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 think we're all pretty familiar now with the various high powered top tier list like Nidzilla and Mechdar and SAFH asscannon-spam marines. They are rock hard, generally have an answer for any army that is out there and are pretty adaptive to most scenarios and playstyles. Most armies in a competitive environment find themselves needing to answer the questions of how they are going to deal with these top-tier armies that they are almost surely going to face in some form or another. This is where I was hoping to gain some insight from the more experienced players around.

When constructing your list, do you generally stick to a certain theme (shooty, mobile, vp denial.. etc.) and just try to make as effectve an army as possible or do you create a "counter-army" that contains specific units to hamstring certain popular, powerful armies? For instance, would you simply make the most powerful mechanized IG army you can or do you take unit A because it really gives Army B a headache and unit B because it exploits the one weakness of Army C? I tend to use the later method and generally end up with an army of separate units that are generally powerful but sometimes find themselve in matchups that they are ill-suited too (Inquisitor lord with mystics and psychic hood against sisters of battle say).

So that's my question. Feel free to post army lists showing either method A or B.

Dis wut wez orkses do. We'z gotta have a bit o dis ere, and a bit o dat der. Den uze look fer da killy stuff. Den uze gotta get da dead ard stuff in too. OOOh den uz gotta throw da weedy gitz out front and tell um "ur jobz specual" so dey dont know uze sent em out to get krumped. Den da boss comes around, smashes out wut he dont feelz proppa fer a waagh! And der uze got it. Course uze a umie, so iz dont spect uze to undastand da wayz of da waagh! Tellz ya wot, uze give us 6,000 shootas e'vry time wez come ta visit, and da boss wont put his boot on yer weedy throat! Howz dat?

EDIT- sorry that was uncalled for, my bad

My eldar army is resilient core + mobile shooting + elite shooting/assault in general.

My old Space Marine army was resiliency + dedicated anti-tank.

As far as paper-rock-sissors is concerned, my personal choice is not to take specific counters. My Farseers take Runes of Warding 'just because', while my Space Marines got by just fine w/o a Psychic hood.

From my own angle when I rely on vehicles I take lots of them to dilute the effects of my opponent's anti-tank, redundancy always being a useful strategy in 40k.

That's what I thought, my armies tend to contain lots of allies because I know that "Seraphim are great for taking out unit x, so I'll take a unit of them along with that DH Inq lord and Callidus Assassin" in my SM army.

I take the models I like, and figure out a way to make it work from there.

As a result, I tend to field a lot of armour and miss out on some staple units. It makes my armies unique anyway.

I have lots of marine tac squads(5)
and also quite a few Heavy Support units(3LR)
and for my IG it's pretty much the same

Short answer: I select units for general battlefield roles, and build armies by filling those roles. As the metagame evolves, I reallocate the weight given to variious roles. Most of the time, a unit may overlap several roles.

Example:
One of my standard Mech Guard load-outs is made up of:
5 Anti-tank/anti-TMC roles
5 anti-infantry-roles
2 anti-heavy infantry roles
2 counter-assault roles

AT/ATMC units:
Las/plas squads
Meltagun command squads
Russ Demolisher
Lascannon Sentinels

Anti-infantry units:
Chimera
Russ
Basilisk
Hellhound
Flamer command squads
Heavy bolter infantry squads

Anti-heavy infantry units:
Russ
Las/plas squads
Russ Demolisher
Basilisk
Cyclops
Demo Charges

Counter-assault units:
Melta command squad
Flamer command squad
Rough Riders
Demo Charges
Cyclops

Just an example, but it's illustrative of my tournament army-building approach. Unless I've got some wacky theme in mind (alas, poor Lustwing), in which case I try to shoehorn my themed units into certain roles.

I usually don't build armies to suit certain opponents or their armies. I just try to make what 'I' think that specific army should look like.

My IG have not adapted for an opponent in over 5 years. The squad numbers were painted on in early '02 and they've never changed. The army is designed to counter all tactics with massive numbers of Guardsmen and massive numbers of rounds headed down range. Tossing in a few Vehicles and Counter Assault Squads to ensure that the army is not missing out on any parts of the game made my army complete. Surprisingly, it does very well.

My Mech Eldar were designed with Grav-tanks in mind, as they are the sexiest models in the game. The army lacks anti-tank punch itself, but does very well without the use of Fire Dragons or Harlies. Jetbike Guardians and Storm Guardians are popular, as are Dire Avengers. The Eldar also has some of the best basic infantry models in the game.

