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.

Army List Critique Philosophies

I was noticing that every one give different type and style when giving advice on a list. Some times, they can be very complex, like changing over half their list to simple, “I would change Weapon X for Weapon Y”. I have also seen “This would make you list more fluffy” to “Why would you take that stupid unit”. I have been both pleased with the responses and so upset that it takes days for me to respond to a Critique on a list. Some have even changed some of my design Philosophies.

Here are my Army List Critique Philosophies [Giving Advice]
1] I try to suggest only small number of changes
2] If the person has a limited number of Models and wishes to be WYSIWYG, I try to fit within that framework.
3] If I am unfamiliar with a Unit and its usage, I try not to make changes to it.
4] Be happy when they Use my advice.
5] Do not get upset when they do not use my advice.
6] When I make a Suggestion, try to give a reason [I will be the first to admit I do not do this enough]
7] Never Tell Someone that an idea was a stupid idea.

Here are my Army List Critique Philosophies [Getting Advice]
1] I am posting the list to have it Critiqued, so I don’t get upset when they make a good suggestion.
2] If someone makes a suggestion that I do not agree with, try to find out why I should change if a good reason is not been made.
3] When I try to defend a choice, it is because I want to try it, if it does not work then it my fault for not taking you advice.
4] When I make a list and something works, I will keep using it until it fails me.
5] If I choose not to use your advice it is nothing personal.
6] I try hard to be WYSIWYG as much as possible, so I may not take your advice because I don’t have the Model.
7] I you TELL me to change something I will not because you TOLD me to, it is just my nature.

So what are your Army List Critique Philosophies?

If I give an advice I just want to make a suggestion and give a corresponding reasoning.
If I post an army list I'm open to making changes if the changes are based on a reasoning.

If the posted army list has anything to do with 'competitive', 'tournament', 'all-comers' or 'serious', I expect them to be serious or competitive.

If folks have limitations based on their model availability, then they need to post what models they have.

There are some lists that are posted that are so bad, I can't comment on them.

I usually stick to posting to army lists I am or was heavily playing, usually necrons or space marines.

Yeah, I tend to confine myself to armies I know the best as well, especially when it's the minute detail that needs adjusting. It depends on the question and the list.

In generally I try to give advice in the spirit it was asked for. If the guy is hacking out a list before buying figs then everything is fair game, but if the guy has issues based on theme or model availablity I'll generally respect those. At a philosophical level I mostly try to improve the list as presented, rather than suggest wholesale changes. Sometimes wholesale changes are necessary, but suggesting the guy go Mech when he's presenting (on purpose) a footslogging list just isn't helpful.

And yeah, I pull way fewer punches for lists that are supposed to be competitive. Those armies ask for and get the raw truth, as it should be. That doesnøt eman being a jerk mind you, but nothing's sugar coated either.

I've done a lot of critiquing, but mostly on other forums.

The most important things that all critiques should have:
1. Respect. Verbally abusing someone or someone's list for any reason isn't justified. Luckily, this rarely occurs.
2. Back up suggestions with well-explained reasons. Most of the time people do put a reason with their suggestion, but infrequently is it well-explained.
3. Some semblance of proper spelling and punctuation. It's true for all posts.
4. If you aren't familiar with the army, its units, and its strategies, it's better to make this clear and to limit your response along those guidelines.

Guidelines I like to follow:
1. Not to mess with theme, either a theme explicitly stated by the poster or a theme implicit in the list like mechanization or horde or nurgle.
2. To back up suggestions with mathhammer when appropriate. When I say autocannons are better for anti-tank than missile launchers, I like being able to prove it mathematically.
3. To change as little as possible. Swapping out upgrades and weapon choices is easy and changes little but can have a big impact, swapping out entire units is a little more dcey, and when you change out more than a couple units it stops really being the original poster's list. Sometimes necessary for poorly contructed lists, but to be avoided if possible.

When recieving criticism:
As long as it follows the guidelines above that I have listed as necessary, anything goes and more ideas can only be helpful.

A good thread. Anpu42 you pretty much sum up how I feel on this.

I just repeatedly tell people to take more Valkyries and melta.

Then they say something stupid like, "but I'm playing Tau." I then call them a n00b and keep posting spam on their thread until the mods come and close the thread down for containing an awful army list.

They never thank me though - you should probably include that on your list, people should thank posters for awesome advice like take more Valkyries and melta.

Thank you Thor665!

I like your thread, but you seem low on melta. I'd drop some of those other words and include more melta.

I heard melta is good.

And this one time, I blew up a tank with melta. So you know its good.

...

I only provide critiques based on my experience. While I only play SM, I have alot of experience dissecting army lists with my Ork, Eldar and CSM buddies. Sometimes I will chim in on those threads if there are obvious issues.

