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.

Whenever someone decides to do a Sharks and Jets routine between Dakka and Warseer, the most common derogatory phrase is 'Use Tactics!'

The implication is that the good people on Warseer (no, I don't post there ) believe that list building has only a minimal impact on the outcome of the game and that good use of units on the board can overcome all problems.

I think its fair to say that this is demonstrably untrue. Take on LR spam, nob bikers, dual lash or any other top tier list without an equally tough army of your own and you are asking for a kicking barring either a) outrageous luck, or b) your opponent being stupid.

I do wonder though whether dakka doesn't go too far the other way sometimes.



The other day I posted a 40k army list and asked for feedback. I specifically stated that I wanted to use it in competition and asked for people to be harsh in their criticism. What I got in reply was simply a different army list. Worse, it was a full on cookie-cutter with 3 identical HS choices, 3 identical F/A choices, 3 identical troop choices, etc.

Now I'm not saying that this was in any way a bad or ineffective list, nor was I ungrateful for the time and effort the poster had put in. Indeed I'm confident it would have performed admirably, but it wasn't my list.

It wouldn't have been quite so bad if the response had been along the lines of '...ahh, you have 2 identical HS choices and 1 that's different. You should make them all the same because...'

I had put in a different 3rd heavy choice and a different 3rd fast choice for sound tactical reasons, but was left with the impression that "if it ain't Cookie Cutter (TM), it ain't Dakka".



Has anyone else had similar experiences? Is the general opinion on dakka that only cookie-cutters are optimal for competition? Or is their room on the top tables for varied lists if you have a plan for the different elements (and have some redundancy for the role that each unit fills)?

Will a DakkaSeer or WarDakka forum one day emerge that will combine the best of list-building with the best battlefield tactics to provide the ULTIMATE GAMING FORCE!!!

Oh, sorry, I'd better lie down and take my medicine now..

I'll take a solid list and plenty of luck over tactics any day of the week.

Poor list building and bad luck combined with good tactics cannot compete with good list building, good luck and no tactics.

I for one think that a good list can be built with plenty of variety in it. For instance, in my chaos army, I routinely take 3 different heavy support choices:

3 oblits

Pred w/ autocannon turret, heavy bolter sponsons, havoc launcher

Vindicator w/ possession.

The predator is cheap firepower, the oblits are versatile but expensive fire power, and the vindicator makes my opponents poop themselves trying to keep it from shooting, thus drawing fire away from my other choices.

Also, by keeping 2/3 of my HS choices relatively inexpensive, it allows me to field more and more powerful troop choices.

IMO with some exceptions, "cookie cutter" lists just make it easier for a poor general to overcome his weaknesses because he doesn't have to think as much while playing due to more-obvious list redundancies.

Fair point, George and I absolutely agree with you.

My question, though, is are cookie cutters the only thing that can be considered competitive?

And if not why are they so commonly suggested here?

EDIT - thanks willydstyle, that just answered my question...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The implication is that the good people on Warseer (no, I don't post there ) believe that list building has only a minimal impact on the outcome of the game and that good use of units on the board can overcome all problems.

People who say this are full of baloney.

List building is a part of the strategy of your army.
Strategy, by definition, is the long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Basically, it means how you make your choices in what comprises your army list.
Strategy should always be designed to provide competitive advantage.

'good use of units on the board' is only half of a good strategy. What they are talking about is the use of tactics overcoming a horrible strategy or overlooking the fact that there is strategy at all.

Again, this is pretty much bullocks.

[edit] as far as tactics on warseer are concerned, I don't see much in the way of tactics being bantied about. But then again I dont see much of that here or on B&C either.
In other words, warseer isn't about tactics. I see a lot alluding to tactics in warseer tactics threads, but all they are are list building threads ("Heres my list, what should I do or change?" is the common theme). At least the ones I have seen.

