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 only feel like not playing somebody again if their attitude is cruddy during a game. If your list is hard, that is just something to be overcome, not something to quit the game over. It sounds like maybe you have just come across a streak of sore losers.

On the other hand, it does suck to lose every time you play, and being tabled is the most shameful way to lose. It says "I never stood a chance", so I can understand how some people would come to those conclusions. However, like said above, adapt or die! If you can't beat them, join them, right?

Hoodwink wrote:Pendulum swings both ways. If you decide you don't want to play a list like this because it's not "fun" for you, then you are saying you only have fun playing lists you feel you can easily beat. This isn't an invincible list by any means so it's the only explanation. I see your reaction just as negatively as you see mine.

And this guy even stated he didn't come in as a WAAC player. You are making assumptions based on absolutely nothing about at the person. That said, I have fun playing anyone and I find the fun in socializing and just joking around with people. The game itself is secondary on if I have fun or not.

And you're making assumptions about people too. Damn you, Irony!

The question of whether I can beat someone is almost irrelevant to how much fun I have.

Allow me to tell a rambling metaphor about sudokus (Japanese number puzzles that were fashionable a few years back, and are still around in some papers). I can solve a sudoku effortlessly. I don't even have to pay attention. Even the ones described as hard or advanced. They also bore me utterly. It's a completely mechanical, thoughtless experience. An exercise in pure, inductive logic.

Sudokus are very much likes this army list. There certainly is a solution - this list can be 'solved' - but no matter how easy or hard it is, deducing which number goes where, or saying 'I shoot it with my melta again' is not much fun.

The lists which are the most fun to play against (win or loose, and frankly in a month's time I won't remember if I won or lost) are the ones which challenge my creativity, my cunning and my ability to act and react.

Like I said - I respect the OP for setting himself a challenge - but such things should, I feel, remain in the realms of the accademic - or, the Tournament scene.

Azezel wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:Like I said - I respect the OP for setting himself a challenge - but such things should, I feel, remain in the realms of the accademic - or, the Tournament scene.

This is, by most Tournament Players' standards, a "fun" list.

I would be shocked if I was alone in thinking this.

I have two issues with this list:

1) It isn't built to 'win,' per se--it's built to short circuit the game. Yes, per the BRB, if you table someone, you win... regardless of the actual victory conditions. The problem with that is that it circumvents the ostensible goal of a given battle. It renders all 'story' aspects of the game utterly irrelevant.

Your opponent is theoretically trying to secure-the-weapons-depot/recover-the-black-boxes/etc. You are just trying to break their army. By disregarding the mission, you are forcing your opponent to go from a win/lose proposition to a lose/tie proposition.

In other words, it's not so much that you are trying to win the game... it's that you're trying to make it impossible for your opponent to do so. This, I think, is why your opponents aren't having any fun.

2) It looks boring as hell to use. It makes every game a minor variation of "did my dreadnoughts reach you or not?" I can't imagine that it would stay fresh for very long.

I'm sure if you played the same people regularly with that list, that they would pretty quickly begin to adapt both their tactics, and what they put on the table.

Personally, I like a good loss, it makes me think about how I could have changed my tactics, how I need to modify my army, and what my opponents are capable of.

I don't understand the thread title. Your opponents are jerks? Because they have no fun playing you?

How is it not fun to play against that list?

I mean, in KP it has an advantage, but if someone loses to it in an objective game they should really have their models taken away and given to someone who knows how to use them properly.

I want to get to reply to as much of the new posts as I can with this short explanation.

Firstly, I already have a really competitive list, my White Scars, up here in Portland, I have won quite a few tourneys with them as well as lost some (about a 2win:1loss ratio for tourneys). Than I built a Crimson Fist army which is very mid range on the competitive side and that was the intention, quite content with them. But then the BA codex came out and I thought about trying my hand again at a Close Combat Army but I didn't want to build a competitive army or least not something that was meant for tournament play and then when I realized I could build a Death Company list with lots of dreadnoughts, I was sold on the idea from purely an aesthetic point of view. I got to making a list and getting some feedback from my best mate and while he said that the sheer number of dreadnought would be rough, the downside would be that I can't score.

