm happy, but I'd be just as happy to play a fun game and lose. When you have guys that come in with a list that is impossible to beat unless you have a list that is made to specifically counter it, then the game starts to lose its fun aspect and turns into a game that is solely for the elitist power players. Personally, I don't think that in a friendly non-tournament gaming atmosphere, lists such as these are appropriate. In a tournament, your goal is to win. In your FLGS, you shouldn't be looking to crush everyone in sight just to make yourself feel better.

How is that being a sore loser? I'm sorry, but personally, I don't like to play a game if I'm not going to have fun. How is just sitting there watching my army get trashed in the least bit fun? If I'm not going to have fun playing you (my one request when gaming), whether it's because of your list or your attitude, then I'm not playing you. It's as simple as that.

Long story, short:

- Competitive Lists = Tournaments (or against other competitive players)
- Balanced Lists = Friendly Games

Pendulum swings both ways. If you decide you don't want to play a list like this because it's not "fun" for you, then you are saying you only have fun playing lists you feel you can easily beat. This isn't an invincible list by any means so it's the only explanation. I see your reaction just as negatively as you see mine.

And this guy even stated he didn't come in as a WAAC player. You are making assumptions based on absolutely nothing about at the person. That said, I have fun playing anyone and I find the fun in socializing and just joking around with people. The game itself is secondary on if I have fun or not.