The only army I've built thus far that actually considers the 'tourney scene' is my budding Witch Hunters / Pure Sisters army. With such expensive models and a difficult play style, I needed the input. This army is also Mechanized because part of the what makes the Sisters unique is their vehicles. The army contains 3 Rhinos, and Immolator, and 2 Exorcists and is pretty standard for a 1500pt list.

With the exception of the SoB army, each (including my WHFB Khorne Beasts) was built after I had written a pit of personal fan fiction about the army. This fluff was the real inspiration behind the design of the lists. This, at least, keeps all of the armies from being cookie-cutter copies of the GT regulars'.

I try and envision what a detachment or strike force would look like given some core models. I usually pick one or two models that I like the look of (eg; SM chaplain, whirlwind) and then I fill out the army list around them with a view to what might be a reasonable set of troops that would get deployed together in the fluff (so a couple of regular tactical squads to make up the bulk of the force and be motivated by the chaplain, a scout squad to find targets for the whirlwind, etc). I dont play so much as model and paint so I tend to work around what would look feasible together as a detachment.

I usually pick something that I want to do, and then try to make an army that works around it.

I might say to myself that I, for example, feel like fielding a trio of Hellhounds. I'll then add the Hellhounds, and then go about spending the rest of my points to compliment the Hellhounds whilst remaining balanced and capable of dealing with whatever enemy/mission I may encounter.

More fun than taking the same list every time because it's good at beating army 'X', or army 'Y' will have trouble defeating it.

Orock wrote:Dis wut wez orkses do. We'z gotta have a bit o dis ere, and a bit o dat der. Den uze look fer da killy stuff. Den uze gotta get da dead ard stuff in too. OOOh den uz gotta throw da weedy gitz out front and tell um "ur jobz specual" so dey dont know uze sent em out to get krumped. Den da boss comes around, smashes out wut he dont feelz proppa fer a waagh! And der uze got it. Course uze a umie, so iz dont spect uze to undastand da wayz of da waagh! Tellz ya wot, uze give us 6,000 shootas e'vry time wez come ta visit, and da boss wont put his boot on yer weedy throat! Howz dat?

Best post ever. That's the way to get into the spirit of the game...and make a good orc list too.

When I build an army, I pick a “theme” and build around that.


For the most part, the theme dictates what units I can take, and then I build around that.

Then I try to figure out how to handle the different armies I will face. For example, what do I do if I face Necrons with a couple of monoliths? What do I do if I face Godzilla nids? What do I do if I face a horde army? Etc.

And then I change my army to deal with those threats.

For an example I want to do Pre-Heresy Thousand Sons. So the tells me what units I have to work with in the Chaos Codex. Then I realize that I have no lascannons (for tanks, monoliths, terminators, big scary monsters). I can’t take oblits, so that left me with Chosen las/plas squads, Land Raiders and Predators. Not many good choices, but that is what I have to work with.

Hi there. Good question. I mostly construct a new army for every battle. Not to focus on the opponents army only, but to learn more of my own army components. I have only been playing for one year and I believe in learning the units strenghts and weaknesses by fielding them. Battle testing different units synergies should hopefully give me more clarity in picking a mix of succesfull armies/units.
I allways look at a list after writing it to make sure I have two or more units to deal with the major tasks of the fighting: Tank hunting, close combat, counter infiltrating, objective grabbing etc.
I mostly play mobile armies but where I play many use much armour, and field much anti armor. This has made me into a fan of the infantry and models with wounds.
I prefer blaming myself for losses. Models with wounds mostly allways gets to makes saves. Cover-, armor- or invuln saves. I get to roll the dice

For competitive play, I concentrate on functionality. I look over a codex and decide what I want my army's base to be. This is usually a combination of resilience and effectiveness. After that I look for other units that fill vital roles on the battlefield. A good balance of anit infantry, anti tank, close combat, and anti heavy infantry are all important in one way or another. How you fill those roles is up to you however. In some cases units may fill several roles. I use my dark reapers for both anti heavy infantry and to a degree, to help out with hand to hand. Now most people look at me funny when I say dark reapers are good for helping out with hand to hand because their hand to hand abilities are rather crapy and they are expensive units. The thing is they help out by killing hand to hand units before those units make it into hand to hand. That's part of the key to using them correctly. I've decided their role on the battlefield before they even get there. Now if there are no hand to hand units for them to kill, they go after the next best target, whatever that may be. A similar thought process goes into all the other elements of my army. Things get chosen as they are needed to fill a gap in the effectiveness of the army.

