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.

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