This brings me to the second point, I think that I am quite a competent player and list builder and I know this BA army has huge drawbacks and they were all intentional or taken into considerations but thats what I thought would make the game more interesting and less "Omg I just want to face roll your army like a backyard gets when I use a garden cleaning tool" (Joke at the ridiculousness of calling an army a Leafblower, and yes I know what it is). I personally don't see why the army gets bad rap, but I can understand why it does. Firstly, no game is going to be an uphill battle from the get go unless its kill points, secondly the army has flagrant exploitive fallbacks (on purpose) and thirdly I am not playing this list as a personal attack on you, my opponent.

Finally, regarding, what I felt was an illuminating point, regarding breaking the game by changing the overall perceived outcomes of games. That is a very strong point and I feel that I have no reply to disagree with it. Perhaps I should go to Ard Boys with this army keeping the theme (adding 5 more Death Company Marines, 1 Rifleman (Heavy Support) Dread and 1 more DC dread with some points left over), see how far it takes me and perhaps if it does well maybe it will serve as a point to Games Workshop that maybe this wasn't a good idea to make this kind of rules. Or I could just add some scoring units to the list while keeping a heavy load of Dreadnoughts. Either way, I feel no one will like the list and keep a sour face when they see it on the table.

In regards to is it fun to play? I find it actually quite so, granted thats because I never played close combat oriented armies since 3rd ed BA. But I feel like I playing the Ork Horde with 9 Killa Kans with just a lot less models.

I say take it to Ard Boyz.

I imagine you'd do pretty well with it.

Hoodwink wrote:Pendulum swings both ways. If you decide you don't want to play a list like this because it's not "fun" for you, then you are saying you only have fun playing lists you feel you can easily beat. This isn't an invincible list by any means so it's the only explanation. I see your reaction just as negatively as you see mine.

No. That's not what I said. I said I don't want to play lists like this because I don't find it fun to have my ass handed to me. I also didn't say I only have fun when I win, or play easy opponents. The fact is, I like to play against friendly people with balanced lists. Having games that are more based around the people's skill as a player rather than the potency of their list. Saying "you said this so it's the only explanation" doesn't do much when you're putting words in my mouth .

Hoodwink wrote:And this guy even stated he didn't come in as a WAAC player. You are making assumptions based on absolutely nothing about at the person.

I didn't say he was. I'm sure the OP is quite a nice guy, with no intention of coming off as a jerk, but let's put ourselves in the position of a guy who just saw the OP walk into a store. He could be the nicest, most kind-hearted player in the gaming store, but if he's coming in with a list like that, my immediate assumption is that he's coming here to win and eat most lists that aren't made to counter it. It may be that I'm being judgemental of someone because of a list, but it's a sad truth that aesthetics can cause judgement in the world we live in. For example; two guys walk in applying for an accounting job. One graduated top of his class, and one inched by. The latter comes in dressed in a nice suit, and a nicely written resume. The former (top of class) comes in in a leather coat, jeans, and his face covered in piercings. Who do you think got the job?

Also, your first post was very judgemental of a good portion of people, so calling me out on being judgemental is kind of hypocritical on your part.
Will I throw a power player a bone and play him for kicks (assuming he's got a nice attitude)? Of course I will, I'm not that much of a jerk; but I'm not going to be someone's punching bag.

Hoodwink wrote:That said, I have fun playing anyone and I find the fun in socializing and just joking around with people. The game itself is secondary on if I have fun or not.

Well then, we are different people (ZOMG!). I don't find it at all fun to sit there and have my face smashed in just so my opponent can prove he can build a nasty, competitive list, even if they guy is being friendly about it. I'll be civil, and I won't hold anything against the player, but that doesn't mean I'm having fun.

You should not have to make your list an anti-dread gimmick list, gimped against all non dread gimmick lists, in order to survive against your list.

But hey, play whatever you want.

Just don't whine when people stop playing against you.

ph34r wrote:You should not have to make your list an anti-dread gimmick list, gimped against all non dread gimmick lists, in order to survive against your list.

But hey, play whatever you want.

Just don't whine when people stop playing against you.

What is an anti dread list? A list with meltaguns....

MikhailLenin wrote:

ph34r wrote:You should not have to make your list an anti-dread gimmick list, gimped against all non dread gimmick lists, in order to survive against your list.

But hey, play whatever you want.

