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.

2 lash sorcerers in a slaneesh and tzeench list.

Here's the list...

Sorcerer- lash MOS personal icon 130

Sorcerer- lash MOS personal icon 130

5 Termies- 4 combi plasmas 1 combi melta 2 power fists MOS 225

5 Termies- 4 combi plasmas 1 combi melta 2 power fists MOT 245

5 Noise Marines- champion doom siren power weapon personal icon rhino 185

5 noise marines- champion doom siren power weapon personal icon rhino 185

8 thousand sons- sorcerer gift of chaos rhino 291

8 thousand sons- sorcerer gift of chaos rhino 291

2 obliteraters 150

2 obliteraters 150

2 obliteraters 150

Total = 2002

What do you think? Would you play this in a friendly game? How would you improve it?

Obviously, if you are taking a 'friendly' list, you should never take double lash. It just isn't friendly at all, let alone taking two of them which can't even be targeted. Six obliterators to combine those lashes with only makes it worse. This list has the same base that the competitive chaos lists have, which makes it an unfriendly list.

When taking a friendly chaos list, I'd never mix and match between the different chaos gods. Reducing the list to 1 lash would definately make it more friendly.

Okay thanks but, I was hoping on the fact that i'm using less competitve units such and 1k sons and 5 man noises w/out blasters instead of plauges to help balance it out. Also my terminaters aren't really optimized and my 1k sorcerers have "fun" powers.

I voted no, not because of the double lash, but because it's two points over.

Incredibly cheesy and inappropriate for a friendly game, imo.

The 2 most cheesy things about the CSM power build are the double lash, and the oblit spam.

You've still got 3 squads of oblits, the only real "change" you made is that you swapped from harder to kill plague marines, to other specialty CSM's which also have nasty abilities. It may not be "quite" as optimal as the uber tourney build which competes with nob biker, but its been dialed back from a 10 to a 9 in my book.

That being said:

1) I would play it in a friendly game, I would also not think very highly of you, but I'll play anything. This is the type of list I'd like to see if I'm starting to practice for a tournament, not if I'm just going to play my DH one day for fun.

2) Improving it would be to vary it up a bit. Try 1 lash instead of 2, the CSM book includes tons of new and fun HQ's, they may not be lashers, but they're still a hoot to play with, try using one of these and a lash if you enjoy lash. Or just playing 1 hq with a single lash prince/sorcerer. No more trip oblit, you've got other choices in your book, 3-4 is the most you should see in a friendly game, I'd go for a defiler or maybe just 2 heavy support slots and take some fast attack or something.

I can see where you were going toning it down, but I sense you were loathe to tone it down in any real way, and it kinda shows. If these are true "friendly" games and you aren't practicing for a tourney and this isn't the status quo at your game shop (ie, everyone plays power lists) then I'd continue to dial it back a bit further.

Okay thanks, yes the list was designed for tournaments but, it's actually not mine. A friend of mine asked me to put it up and, see what people thought. What do you think of dropping 2 oblits adding 3 squads of lesser daemons since my friend seems to be fond of lash. Would that make it more appealing?

I personally have no issue playing it but, he figured others might.

The thing is, I have no problem playing it either, in a semi-competitive environment, testing tourney lists, and if this is what he's going for, then I'd say its fine. But if he just built this to a show up to a shop and have a good time with some random folks who might be 14 year old kids who aren't experienced and just bought what they think looks cool, or the 50 year old guy who has his pet army from years and years that is in dire need of a new codex, you may get some hard feelings.

The main issue is just dual lash and 6 oblits, dropping 2 oblits would go a long way, but I'd say you'd do much better just dropping a lash.

In a friendly game, it helps if someone can't describe your list as "lash spam" or "oblit spam". If your friend is designing it to play local tourney games, then I'd say its fine as is.

Before he changes it, I'd recommend taking it, actually playing it in the games he's going to, and seeing the reactions he gets in person from people, if people seem to not be having much fun, not enjoying themselves, or making remarks about his list, he can always ask "well what about it didn't you like?" and tone it down a bit from there.