Part of it is because Dakka isn't full of mindreaders. If you take two whirlwinds and a predator, we don't know if it's because:
1) you don't have a third WW model
2) you like the predator model and just feel like using it
3) the predator fills a specified role in your army,
4) You just weren't thinking that hard about it, or
5) the environment you're in makes the versatility important.

Cookie cutter lists are based on a pretty simple principle: that there exists, in some semi-hypothetical realm, an optimal list. Once you accept this fact, any deviation from that archetype should be justified based on solid reasons: scenarios, local meta game, comp restrictions, etc.

I think there are always times when there can be vigorous debate on tactical options (the powerfists in tactical squad debate was particularly edifying to me), but unless you explain your choices and defend them, I think that posters aren't out of line trying to shuffle your list closer to the Platonic ideal.

I find it really easy to understand why a certain list is considered good. I don't always use it though, because I'm a sucker for nice miniatures.

The rumble is on!
(its scary that I have this musical in dvd form, unopened)



To the topic-yes. I have found though if you post these codicils you get better results:

*tourney or non-tourney (aka WAAC or just built Ford Tough)

*what units or concepts you're specifically asking reviewed. What you will change and what you're not going to change due to fluff whatever

*what other units you have available to swap out.

Occasionally you can even ask tactics, but it terrifies some people. Not me, I'm just clueless...

Thank, Polonius

Insightful as always and it is now with no small embarrasment that I realise I didn't fully explain my selections when I posted the list

The idea of a platonic ideal intrigues me, though. Is there something inherently superior in cookie cutters that I may have missed??


Proceeds to embark on intense meditation...

In the UKGTs the netlist will probably allow you to qualify, but you are unlikely to win anything- They get you about 95% of the way there but that last 5% is the surprise factor that wins the tight competative games.

The main problems are that a lot of the more subtle tactics/list choices can't be math-hammered, described very well or are so situational as to be difficult to convey in forum generalities, so the merits of more personal lists are harder to convey. I generally view the latest interwebz nawtness a decent place to start when creating supalists, but there is generally still a lot of work to be done. Drop on top of this your response to the metagame: for example my tau now include a skyray. Generally not as good as a railhead, but much better against bikers of all sorts (especially nobs and attack bikes) and light/transport vehicles, both of which i'm seeing a lot more of.


--edit--
On warseer- the signal to noise ratio is seriously poor. On dakka you can find informed opinions and the will to tell the uninformed opinions where to shove it.

Cookie Cutter lists are based on the principle that if one thing is good then take lots of it to make a good list, ergo the lash list and in fact most tournament builds.

But you don't necessarily need to use the Cookie Cutter method to make an effective list. For example my Space Marine army every unit is designed to do a certain thing, admittedly 2 of my troops units are kitted out exactly the same but they are my take all comers and hold objectives unit (PW, MG, ML, Rhino), and I have 2 Vindicators but plonking those down on the table makes my opponent sweat something stupid, however Shrike and his assault marines are to put pressure from turn one (10 assault marines and shrike aren't exactly to be ignored when they can charge in the first turn) also the 3rd tac squad i take (PW, LC, PG, Razorback with LC) are a pure fire support squad same with the Dakka Pred (85pts why would you not take one). All the choices make sense when you see how the army works upon the table and I have had great success with the army so far.

So no to answer your question Cookie Cutter is not the only way to build a tournament army, my old Crystal Targeting Matrix army was beaten by a Guard and a Marine army that were not cookie cutter lists it doesnt always work, its a theory on building a tournament army but its not the be all and end all.

That and list building is a major factor in the game especially at tournament level as you have to build an army that can take on anything with ease and not just be designed to kill MEQs or Hordes heavily for example. however it also depends on how you play, how your dice roll and luck are also major factors when playing with any army not just if you have a hard list you will win.

And i completely agree with your statement: "Or is their room on the top tables for varied lists if you have a plan for the different elements (and have some redundancy for the role that each unit fills)?" Their is always room for an army like that and in some respects it will perform better than a cookie cutter list as if one part of your gameplan goes wrong you have units that can cover the situation to a degree.