Just don't whine when people stop playing against you.

What is an anti dread list? A list with meltaguns....

Which every self-respecting IG, MEQ or Eldar list will have a fair share of.

I really don't understand the grief over this list.

Yes, there's a lot of nasty stuff in it. Yes, it can tear things to bits in combat. But it's *purposely* built with a large weakness. In any objective game if you have an immobilized, weaponless trukk or rhino or a single grot left, the best he can do is get a draw - heck, if you have a single grot left, you have a shot at a win!

Even in KP, it's got what, 11KP? Not huge, but hardly an optimized KP list.

sonsoftaurus wrote:I really don't understand the grief over this list.

Yes, there's a lot of nasty stuff in it. Yes, it can tear things to bits in combat. But it's *purposely* built with a large weakness. In any objective game if you have an immobilized, weaponless trukk or rhino or a single grot left, the best he can do is get a draw - heck, if you have a single grot left, you have a shot at a win!

Even in KP, it's got what, 11KP? Not huge, but hardly an optimized KP list.

I think it stems from: My opponent seem to think that by forcing myself into only accomplishing one objective, which is to table him, that I am personally trying to ruin the game for him even before the dice are cast and the game taken its course. No one likes to get tabled, but I think the pressure the list creates makes people feel that the only solid way to win is kill me before I kill them instead of trying to win the mission. (Not KP obviously.)

I've heard many people discussing the idea of "Table or Draw/Lose" lists. You're just the one who's actually gone ahead and done it.

I think that the more 5th Ed codices are released the more of this type of list you're going to see.

CatPeeler wrote:
In other words, it's not so much that you are trying to win the game... it's that you're trying to make it impossible for your opponent to do so. This, I think, is why your opponents aren't having any fun.

This might be OT, but this thought confuses me.

I don't consider myself much of a Win at any costs kind of player, but I do play the game with the aim of victory (that being the objective), and I generally pursue that by making it impossible for my opponent to oppose me (selectively execute their troops in objective missions, get ahead and then avoid annihilation). Can you explain why that would make the game less entertaining for you (I'm not trying to be critical just to gain some empathy and understanding of it)?

Jack

MikhailLenin wrote:The point of this thread, is that firstly I am not a giant jerk and I usually don't build lists to win, I build lists to make a game competitive and challenging to both players but I always stick to a certain theme. (Biker heavy White Scars, Wraithguard heavy Iyanden, etc...). I first started 40k with Blood Angels and it was nice to refit that suit for a new theme, a Death Company Army built to never score and to only win by tabling my opponents in 2 of the 3 missions.

Extreme lists of any sort tend to produce extreme results, either big wins or big losses. Either someone has the loadout to take out that much medium armour or they do not, and so the most likely result is a thumping one way or the other. One sided results are generally no fun for either player, and are much more likely to produce a bad reaction from an opponent. It's why I don't take extreme lists in fun games.

That said, there is a lot to be said for variety so I can see where the dreadnaught list would be a different experience to face, but I'd probably prefer a little warning so I could build something which might be an interesting match up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote:I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

That's because you've deliberately framed the question to make it impossible to understand. It isn't about armies made to win and armies made to lose. It's about what strength in your own list you're willing to go without to achieve other things.

Some people find a lot of fun in the narrative of 40k, and will sacrifice some level of power to build a more fluffy list. Some people prefer variety, and will change their list up to keep things fresh, even if that means they rarely take their most powerful list. Other prefer lists full of options and versatility, with lots of mixed units and redundancy so increase their tactical options each game. Some people prefer a close game to an increased chance of a win, and will take a lower power list to match more closely with their opponent.

Other people aren't interested in those things, and prefer to play to win. No-one is right, we're all entitled to play how we'd like, against people we want to play. Which is why it's good to talk to people before games, be honest about what you like and don't insist people are wrong for wanting to play the way they want to play.

I mean, look at the real world, nobody wants to go into a fire fight with the Navy SEALS or SAS, why? because they'd be outgunned and those guys have better training....oh boo hoo, nasty elite Special Forces, how dare they have the upper hand?!? I don't believe for one minute that Force commanders call for a sit-rep, deduce that their are only 5 insurgents in a building, sit down, do some math and decide, right, we'll only send in one SAS operator, with a knife and a pistol, and one hand tied behind his back....just to make it a fair fight.