Now, if I'm going to be playing in an environment where certain armies, army builds, or styles of play affect what I'm likely to see on the battlefield, I will adjust my army slightly to compensate. One good example would be my war walkers. They come with 2 heavy weapons on each walker. If I know I'm going to be up against light infantry armies or if I know I'll be playing on fields that have lots and lots of terrain (city fight for example) then I will take twin scatter lasers on them. If I know I'll be up against an all (or mostly) terminator army, I'll give them twin star cannons. In other situations I might mix and match star cannons and scatter lasers. Other unit choices may be more or less prevalent depending on what I am expecting to face, but the overall makeup of the army is not going to change drastically.

Both theme and efficacy get equal weight when I construct armies. If it doesn't rate well in both categories, I won't take it. Usually, to give the theme some structure, I create a list of artificial restrictions that help in giving the army a distinct feel.

For example, with the 3.5 Chaos dex, I wanted to make a Night Lords Army. Here were the restrictions I came up with:

#1 - No vehicles - I wanted to do an army where every model had a toughness characteristic.
#2 - Use all of the army's special rules. So at least one unit in the army had to have stealth adept, multiple units of raptor, and 4 FA choices.

With the Stealer Shock list that Yakface inspired for DD1, these were the restrictions:
#1 - No elite carnifexes
#2 - Flying tyrant as HQ
#3 - Primarily Genestealers /w scuttlers and extended carapace as troops.

Coming up with a list of a couple restrictions helps narrow the field of choices wonderfully.

Depends on the context of play.

I simply do not have the time to enjoy competitive play beyond a local league level, which means I get to field less optimised units if i like the models (for example, my WH army has a unit of mounted Stormtroopers. Not optimal, but great models).

If I were to enter competitive play for real, I'd certainly streamline my armies. But that would make them less fun to play, so I'm content to play friendlies for now.

I tend to rely on the tried and true models that I enjoy playing with as I know what to expect from them as far as performance goes.

One key that I have used for a long time is looking at my overall ability to remove an opponents save. From 2nd ed I have in my mind he who takes the most saves loses. So if my opponent does not even get the chance for saves I become more effective.

Plus I have loved Harlies and FireDragons for over 12 years and could not see any eldar army constructed without the FD as a base.

Orion

I generally think in terms of "What do I think is cool, and want to field" and then once I have those few units/models down I try to build the army to be functional around them. I play mostly WH, which means that "cool model/unit" doesn't mean "cool rules." But even with my marines I decided I wanted certain things within the silly theme that sounded fun (a more melee focused army than the Sisters, but still shooty) so I picked the fun things I wanted, and looked to support them where they were weak.

For the IG army I am planning, I decided I wanted a lot of scratch built sentinels, and techpriests (or at least one.) So from there is it going to be "what fits the theme (www.girlgeniusonline.com is the source material, I want a Napoleonic looking army with "clanks" and "sparks") as well as "what do I want to build?"

I am however pretty far from a competitive player though. Something to keep in mind.

My strategy is to look at the Codex and figure out what it does best, what its strongest combo of models is, and then put that at the core of he list. Around that, I try to think of all the major threats that I don't have an answer for yet, and build that around the core.

With Mech Eldar, it's the Falcons. With Godzilla it's the Dakkafexes. Both are very strong, very undercosted units. They can't do everything, they're not at their best on their own, but they're very strong, very undercosted units. So you throw them in, then fill the rest of your points with models that will let your core models do their thing, and go from there.

Metagame comes in as you try to guess what you'll face, and be ready. What do I do if I face AV14? What do I do with a horde? What do I do with skimmers? What do I do against shooty? Against assault?

Well, personally I try to have an army that is based of off doing one thing, and that it shooting everyone off the table. Bother hi save armies, and horde armies. SO I have a little of everything. But with IG, you have to go all or nothing. They are not like marines which you can make well rounded.

I usually spend 3 months figuring out what theme I want.

Then I scale the list from 1500 through 2000 points.

Once I'm pleased with the numbers, I get the models and put the list together.

It then doesn't change until GW breaks the Codex with it's next revision.

I'm generally all in or all out when it comes to meta-gaming.

If I want to build something like a tournament list, I meta-game against Nidzilla & Mech Eldar the most. Mainly because if you can beat them you can beat just about everything else. Once I feel confident enough against those two lists, I do a quick thinking through playing against Mech Tau, and SAFH Marines. This worked till the new Ork dex came out and made a horde viable, so now how to deal with hordes is a special consideration for me when I'm building a list that isn't using Orks.

When I build something "competitive", I don't restrict myself in any way in what I will field. Sometimes that makes very unfluffy armies, and to be honest I don't care. If I'm going to something to win, then I'm taking the tools for the job, because if I don't, someone else will and it's possible I won't be able to handle it if I handicap myself. This is probably why you'll see comments of "Boring" in an army list thread I put up with tourney in the title.

