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'm a tyranid player, I also have a problem. I've been running a list in 1500-1750 points where nothing is on the table, everything held in reserve. It consists of 6 squads of genies, broodlord+retinue, winged tyrant, 3 lictors, spore mines, and am planning to add winged warriors. Out of my 6 40k playing friends, the one I play against most always brings a power build to the table. As a result I've stopped using balanced lists and running around with a poor chance to win and now run the genestealer army which I enjoy greatly even when it loses. However after winning two games back-to-back against another friend's eldar he claimed it was cheesy. He's a good friend so I don't like him being upset over stuff.

The problem, at tournament level, power lists win games, but get marked poorly on comp. Balanced lists lose to power lists but score moderately on comp and perform well against like-minded tourny players seeking good comp. Fully fluffy armies that can sometimes win get marked highly on comp. By playing balanced tyranids I always lost to my power playing friend, and usually drew or lost against the others. Playing a "power" build I now win sometimes. Any time I run gaunts they just can't make the saves to stay alive, genies can get a 4+. They are our only troop that can. I saw their save as the solution to my ever vanishing gaunt squads. Without number gaunts are horrible since they always need a synapse babysitter in the back field. So by playing "power" I now seem to perform decently, as opposed to poorly.

The first question, should I keep playing my genestealer army that I've begun to like? I tried running big bugs but don't like them. The swarm army doesn't have much appeal either because of how ineffective gaunts are. I feel like playing balanced lists puts me at a severe disadvantage because if I do run into a power list, I am not equipped to counter it because my strengths are spread out.

The other question(s), why should I ever play a "balanced" list if I know I will have to play against power lists? Should I simply play "balanced" and accept that I will lose to any "power" I encounter? I feel it'd be easier to play "power" so that when I do encounter the inevitable Nob Biker, Fully Mech Guard, Lash+Oblit, etc army I will have a solid force to engage it with and simultaneously know how to engage it. Planing a "balanced" list I feel I might have some units that would overall be ineffective at all against power (gaunts, warriors) and impair my ability further.

Originally I thought that I had a smart idea with the genie army. I was unaware it was a "power" build when I realized what keeping units off the table could mean for unit survivability. I got tired of seeing myself lose 1 sometimes 2 MCs over the first two turns from focus fire or seeing my gaunts die faster than mayflies. Thinking it was clever I just made an army of anything that could outflank or deepstrike and continually try and go second to deny them two turns of shooting. Genies get saves against guns unlike gaunts. Genies are actually effective in assault as well. I thought it was smart to keep my army out of reach of my biggest problem, guns. Though it seems I've made a poor decision because by playing an effective list, I am disliked. When I played an ineffective list everything was ok. What do I do, play genies (outflank, deepstrike) or normal (gaunts, big bugs, warriors) and should I play "balanced" knowing I will have to fight "power" regardless?

Help would be appreciated greatly.

on a side note, am I the only one who calls genestealers genies?

If everybody is playing "power" builds, and you need one to compete, don't feel bad about playing it. However, if you don't care about winning, field the balanced army that you like. It's your army, and your playtime!

All Genestealers is a power build? How does that work? All that someone has to do to beat you is field tanks.

If I were you, I'd make a "balanced list" and a "competative list". Vary those depending on opponents. The lists I use at the FLGS are radically different from the ones I throw at my bro (a new player with DE).

*giggles*

In my humblest of opinions, a balanced army *is* a power build. A *power build* is a FOTM(tm) list (Dual lash, nob bikers, fatecrusher).

A well-balanced armylist in the hands of a good player with tactical sense is destructive. I play gunline Tau (which anyone would tell you in stupidly uncompetitive) and regularly thrash...everyone. I play a balanced Ork list (20% HQ, 60% troops, a smattering of elite, fast attack, heavy support) and anyone who has faced them will tell you a woeful story; I don't know if using myself as an example is really a very good idea, but I honestly believe that a good player can make pretty much any reasonable army list perform spectacularly.

I guess the advice to give you would be this: If you feel like your friend is using a power build and your balanced list can't beat it, post your army list and his army list over in the tactics session, write up a walkthrough of a game you played against him (and presumably lost), and ask for tactical insight / advice.