Do you not actually see the difference between pushing plastic soldiers around table and a fight to the death?

God forbid that our wargames should come close to representing "real life".....

Representing real life? In 40K? Games about genetically engineered super men in powered armour running into melee wielding a chainsword? Who are going to use that chainsword to fight sentient fungus? Representing real life?

interesting list idea... did you take a bunch of librarian furiosos or something? unless you did, and they get that super 24" jetbike move psychic power, I don't really see how your army is a threat. Most lists should be able to shut down 3-4 dreadnoughts before they can cross the table... and with enough vehicles / roadblocks, you should be able to take the others that make it through. seems kinda silly to me.

also... death company dreads have rage? Did they not think to use transports to lure your death company dreads away while focusing on your furiosos and mephiston? Seems like that'd be a grand idea.

Monster Rain wrote:

MikhailLenin wrote:

ph34r wrote:You should not have to make your list an anti-dread gimmick list, gimped against all non dread gimmick lists, in order to survive against your list.

But hey, play whatever you want.

Just don't whine when people stop playing against you.

What is an anti dread list? A list with meltaguns....

Which every self-respecting IG, MEQ or Eldar list will have a fair share of.

If that was the case this thread would not exist.

Sorry, but its either standard lists with meltaguns are enough, or they aren't.
If they were, the OP wouldn't be having any problems. Apparently they are not enough.

Libbys with Wings of Sanguinius move like Jump Infantry, NOT Jet Bikes. Very different.

9 dreads are good to kill, at 1750 i have at least 8 move and fire lascannons and at 2k (which i guess this is pointed at? 20 DC arent cheap...) I would have some termicides with combimeltas. Death Company die to Bezerkers nicely as well IF they reach me.

Darth Bob wrote:No. That's not what I said. I said I don't want to play lists like this because I don't find it fun to have my ass handed to me. I also didn't say I only have fun when I win, or play easy opponents. The fact is, I like to play against friendly people with balanced lists. Having games that are more based around the people's skill as a player rather than the potency of their list.

You seem to be under the impression that balanced lists are under-powered lists.

Not the case at all - I have balanced lists that are extremely potent. The OPs list is un-balanced and this is a weakness.

Anyone who doesn't have enough anti-tank to stop 6+ vehicles in two turns is going to have problems but that's true against most mech armies as well.

if you want to build an army designed to purely ri another apart then go for it. If the opponent finds a way around then you can't claim any objectives etc etc so more power to them.

I think it is a brave move. As long as the shock tactics work and your opponent doesn't adapt you win by default.

i suppose i woudl just try and take enough heavy weapons/melta to take out the dreads befre they can do too much damage.

From what i have read the "easy" way to kill mepis also plasma/melta spam. he's the same T and Sv as a Demon prince i think and they can be killed in one round of shooting from a squad of Oblits (rapid fire plasma guns).

My meltaguns want to say hello to your dreads...

ph34r wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

MikhailLenin wrote:

ph34r wrote:You should not have to make your list an anti-dread gimmick list, gimped against all non dread gimmick lists, in order to survive against your list.

But hey, play whatever you want.

Just don't whine when people stop playing against you.

What is an anti dread list? A list with meltaguns....

Which every self-respecting IG, MEQ or Eldar list will have a fair share of.

If that was the case this thread would not exist.

Sorry, but its either standard lists with meltaguns are enough, or they aren't.
If they were, the OP wouldn't be having any problems. Apparently they are not enough.

Or the OP ran into a bunch of bad players that have some serious sportsmanship issues to deal with. That seems much more likely to me.

That list is not a good enough reason to not want to play someone again. Either there's more to this story or the statement above stands.

Jackmojo wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:
In other words, it's not so much that you are trying to win the game... it's that you're trying to make it impossible for your opponent to do so. This, I think, is why your opponents aren't having any fun.

This might be OT, but this thought confuses me.

I don't consider myself much of a Win at any costs kind of player, but I do play the game with the aim of victory (that being the objective), and I generally pursue that by making it impossible for my opponent to oppose me (selectively execute their troops in objective missions, get ahead and then avoid annihilation). Can you explain why that would make the game less entertaining for you (I'm not trying to be critical just to gain some empathy and understanding of it)?