I second Oddjob. I have never fielded an actual cookie cutter list in my life but seeing the cookie cutter list itself can sometimes give me a new idea and direction to head. I believe that personalized lists geared to win are far superior to the cookie cutters. Simply because you know how every part of your army works together and you might have found another solid combo that the redundency of a cookie cutter list didn't allow you to have.

Here's a pic of my absolute greatest strategy ever (that I've ever
documented).



See that Axer? Oh wait, you don't because he's GONE!

Your opponent should just have used tactics...

Tactics are situational, dependent on much more than just the army list. If you post an army list and ask for suggestions on how to make it stronger or more competitive, than you're going to get answers on what units are more effective, in general, which results in the aforementioned spam.

Now, if you go to the Tactics forum, and ask, "how can I use "X" unit or "X" combo most effectively..." you'll get a different response.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The other day I posted a 40k army list and asked for feedback. I specifically stated that I wanted to use it in competition and asked for people to be harsh in their criticism. What I got in reply was simply a different army list. Worse, it was a full on cookie-cutter with 3 identical HS choices, 3 identical F/A choices, 3 identical troop choices, etc.

Now I'm not saying that this was in any way a bad or ineffective list, nor was I ungrateful for the time and effort the poster had put in. Indeed I'm confident it would have performed admirably, but it wasn't my list.

It wouldn't have been quite so bad if the response had been along the lines of '...ahh, you have 2 identical HS choices and 1 that's different. You should make them all the same because...'

I had put in a different 3rd heavy choice and a different 3rd fast choice for sound tactical reasons, but was left with the impression that "if it ain't Cookie Cutter (TM), it ain't Dakka".

Long ago, in days of yore, when I stalked the Army Lists forum searching for heretical Guard formations, I worried about this a bit. As such, I tried to find the "theme" in the original poster's list, and suggest changes with that in mind. Now, if they included units which simply did not belong, I'd point those out (sometimes with a brief explanation as to why Priests were best left in their chapels, and not on the battlefield). And if the OP's stated purpose was to collect a dead 'ard army (implying they hadn't purchased anything yet), I'd feel free to make more extreme alterations to their TOE.

In most cases, an argument can be made for various alterations to the archetypical armies - is dual lash best served with maxed oblits, or does the versatility (and points-savings) of a Vindicator have a place? What upgrades belong on mechdar transports, given the intended tabletop usage of each? - so that even "cookie cutter" armies can vary slightly.

Generally, if you're looking for "how do I tweak this list to make it better" advice, make sure your request is clear. If you just post a list, and say "Is this tournament 'ard?," you're likely to get either monosyllabic responses, or else major list overhauls.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:My question, though, is are cookie cutters the only thing that can be considered competitive?

Dude. It is simple.

The reason cookie cutters are so often suggested is beacuse the internet is full of unthinking types who do not actually come up with tactics and strategy of their own, but merely copy the successful lists that others have made. As the ratio to copy-cats to innovators is somewhere on the magnitude of at least 20:1, often, the number of constructive suggestions to a non-standard army build is easily lost amidst the sea of mouth breathers who's only suggestion is to slavishly follow the one list born of the "internet's wisdom", as all others have been deemed unworthy.

This is also why you often see players with great lists, but with no idea how to properly use them.

As a corollary to your point, many times a "unique" list is created by somebody who has no clue how to play the game competitively, taking units based on their stand-alone abilities with no regard for how well they synergize or relying on obvious and bogus lynchpin tactics that no decent opponent would reasonably fall for.

The armchair generals with their sucktastic legions then slavishly defend their bogus army/tactics while better players meticulously point out why the net deck list is better. This simply enforces to a basic mouth breather that Net Deck lists are inherently superior.

George Spiggott wrote:I'll take a solid list and plenty of luck over tactics any day of the week.