I try to give the most help in the fewest actual changes when people post lists. Too many suggested changes and you are really just suggesting a different list, rather than improving the existing one. No necessarily bad, but not what most people are looking for when they post their list.

I try to stick to the armies I have experience with, other than when it pertains to common sense issues.
'
I do not get upset when people dismiss my advice.

I always ignore one line posts like, "you need more melta lolololol"

I try to appreciate budgets.

The first thing I look at in lists is the synergy.

I, too, am in the "Speak up on what you know" side of things, and I tend to learn much from playing as, or against, any given army.

Aside from that, I like to look at a list, find what it (fatally) lacks, and what nuggets are there for the taking, looking at the direction, shifting it, and making it more survivable and/or getting it to unload ungodly piles of death into anything I play against or as.

This should be under forum rules/etiquette =)

I simply HATE how people come into a thread and say

"Your list sucks, it will never win. Ever. Change everything about it"

That just pisses me off, because I have seen a Punisher decimate a whole mob of 15 boyz (it had pask).

With a bit of luck, and planning, anything can be good. I've seen Rough Riders crush a whole unit of 10 termis with 2 CML's. I larfed my arse off, since before the game, the guy said "Wow, those Cowboys suck"

Anyways, I think people need to seriously stop getting so vindictive in their critiquing. People want help with their list, not for you to come in and say

"OMG your so stupid, wtf are you doing w/ those units in your list, I'm not even going to say anything"

People want help with their list, not for you to attack them for doing it wrong. For example, if someone has a whirlwind, I'll SUGGEST for them to replace it with a thunderfire cannon, and give a reason for it, in this case because 4 small blasts outclass 1 large one, and the thunderfire cannon gives you more versatility, and nobody really wants to put all their fire into one techmarine.

RAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

Nice thread, Anpu42. I agree with your thoughts and I think Culler had great points too.

I think the biggest thing to remember is that there is another person on the other side of that list.

I may not have a lot of experience, but I present any changes as suggestions and give my limited reasoning. It may not be the best, but like Culler said the more the ideas there are the better chance of helping out the original poster.

I take and give advice with a grain of salt (for the most part, sometimes I am just cranky and I happen to read the wrong post at the wrong time). I would say the biggest thing I try to do when taking advice, and god to I wish more people would do this, is to read the OTHER POSTS of the same type of list before I go asking the same questions that 10 other people have asked just recently.

My 40k Army List Philosophy considers armies as one element in a game-winning strategy, and it has three main principles to which all elements in an army must accord:

1. Flexibility
2. Redundancy
3. Synergy

Flexibility is easy: can an army handle a variety of opponents in a variety of terrain in a variety of missions and set-ups? Moreover, how is the army flexible? Is it composed entirely of flexible units, or is its flexibility due to having specialized units?

Redundancy is important, because on it depends the army's stamina: How much damage does your strategy suffer if you lose a unit? How much damage does a tactic suffer if a unit loses a model? Notice how this complements the axiom of flexibility: If your army is flexible by employing a variety of specialists, then how much redundancy do those specialists have? Redundancy goes beyond have multiples of single units or models though, as the roles of different units can overlap, and promote target saturation: having more units than your opponent can shoot at means one unit will survive unscathed, for example.

Finally, there's synergy, or how well the various elements of your army leverage each other. Two armies can have identical amounts of flexibility and redundancy, but if one has more synergy it will be the more effective army.

In addition to these principles or axioms, it's important to look at the role of units when choosing and upgrading them. These principles are about the role that each unit plays, whether it provides redundancy to another unit, adds flexibility to the army, or synergizes well with other units. Likewise the role of each model in a unit should be considered.

Each unit and model should have at least one role in your strategy, preferably more, and where they all have those roles defined it's much easier and much more amenable to discussion as to whether they are worth the points being accorded them.

But a good army is only 1/3 of a winning strategy. The second leg of the entire tripod is a set of tactics. Many people treat the Tactics forum like an extension of the Army List forum, asking what they should take rather than what should they do with some unit or combination of units. Many units are dismissed because people can't make the connection between their description on paper and how they work in the game, and even if they have experience with them in the game, they used them badly and thus have their prejudice validated.

It's helpful to have some idea, however sketchy, or what you want to do with an army, beyond the roles that each unit and model fulfills, to help critics understand what you should have to accomplish that goal.

Finally the last 1/3 of the strategy tripod is skill, which includes being able to eyeball ranges, move units quickly and efficiently, and be able to carry off your strategy without being distracted, letting the other player control your decisions, and so on.

In essence an army list is one facet of the jewel that is 40k, a facet that you need to appreciate not only in concert with the other facets of the jewel, but the interior that holds it all together, and the context into which you plan to put it.

Dracos:

Ha!