Okay thanks i'll let him know about your idea's. I'll probably e-mail him the link to tis thread or something.

There's nothing unfriendly about competition. I wouldn't want my friends to bring gimpy lists to play me--where's the fun in that?

Playing the list once isn't cheesy, playing it constantly is

Bring it. However, if the pt limit is 2K, then shave off 2pts.

Here we go again

An effective list doesnt mean that it shouldnt be played in a casual enviroment. We play a game where there is a definite winner and loser. Saying that you would not play an army because it is too good at winning is like saying that you wont eat pizza because it tastes too much like pizza.

If you have trouble beating an army then the problem lies with you, not with the army. You should strive to better your playing ability and seek out particularly effective armies for which to pit your tactical might against.

Those that spout that so called 'cheesy' lists should not be used outside of a competitive enviroment (or at all) are usually sore losers that have become imbittered that they cannot beat a certain calibre of army and are unwilling to try and improve their game.

You will meet people who will play purely to crush their opponents. These people are not to be feared, they are to be challenged and defeated. This way everyone will improve in skill

Finally if you do play an effective list, be humble in your victory and chivalrous in your playing. Gloating will get you hated and helping people improve will increase your enjoyment of the game.

dude this list is so lame, if you want to leave a game with your opponent thinking "man my opponent abused the hell out of the rules and kicked my ass" then field this. but if you want your opponent to leave thinking "damn that army is original i'd sure like to face it again", cut some obliterators eliminate the lashes and create a theme to your army

Edit: A reply beat me in, this is in reference to Regwon's post.

Wow, how big is that soap box?

I sense you're TFG at your game shop, touting his tactical might and his armies fortitude and prowess and other big epic sounding self flattering words after he uses the most recent power gamer tournament army floating around to trounce on kids and casual players while telling everyone "stop crying, buck up, anyone can beat my army, IM just a better player". When in reality, its just giant crutch whacking the other player upside the head, not his "tactical prowess".

The guy posting this asked if we felt it was cheesy and right for casual play, we answered, don't try and turn this into your crusade against the terminology of "cheese".

SirRouga wrote:Playing the list once isn't cheesy, playing it constantly is

think about it how would you feel entering a "friendly game" against a guy abusing the crap out of nob bikers? I can almost garantee you will not have a lot of fun playing it

thedarkside69 wrote:dude this list is so lame, if you want to leave a game with your opponent thinking "man my opponent abused the hell out of the rules and kicked my ass" then field this. but if you want your opponent to leave thinking "damn that army is original i'd sure like to face it again", cut some obliterators eliminate the lashes and create a theme to your army

I'm not sure where the abuse of the rules are. It looks like a legal army list that isn't really taking advantage of any loopholes.

I don't know why people care so much about what list you use if they're "not interested in winning". I'd have no problems with using Dark Angels or Grey Knights against this army. Uphill struggle sure, but that's a choice on my part. I don't make moral judgements etc.

targetawg wrote:Edit: A reply beat me in, this is in reference to Regwon's post.

Wow, how big is that soap box?

I sense you're TFG at your game shop, touting his tactical might and his armies fortitude and prowess and other big epic sounding self flattering words after he uses the most recent power gamer tournament army floating around to trounce on kids and casual players while telling everyone "stop crying, buck up, anyone can beat my army, IM just a better player". When in reality, its just giant crutch whacking the other player upside the head, not his "tactical prowess".

The guy posting this asked if we felt it was cheesy and right for casual play, we answered, don't try and turn this into your crusade against the terminology of "cheese".

Do you only come across two sorts of gamers, those that play the game willfully and TFG? I feel sorry for you if you do. I play my games to win, as we all do. The difference is every time i play i help my opponent. If they make a mistake while playing i'll tell them. If i could help them improve their army then i shall.
I've never claimed to be a better player than anyone, because as soon as i do i will get my arse handed to me my the next guy i play, but i help if i can. It is far more fun to play against frighteningly effective armies played by people who are superb at the game. It is better for everyone if the standard of play improves isnt it? Would you prefer if nobody improves?