Amen. You can have the best tactics in the world, but if you have bad luck and a bad list it won't matter at all.

sourclams wrote:As a corollary to your point, many times a "unique" list is created by somebody who has no clue how to play the game competitively, taking units based on their stand-alone abilities with no regard for how well they synergize or relying on obvious and bogus lynchpin tactics that no decent opponent would reasonably fall for.

The armchair generals with their sucktastic legions then slavishly defend their bogus army/tactics while better players meticulously point out why the net deck list is better. This simply enforces to a basic mouth breather that Net Deck lists are inherently superior.

Very good point!

A really good army is one in which all the units have complementary and supporting roles. Then it takes good play (or tactics) to bring the best out of the army.

This is why DE and Tau have often placed high despite being weak codexes.

Kilkrazy wrote:A really good army is one in which all the units have complementary and supporting roles. Then it takes good play (or tactics) to bring the best out of the army.

This is why DE and Tau have often placed high despite being weak codexes.

Don't forget that Redundancy has a big place in the lists so that the loss of any single unit doesn't disrupt the list too much. No amount of tactics can help you recover from losing your one anti-tank unit, for example.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Whenever someone decides to do a Sharks and Jets routine between Dakka and Warseer,

*snap* *snap* *snap* *snap*

When you're a Dak,
You're a Dak all the way
From your first cheeto snack
To your last dyin' day.

When you're a Dak,
If the gak hits the fan,
You got biker nobs lists,
You're competitive man!

You're never alone,
You're never disconnected!
You're home with your own:
When a tournament's expected,
You're respected!

Then you're on track
With a capital D,
Which you'll never give back
Till you win a GT.
When you're a Dak,
You stay a Daaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that the structure of the game, high points cost, and lack of viable options in some cases is also the reason for this.

Orks currently have 2 troops choices, boyz and gretchin. The boyz can be armed with shootas or slugga choppa. Nobody EVER fields a boyz list without nob. Then there are a couple of heavy weapon choices, 'ard boy or not, and whether or not to field a transport. You could essentially hit most of the combos for the ork boyz in the 6 slots allotted for troops.

A lot of the other units are essentially similar, why do anything else?

Then you take a system that's often run at a fairly high points cost, you end up repeating the same stuff over and over again. If tournaments/normal play was run at 1000 points you'd probably see less spammed units in army lists because you wouldn't have the space/points for it. Just won't make sense.

Deeeeeeeear kindly Warseer poster,
You gotta understand,
We like to play 'Ard rosters,
so cheese gets out of hand.
Our opponents are all chipmunks,
their armies are all junk,
Golly Moses, comp scores are all bunk!

Gee, 'USE TACTICS!' poster, we're very upset.
You try using lists that you ripped off from the 'Net.
You ain't no compfluffers,
nor misunderstood!
Your lame-ass crap deck lists are no good! [No damn good!]

They're no good, they're no good
there no god-damned good,
the best you all play test
is no damn good!

Cookie cutter lists happen for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost is that taking multiples of units greatly increases both their survivability and effectiveness. If you have two units that are identical, your opponent has to devote at least twice as much effort to taking them out. Additionally, those units can either combine their efforts for extra-killingness, or they can engage two separate targets.

This is huge, because hitting the enemy first is the key to winning. 40K (and any other wargame, or even real-world warfare for that matter) is about rendering the enemy incapable of achieving its objectives or hindering yours from doing so. Once a unit is dead, it can no longer affect the battle. Having multiples of units means that you can more effectively take down your opponents units, while at the same time making it more difficult for your opponent to do the same to you.

That leads into the second reason why spamming units is often a good, strategic/tactical idea: units are specialized. Take Orks and loota spam. No other unit in the ork army has the flexibility and hitting power of 15 lootas. If you want long range, medium strength, high-rof shots your only real option is lootas.

The third reason why taking multiples is often a good idea is because it reduces the number of things that the player has to worry about. A study was done that people can only keep three ideas in the forefront of their minds at once. If you've got 9 wildly different units with different weapon loadouts, resilience, and preferred methods of engaging the enemy, its quite likely that somethings going to slip through the cracks.