RustyKnight wrote:All Genestealers is a power build?

I second this question. I know that some people had thought of 'stealershock' in the past, but it didn't end up that competitive most of the time. Bugs get shot to death if they come in on the wrong side.

A power gamer will tell you that you can run a power gaming list that is also balanced. Conversely ask yourself why does a power gaming list not have to balanced?

One definition of a power gaming list is one that relies on spam and tricks to win. Let's look at two well known power gaming lists:

•Lash spam (2x winged lash prince, 3x 3 Oblits, mounted Plague Marines/dual meltaguns)
•Nob bikers (2x mounted warboss, 2x mounted fully complex Nob squad, some boyz)

To me the 1st list is both balanced and a power gaming list. Lash is broken - power gaming, but the army can shoot very well, is good in close combat and is very mobile/partially mechanized. The second list has the two fully complex units with all kinds of saves, is highly mobile, awesome in close combat, okay at shooting. So you have the first list which is both broken and balanced then the second list that wins because it takes full advantage of complex units. You can compare the two against each other to note the differences.

I think people play power gaming lists because that is the easiest way for them to win as many games as possible. Now on the other hand a power gamer could design their own list and play it a lot slowly tweaking it into a very strong build that is inherently balanced. It takes a lot more time to successfully design your own unique list and it's also quite possible it might become another net power list if it wins a lot and receives a lot of attention as a result of the wins. That might sound self defeating but if the unique list eventually becomes popular and as a direct result no longer unique the creator can take some pride in knowing that they had a hand in influencing the metagame.

I think it is just silly to equate a fluffy list with a balanced list. A fluffy list is one that well represents the particular background for that specific race.. That does not automstically equate to a balanced list. Indeed if the fluffy list was balanced then probably it should be able to win at least half the games played using that list. A balanced list should be mobile, shoot well and also have a solid counter assault element. A lot of people who say both IG and Tau are not good in close combat but upon deeper inspection you can design an IG or Tau army that has a solid counter assault element. IG has access to Iron Hand Straken and commissars. You can take large mobs of guardsmen lead by commissars that have a good number of power weapons and are stubborn... I've seen them chew up stuff like Space Wolves and CSM. With Straken you can launch a strong counter assault with large blocks of guardsmen... Furious charge makes the basic guardsman just as a good as a Marine (neglecting WS) the turn they charge. You'll have to take a risk using a large part of your infantry to pull it off but it can work. Tau have access to large blocks of Kroot intermingled with Kroothounds all sitting in cover. Sure the Kroot might not serve as nothing more than a quick speed bump but it the timing is right it will buy you another round of shooting. So sure neither army is an assault army per say but they have access to units and characters that can form up to provide a counter assault when your opponent's hard hitting close combat units engage your line.

Personally I don't believe it's easy to build a good power gaming list with the current version of Tyranids since they have some serious issues cracking armor at range. A good player fielding a mech list has an inherent advantage over any Nid list in general... That's just the way it is now.

Finally there are some armies that are not perceived as broken overall but they might have access to some broken units. This is where spam comes into play, for instance 2x Monolith or 3x Exorcist. To me spam is a crutch. You are never going to become a better player if you constantly spam broken units. I don't see multiple units of the same scoring units as spam... Many races don't have a lot of scoring units to choose from. What I have seen as an advent of 40k is fielding a character that turns certain units into scoring units, warbosses and their Nobz quickly come to mind here following this trend of thought. Another one is Pedro Kantor and his Sternguard... Now add Lysander and suddenly you have a power gaming list but most people cannot fathom a triple combination. Pedro grants Lysander a much needed extra attack plus Sternguard are a much more viable scoring unit as opposed to tactical Marines and scouts. This particular army is lethal but relatively unheard of on the webways.

G

I would like to say two things.

First games against 'power builds' are generally more fun. I have a friend who would run pure infantry black templars, id play, shoot shoot scoot shoot counter charge and win. He now plays lash chaos and games are more enjoyable. Armies that do one thing are always bad to play against. The second is that power builds always ensure competition, and cut down on whining or 'martyr syndrome'. Where somebody runs low tier armies such as all infantry tau or demonhunters with 0 anti tank guns, so they have an excuse when they lose. Someone running lash cannot do this.