Also, the varitey that exists in our language allows for proper expression of our ideas. None of the words I've used have been intrinsically self-flattering although re-reading my post it may seem that that was my intention. If this is the case then i apolosige, it was not.

If you want to keep people happy while still having fun, just bring 2 lists to your FLGS. Ask the opponent if they want a tough, competetive game against lash/oblit spam. If they say yes, run your Lash/Oblit list, if they don't and want a friendly game, run a different list.

Regwon wrote:Do you only come across two sorts of gamers, those that play the game willfully and TFG? I feel sorry for you if you do. I play my games to win, as we all do. The difference is every time i play i help my opponent. If they make a mistake while playing i'll tell them. If i could help them improve their army then i shall.
I've never claimed to be a better player than anyone, because as soon as i do i will get my arse handed to me my the next guy i play, but i help if i can. It is far more fun to play against frighteningly effective armies played by people who are superb at the game. It is better for everyone if the standard of play improves isnt it? Would you prefer if nobody improves?

Also, the varitey that exists in our language allows for proper expression of our ideas. None of the words I've used have been intrinsically self-flattering although re-reading my post it may seem that that was my intention. If this is the case then i apolosige, it was not.

1) I don't remember saying I only come across only two types of players, your words, not mine.

2) We all play to win, however for some of us, that isn't our "primary" objective. Some people play to have fun as their primary objective.

3) It is fun to play against frighteningly effective players, not armies, in my opinion.

4) Where did I say the standard of play shouldn't improve? In my opinion, it should. However, NIDZILLA (for example) never improved the standard of play, if anything it hurt it, people stopping thinking tactically within the game and just bought a different army that they had to do less thinking with, and that won almost no matter what. Lash spam is just another new NIDZILLA variant in essence.

5) You and I differ on how the standard of play will improve. You think it will improve by everyone playing against the 'ardest lists possible. I believe it will improve by playing tactically challenging games, which is far, far different than playing against a win button army (dual lash oblit spam). Typically an army thats next to impossible to defend against (without tailoring for it, which imo is not the point of our hobby) doesn't teach you much other than: CSM's have an abusive list that can't be beaten by many of the lists out there, unless they get ridiculously lucky.

It's like saying your level of ability would improve in the game of chess if every opponent you played got an extra queen or two. The level of play improves when you both have to think about your decisions and adapt to changing scenarios, not when you have to figure out how to play against a stacked deck. I imagine the game would also become significantly less enjoyable if some idiot off the street walked up to a high level chess guru, sat down with 3 queens, rightly womped on him, and then walked off. It does nothing for either player.

And for the record, I've been in the hobby ~10 years now, I've played eldar throughout 3 editions, when they were great, and when they weren't. I've also played daemonhunters (grey knights, not LR spam) and imperial guard. I've brought all of them to local tournaments, to ard boyz, and to games day tournies. This upcoming weekend, I'll be taking imperial guard to Conflict GT. And I'm fine with the fact that I'm playing against a stacked deck, because its a tournament, and I know what I signed up for. But if I have the option of playing what will be a fun, more balanced game on my casual weekend, and playing lash and oblit spam, I'll play the fun game, because that list belongs at tournaments, not in casual play outside of testing.

@ the majority of people who wouldn't play this list- ok you have your opinions I respect that but, I don't need to hear them 6 times from the same person. If you would like to do that make 6 accounts and vote/post 6 times lol. Anyway thanks for your replies but,, know that I personally wouldn't mind playing this army since I beleive sortsmansjip isn't only list-deep.

and at Targetawg- i'm going to stay out of your fight with Regwon but, I do hope to see you there at the conflict GT this weekend. I'll be bringing my Iguana chapter of marines (there a spoof on sallys) you can't miss 'em they'll be bright green, with Iguana marking written on them and, will hopefully be at the top tables.