Having said that, a strong list isn't a guarantee of victory. Never has been. Only in cases of extreme mismatches does list design create an insurmountable challenge (say, Nob Bikers against an army without any of the 3 counters). You still have to know how to apply your armies strengths, and how to minimize their weaknesses. That's why, when I won the Chicago GT in 2007, even though I played against 2 Nidzilla lists, I easilly massacred one, while barely getting a massacre against the other (I had two carnifexes left, my opponent had one, but his wasn't scoring).

Good points all the way around. I am of the opinion that variety is better then spam. However I agree with the concept of concentrating your forces and the ability to spit your forces and not loose effectiveness. However other types of builds can provide the same effect. If you don't wanna think or come up with a new battle plan every game, go cookie cutter. If variety is your deal, it can work to.

While not cookie cutter, I do tend to build lists with a formula with any army I make. Most lists have weakness. Spam lists tend to have glaring ones. They are often hard to exploit due to their disproportional strengths but they can be beaten by hitting them where they are weak. I tend to go for pure balance and multiple tactical roles on any given unit. This allows for more flexibility and makes for fun games, for me anyway. I often break a list down like this. Using a few troop units as the example.

3 x 10 man tac squads with 3 HB razor backs.

Long range: 3 weapons (Las cannon, Missle launcher x 2)
Medium range: 3 weapons (Heavy bolters on razor backs)
Assault: 3 weapons (Melta, flamer, plasma)
Power Weapons: (1 fist, 2 power weapon)
Mobile units: 3 (squads in razor backs)
Armor units: 3 (razorbacks)
Stand and shoot: 3 (combat squads with heavy weapons)
Anti vehicle units: 6 (3 Hv weapons squads, 3 melta bombs on razor back squads)
Anti troop units: 9 (6 combat squads, 3 razorbacks)
scoring units: 6
contesting units: 3

Keeping things as balanced as possible allows for more units to react to a given threat on the battle field at any given time. Combined assaults and firepower is the order of the day. Less problems with losing a single unit, same strengh of spamming good units. Multiple battle field rolls allow for more tactical flexibility and less chance of drawing the one army you can't deal with. I like this as it gives an army wide synergy. Often making it easier to exploit an armies weaknesses. Lists like these react to what the opponent does and the terrain. Helps get rid of a bit of the rock, paper, scissors in the game.

Harder to play and takes a bit more brainpower on the field but mostly makes the game about beating the player not the list. Often players with powerlists get complacent and rely on there list to win for them. These types of lists, for me anyway, take them out. A great player who is cautious with a power list might be another story....but we don't talk about that.

(spoken)
Warseer . . .
(sings)
The most terrible site I ever saw:
Warseer, Warseer, Warseer, Warseer. . .
Such a terrible collection of tactics it inspires awe. . .
Warseer, Warseer, Warseer, Warseer. . .
Warseer!
I've just trolled a site called Warseer,
And suddenly that name
Will never be the same
To me.
Warseer!
I've just flamed a site called Warseer,
And the tactics that I viewed
They’re misguided and they’re crude
You see!
Warseer!
Visit short and it may cause crying,
Visit long and it's almost like dying.

Warseer,
I'll keep on despising Warseer!

(With apologies to both Warseer and Leonard Bernstein.)

Sha1emade wrote:Good points all the way around. I am of the opinion that variety is better then spam. However I agree with the concept of concentrating your forces and the ability to spit your forces and not loose effectiveness. However other types of builds can provide the same effect. If you don't wanna think or come up with a new battle plan every game, go cookie cutter. If variety is your deal, it can work to.

While not cookie cutter, I do tend to build lists with a formula with any army I make. Most lists have weakness. Spam lists tend to have glaring ones. They are often hard to exploit due to their disproportional strengths but they can be beaten by hitting them where they are weak. I tend to go for pure balance and multiple tactical roles on any given unit. This allows for more flexibility and makes for fun games, for me anyway. I often break a list down like this. Using a few troop units as the example.