The second is about sportsmanship. Thats simply bad sportsman. Above friend got a 0 on a sportsmanship score at an event running guard in 4th edition. The reason; "you have too many heavy weapons in your list, its not balanced." Yes, guard won an objective mission, the guy complained just as loudly as when my mech eldar thrashed him. So sore losers are a problem of their own, its not because of power builds. I have never placed lower then one point away from highest sportsmanship score at any event I played in. That includes 1850 with 3 falcons, 3 harlie squads, the wonder twins, 2 mini jetbike units, and 3 vypers in 4th edition.

Well, in response to the OP, I too actually have found myself making power lists specifically to counter my friend's nob biker army. He plays at every FLGS tournament, and all of my other friends and I sit around and try to figure out how to beat his list (I feel particularly bad because I introduced him to the hobby) He never plays any other lists, and he goes to the monthly tournaments. I actually felt kind of dirty with the resulting list I fielded. I called it the hells kitchen because of the number of pie plates it fielded. 2 standard battle tanks, 3 basilisks, and 2 demolishers in 1500 points. I killed his 1000 point nob bikes in a single round of shooting. That I was OK with because he needed the beatdown as he was getting way to cocky (He went to the tournament on the USS Hornet and won every game) But against other players it was too much. I literally felt bad. So I make lists usually that I want to play with. That I think both me and my opponent will enjoy

To answer the question about why I've had it referred to as power was because I hide from shooting for two turns, giving them potentially only 3 to try and dismantle the army. Genies coming in on the wrong side has never been a problem, they just hid behind LoS blocking cover or go find an objective to sit on. Using genies I fought a CSM list with two dreads and two defilers and killed all four with the genies. Tanks don't scare me, the only tank that worries me is a land raider since genies can't hurt it. The downside to tanks is transports, being killed by the models after their ride gets wrecked or exploded. I just don't want to continue using gaunts or rippers because after seeing a multi-assault that managed to bridge a 6" gap between my 9 strong warrior death squad and a 24 model gaunt squad and had them both wiped I just have no faith in that unit to perform.

As a final note after reading all the above responses, should I run half genies and half something else? It's weaker but would probably please more people. I don't want to end up not having people to play against because of dislike for my army. I don't exactly have regular access to other players at the LGS due to travel distance. I think it's the reserve thing that's caused this issue.

and thanks ^_^

I'd have to agree with an earlier suggestion, if you can afford it: for non-tournament lists, have a regular list you use against the player who wants that, and a power list against the player who brings the big guns.
Even in tournaments where you have to keep the same list against everybody, if you want to tone down the evil in the stealer list, you can... have some (or even most) of them come on in the first turn instead of later, scouting instead of outflanking.

I run somewhat effective power builds. Mech council and a hybrid shooty marine list similar to darthdigglers. I have found that the people I beat with my footslogging eldar I beat with my mech council. The marines are the same way. And it raises the competition level. So go on ahead. If people have legit complaints about it you can listen, but a lot of people find once they get over the fear of power gaming they enjoy it.

Eidolon wrote:I run somewhat effective power builds. Mech council and a hybrid shooty marine list similar to darthdigglers. I have found that the people I beat with my footslogging eldar I beat with my mech council. The marines are the same way. And it raises the competition level. So go on ahead. If people have legit complaints about it you can listen, but a lot of people find once they get over the fear of power gaming they enjoy it.

This. Raise the level of competition. Don't build tailored armies.

Play balanced, all-comers lists.

Rais the level of competition.

I myself prefer balanced builds.

I run an Eldar 'synergy list' which is a list with a bunch of very different units (for example, my HS would be Fire Prism x1, Wraithlord x1, squad of 2 War Walkers) that don't seem to belong really in the same list together.
Yet when all the units are combined, I have an incredibly balanced list that works extremely well.

I also tend to use a buch of rangers, which you wouldn't think to be good, but they work.