Dude to answer your question: YES its very cheesy,
I would expect to find it in an optimised nationals tournament against en experianced player with 'no morals'
A fun chaos opponent is Khorne, in pretty much the same way that orks are fun
maybe just experiment with red list and repost this article?

Well, I don't think you shouldn't play the list in a friendly game because it's cheesy, but because using Lash is annoying and sometimes frustrating in a friendly enviroment. So maybe you should just take a competitive list with the "more competitive" units and just use a different loadout on your Sorcerers when playing a friendly game. That way the other guy doesn't get annoyed and you'll probably have some fun trying out different stuff.

Add to the previous...
and make your obliterator squads in 2of 3, instead of 3 of 2, its a little bit less daunting

yermom wrote:@ the majority of people who wouldn't play this list- ok you have your opinions I respect that but, I don't need to hear them 6 times from the same person. If you would like to do that make 6 accounts and vote/post 6 times lol. Anyway thanks for your replies but,, know that I personally wouldn't mind playing this army since I beleive sortsmansjip isn't only list-deep.

and at Targetawg- i'm going to stay out of your fight with Regwon but, I do hope to see you there at the conflict GT this weekend. I'll be bringing my Iguana chapter of marines (there a spoof on sallys) you can't miss 'em they'll be bright green, with Iguana marking written on them and, will hopefully be at the top tables.

Haha, very nice, I'll be playing a dirty desert colored imperial guard army I've recently created, lots of tanks, last chancers, para bombers, it's quite an interesting army to use! Hope to see you at the top tables, I always enjoy a good game, esp. if its versus a nicely painted army!

And in real life I'm only 50% as obnoxious!

haha okay.

Good luck to you, unless you play me.

Looks like the normal dual Lash list and no I don't think its cheesy. Lash of Submission is very good yes, however I wouldn't say its any worse than a number of other things that can be exploited and abused in other codexes (Nob Bikes, 24 Bloodcrushers + Fateweaver, etc). I feel like if its in the book, GW put it there to be used. Lash is no different, and the FAQ which clarifies its mechanic serves as proof. People can speculate otherwise all they want but GW has made no statement to support anything but its intended use as is now, and their actions with things like the FAQ on it support that.

I personally prefer to play the game with tournament level armies (even in fun games, to me the strongest lists are the most fun to play with and against) so my opinion may differ greatly from that of many on here. I also agree completely that sportsmanship goes deeper than the armylist. In fact, I don't really think it has anything to do with the armylist. Why should people handicap their ability to win the game by taking a suboptimal armylist? The way the person carries themself during the game and interacts with his opponents is sportsmanship to me, not the models he decides to put on the table.

I wouldn't play this list in a friendly game.
What I would do is to take DPs with the MoT as double lash is very powerful.

So if exploiting nob bikers and lash isn't abusing a loophole, then taking 2 squads of 30 ork boyz and intermingling the squads so that everyone gets a cover save isn't a bad idea either?

Don't play that as a friendly list.
My 2cents

It's a jag-off army, and I'm pretty sure your friend knows that.

t's not fit for casual play, and it's not really even fit for tournament play. If he's going to cheese out, do it correctly and take some princes, plague marines, drop the terminators and up the obliterators to 9.

For the dude up top that is obviously TFG who says everyone plays to win, I don't play to win. I really don't. I regularly suicide my units, and pull off anything that would give everyone involved a good laugh at the expense of my own army. I play bad armies knowing full well how they won't ever compete with anything remotely competently put together, just as a challenge to myself.

I've been playing strategy games since I was 8, and have played competitive tournament games for years and have placed blah blah blah in them (this part isn't important as I'm sure no one will believe me), but some of us don't play to win. I don't care if I walk off with the W. That doesn't validate my gaming experience. I've seen enough W's and L's for a life time.

I play for interesting scenarios, trying out bad units and enjoying painting and modeling. Playing to win changes one's mindset to something that is strict competition instead of a relaxing hobby, and tensing up and having to concentrate on the game full time isn't my idea of a good, relaxing hobby. I have enough stress in my life to add it into my own personal retreat from said life.