And, if you're playing Space Marines, you can do this. Hell, Combat Squading ALONE provides a ton of versatility that nearly every other army lacks.

Ever tried assigning multiple tactical roles to a Guard squad? To a mob of ork shoota boyz? To Eldar Guardians? To DE warrirors? To Tau Firewarriors? For most of these, you can shoehorn something in, but it's often inefficient (an enhance warlock in some Guardians), ineffective (a markerlight on a Shas'ui), or both (a HtH Commissar attached to a Guard squad). Most non-SM armies obtain versatility through additional units, rather than looking to the same unit to perform multiple roles.

The process I used for constructing my armies is not terribly dissimilar to yours, except that I'm assigning whole units to fill a given role. For a guard army, it's something like this:

AT: 4x las/plas squads
Counter-charge: CHQ w/4 flamers, PHQ w/4 flamers
Mobile scoring: 2 AF sqauds
Anti-infantry: 2x LRBT, Demolisher
Anti-heavy: PHQ in Chimera w/4 meltaguns, Demolisher

(and so on).

For nearly every codex, there is one "best" choice to fill a particular battlefield role. For non-SM armies, constructing a good army involves taking those "best at role" pieces and sticking them together in different ways, while leaving out the less useful (useless) units. Unsurprisingly, many tournament armies for a given codex end up with a similar distribution of units, with minor variations (one more mobile scoring unit, but one less AT element).

Janthkin: I play the guard as well. I pretty much run them the same way. However it is a bit different. The ability to fill multiple roles is not as important as balancing the army as a whole, multi roles just make it easier. For guard half of my platton become mobile squads by not given them a Heavy weapon. Forcing them to move to be effective. As for CC squads i sub that with rapid fire. Basically 6" in range effective. Russ and most of the tanks can fill multi roles, mobile, troop killers and tank killers. But for the most part it is about the formula. Multi tasking allows for easier slot filling but not as important as keeping the numbers even.

Eldar are easy under this system as the army was designed to do it, at least in the army synergy side anyway. 3 x CC units and 3 x Shooing units. Mount the CC units and now you have 3 x CC units, 3 Shooing units, 3 armor value, 3 mobile effective, 3 stand and shoot effective. How the tanks are kitted allow for more slots to fill up where needed. I just even them out squad to squad as opposed to unit to unit. Still works for most armies. Hell I do it with my Necrons and it works great. If ya got 6 power weapons, have 6 48" tank killers and 6 36" ranged stuff. It will not always be even but the closer I can get the better the army works for me.

I often take units that are not concitered the best role for reasons of the formula. Scarb swarms, ratlings, scouts for DA, ogryn just to name a few. They are often my best troops.

You have very good points and I do agree with what you said for the most part. Your way may even be much better. This works for me and I have the fortune to have won many tournies this way. Often followed by, "Your list sucks, how the hell did you do that?" or after losing to it. "Your list is so cheesy! I just have no Idea why it is. It looks weak on paper."

One of the things about redundancy is that you can achieve it with different units.

For example, take the three HS choices I posted earlier:

Pred
Oblits
Vindicator

Despite the fact that the oblits and the vindicator are different unit types (vehicle vs. infantry) they both require the same weapons to reliably deal with them: lascannon and melta weapons, so they still offer a target priority conundrum to opponents. They both have roughly the same offensive capabilities because they mix anti-infantry and anti-armor roles, so both units help fulfill the fire-power requirements of my army. The advantage in fielding a possessed vindicator over three more oblits is that the vindicator is significantly cheaper, and is a vehicle, and so is actually tougher in a lot of situations than the more-expensive oblits.

Redundancy in roles, IMO is what's important. Some armies have multiple units that can fulfill the same roles redundantly, some armies only have one or two units for a specific role. Likewise, some players feel more comfortable with multiples of the same unit rather than having different redundant units.