That said, it gets old some times doing just that.

So there are times when I want to make fun lists that aren't really "optimized" but has units that compliment one another. My Mech Marine style lists do just this. No Lascannon or Assault Cannon spam, everything goes into units of 10, all in Rhinos, and heavy support is tanks. I know they're not the most effective things in the world, but they exist to play other friendly lists, not play against Godzilla or a Skimmer army.

Firepower and mobility if you want to metagame. That's why Mech Eldar/Tau and Nidzilla are dominating. Being able to bring concetrated fire thru your mobility on portions of your opponents army is huge and is the difference between massacres/crushing/solid victories. You can always be on the move and still have full use of all your shooty weapons. It makes terrain less of a factor as you can move to draw lines of fire or move to a point to maximize your shooting phase (fire dragons out of a Falcon ect). That's why assault cannon marine armies are so popular because all variations are mobile shooting platforms.

Lemartes wrote:Firepower and mobility if you want to metagame. That's why Mech Eldar/Tau and Nidzilla are dominating. Being able to bring concetrated fire thru your mobility on portions of your opponents army is huge and is the difference between massacres/crushing/solid victories. You can always be on the move and still have full use of all your shooty weapons. It makes terrain less of a factor as you can move to draw lines of fire or move to a point to maximize your shooting phase (fire dragons out of a Falcon ect). That's why assault cannon marine armies are so popular because all variations are mobile shooting platforms.

I love AC marine armies! So many Land Speeders, and I have so many S6+ shots into them.

However I wouldn't necessarily call those armies dominating...plenty of static armies exist that can bring mech armies down by sheer numbers.

I would definitely call those armies dominant. Mech Eldar, Godzilla nids, Necrons, Tau and AC marines are definitely the winningest armies out there right now (when played by competent players in a tournament environment).

Lots of static armies CAN beat these lists, but most of the time they won't - due to objectives and terrain.

I approach army design pretty much the same way as Centurian99, I want things that are fluffy and effective. The units don’t need to be the most effective, just not garbage. With a little thought and work you can usually distill any army entry into an OK unit, even if it isn’t hyper competitive. All your unit needs is one reliable way to effectively and efficiently threaten a unit on your opponent’s side and you have a winner (and a battle plan). Ideal units usually are capable of threatening multiple types of units or multiple units, that’s what makes them standards (see 6 man las/plas). But even sub-optimal units can be very useful if you can identify a good points efficient match up for them to take on. The trick is figuring out what the unit is good at and sticking to the plan during the game.

So once I’ve gotten an idea of what every unit is good at and what a good configuration is, I look to what models I like and have an interest in painting. Once I’ve got about 3,000 points painted I figure out as many possible permutations for armies at differing points levels for the units I have painted. Usually a theme will be self-evident just from the unit choices and paint scheme. But often the army idea came from just wondering how a random smattering of effective units will work together and wanting to experiment.

I almost never play the same army twice. I have more fun when I’m constantly changing my list and trying out new strategies. It also prevents my opponents from guessing what I’m going to bring and being able to plan effective counters.

If I decide I'm going to start a new army I talk to folks who run it, read the forums and discuss it with my buddies. Then I buy 4000 points plus in models and build them all. It's more efficient to get all the custom work and painting out of the way in one go. I never want to go back and add a unit or vehicle if I can help it. This way I can experiment with different army builds till I'm happy. Not such good advice for the cost conscience player, I know, but it works for me.

Presently I'm wrapping up construction on a Tau army and preparing to paint. I have everything you can get barring forgeworld stuff. Tau, Kroot, Vespids, hammerheads and devilfish, crisis suits, pirannas, special characters, pathfinder and stealth teams, etc...

I like building themed armies at least as much as playing them, and since I have several armies already it doesn't bother me to take a few months getting a new one together. Now that I've seen some of the powerful builds for Eldar and Marines, I think I'll start one of those next. Never Nids though, I just can't wrap my mind around that army...

Mech Eldar, Godzilla nids, Necrons, Tau and AC marines are definitely the winningest armies out there right now (when played by competent players in a tournament environment).

My point exactly. Necrons winning hard boys I figured had a good shot and even asked a good friend (Relapse) of mine before hand what he had available and some of his ideas because I was thinking at the time if I went that is what I would run. They were metagamed at the high points limit and are very mobile and shooty. Warriors became very mobile with three monoliths and cloak ect and massive amount of destroyers are quite effective.

Ugh. Necrons and winning in the same sentence.

All I can say is, not on my watch. lol