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.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

The
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)?

You dont understand the idea of redundency. One is good, two is better, 3 is best in many cases. One luck volley against say, your one unit of oblitorators, means you down your anti-tank unit. But if you had 2 lets say, yeah your opponent gets rid of one, but the other takes out said problem. If you had 3? it makes sure the problem is dead.

Some lists cant help but take 3. Sisters for example, their one and only anti-tank heavy thats any use is exorcists. Expect 2-3 every army.

I could be wrong but I see another comp versus WAAC debate brew haw hawing here.

Sound tactics will always trump cookie cutter lists if the tactician has a decent list. That's just the way it is.

G

Daddy, why is there a Dakka Musical?

I've got to say I don't see any greater implicit worth in a Tau army with a Hammerhead, a Skyray and a Broadside team than if it had three Hammerheads.

I don't think it is tactically superior. I don't understand why it is in some way morally superior. I don't agree it is necessarily an easier decision just to have three of the same HS rather than three different. It still needs to be thought about.

There has been a lot of talk about variety recently in various threads. If people want more variety they should get rid of their SM armies. There are nine or more non-SM codexes in the game.

Grumpy blah blah, etc.

I would say the three different HS for Tau, for me, would be better. But it is just how I play. For some spam works better then diversity. But given the almost HOLY devotion to spam on dakka it is always good to see it the other way. I don't think either is inherently better than the other. Both work well if done right. Just different styles. While powerful 3 of one type of unit is just too limiting to the way some people play, like me. I simply play better with more options. For me the diversity beats spam most every time, due to the limited tactical options that often come with it. Predictability from your opponent (SPAM) often leads to picking your own fights and foreknowledge of where they will be or do at a given time. Not everyones cup of tea but should not be discounted. Spam often plays it self. Runs on auto pilot many times. If the army runs itself, you know what will happen before it happens. Can side step or set a trap.

Just my 2 cents...

Non-spam armies can be successfull...I like to run them myself. I almost never take an army with more than 2 of any given non-troop choice.

They are much more difficult to play, and you have to construct your list much more carefully to gain the needed redundancy and resilience.

@ OP

Yup, I've had exactly the same problem on here. I've posted lists, explained the theme behind the army and explained what models I have available.

I then get a load of people replying with MASSIVE overhauls or completely new lists.

Now i don't bother..

Kilkrazy wrote:I've got to say I don't see any greater implicit worth in a Tau army with a Hammerhead, a Skyray and a Broadside team than if it had three Hammerheads.

Neither do I. I see a Tau player losing a lot of games, though.

It's because that 90% of the time its seen to be the 'most efficient' and 'best' list. However lots of things matter - terrain, the dice, you , your opponent there are a large variety of factors. The only 2 things you can rely on are the size of the table and what is in your army.

99MDeery wrote: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.

I think another advantage to 'cookie cutter' lists is that it removes some load from player's mental workload. If I've got 4 identical tac squads, it's really easy to keep thinking about their abilities, chances against various opponents, etc. if I change them to each be equipped with special weapons, then I need to think of different ranges, different kinds of targets, etc.

I'm a bit proponent of using tactics over "strong" lists. I never play the same list twice (unless I'm in a tourny), and yet still win twice for every loss easy.

I think that like most situations where you deal with two extremes, your best bet is to find the middle ground. Build a decent list that has flexibility, and know how to use it, and you'll go far, and have a lot more fun, then playing the same cookie cutter spam over and over again.

Luck is something that is out of your control (unless you cook your dice or something) but can be planned around through list design. Tactics can be offset by list design to a degree, but a savvy opponent will know where to hit a list where it hurts. There are, however, very few if any lists that win without at least a degree of tactical skill on the player's part, unless their opponent is unfamiliar with them and/or unskilled.

This, to my mind, makes list building the most important aspect to success. It is the one that has the greatest effect on the others, is the most directly under the player's control, and the one aspect of the game that lets them tune things to their own playstyle. The last one is the most important, because a guy who plays a certain way will most often do better with a weaker list that fits that style than one that runs contrary to his instincts.

However, good list building is easier to master than good tactics, because a list builder only has to know how his army interacts with other armies in a metagame sense and match it to his own playstyle. A good tactician needs to know how ALL units match up against each other and how to adapt to an unusual table situation.

Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you play the guy with a las cannon pike formation who never misses and you can't make a cover save....

Phazael wrote:
Unfortunately, none of the above matters when you play the guy with a las cannon pike formation who never misses and you can't make a cover save....

Hahahahhaa... QFT!

Cookie-cutter lists are a problem that has taken a lot from the hobby, I think. Within a few months of a codex being released, people tend to "figure" it out and discover the best builds. Then it becomes set in stone, and because of forums we can share the information easily.

It's not really anybody's fault, it's just a reality of the internet. We all do it once in a while - people ask for an effective list and we can all throw out a few off the top of our heads.

I think we just need to give these kinds of suggestions in moderation. Instead of suggesting an entirely new list, I think it's more appropriate to take into account the person's theme, then maybe work within that framework to make it more effective.

As with Comp scoring, the cure is better written codexes.

I personally despise cookie-cutter lists (dual lash, nob bikers, etc.). Few people bother to run lists that are strong but fun and imaginative. Then again, it's the fault of GW's writers, not us. Look at the CSM codex; a real disappointment after the 3rd edition one.