Jack

Sure, I can elaborate. The difference is that make-it-impossible-for-you-to-win usually equals "I win." In this case, though, make-it-impossible-for-you-to-win will probably equal "we tie."

Let's assume a multiobjective mission. Under normal circumstances, the methods you describe (take out your opponents scoring units, protect your own, move to score) are the key to success. In many tournaments, however, you must not only have more objectives than your opponent, you must have several more to score full points for the round. This can be difficult under normal circumstances, in that you have to sacrifice a degree of local fire superiority in order to ensure that you'll be able to claim 3-4 objectives by game's end.

The table-you-or-lose army, on the other hand, completely disregards all of those considerations. In fact, your opponent is playing under a completely different set of victory conditions.

With an opponent who is simply trying to table you, your ability to spread out and go after multiple objectives is seriously hampered. Since your opponent isn't even pretending to go after them, he can focus all his attention on devouring your army. Obviously, you would approach a killpoint mission much differently than you would an objective mission. Objective missions are generally a bit more difficult to win by a wide margin, too. What this dreadnought tornado list does is force you into a situation where you are playing an objective mission and your opponent is playing a killpoint mission. Yes, you may still pull off the win against the Dreadnought Tornado, but will you still pull off the Massacre?

Further, your objective mission is suddenly harder than normal, while his kp mission is easier than normal. The objective mission is harder because your opponent no longer needs to divide his forces or protect his troops in order to claim/contest multiple objectives--the more aggressively he goes after you, the better, since you can't hit back unless you sacrifice the protection of your own scoring units. The killpoint mission is easier because it's no longer a win/lose for him--it's a win/tie.

To make another analogy, it's like you and your opponent are playing Mortal Kombat...but if he can pull off a particular combo, your controller will shut off.

Mad Rabbit wrote:@OP
Your list sounds like it was built to be a pain to play against. I think other people are justified in not wanting to play against such a list in a casual game.

..and this is the key. Some people want to play the game casually and some want to play competitively. If the people you are playing with prefer casual games, then your list should reflect that. If your group is competitive, then again, it should reflect that.

This is why most sports have different leagues. The C, B, A, and AA league. The C leaguers play for fun while the AA players can try to pound each other into the dirt.

Someone who posted to this thread mentioned that his play group dissolved because he had a list that nobody could beat. Prevent this from happening; talk to your group about ways that they could improve their list / game and possibly defeat you. Handicap yourself to see if you can still win with a lesser list.

Be nice.

sebster wrote:

Delephont wrote:I don't understand the concept of ripping into someone because they built an army "made to win"....what the hell does that mean? do people actually build armies with the sole intent of losing?

That's because you've deliberately framed the question to make it impossible to understand. It isn't about armies made to win and armies made to lose. It's about what strength in your own list you're willing to go without to achieve other things.

Some people find a lot of fun in the narrative of 40k, and will sacrifice some level of power to build a more fluffy list. Some people prefer variety, and will change their list up to keep things fresh, even if that means they rarely take their most powerful list. Other prefer lists full of options and versatility, with lots of mixed units and redundancy so increase their tactical options each game. Some people prefer a close game to an increased chance of a win, and will take a lower power list to match more closely with their opponent.

Other people aren't interested in those things, and prefer to play to win. No-one is right, we're all entitled to play how we'd like, against people we want to play. Which is why it's good to talk to people before games, be honest about what you like and don't insist people are wrong for wanting to play the way they want to play.

This is pretty much what I think. I like doing fluffy armies. For example, I would like to go for a Tanith IG army. That would mean infantry, rocket launcher and flamers. No Chimeras, and maybe a couple of allied Leman Russes. I like to divide my DE army in kabal list, wych cult list, or haemonculi stuff list. I will probably lose, but I don't care. I don't use to play tournaments. If I would play in a tournament I wouldn't use one of this themed armies, I would go for something more competitive.

But I don't like playing againts ultra-competitive armies in friendly games. I know a couple of guys who are WAAC and I'm not playing with them anymore. Their search of the humillation is exasperating, and makes the game anything but fun.

I could understand a list like OP's in a tournament, or as a experiment in a friendly game, but I wouldn't play more than one time or two against that army.

I tend to concur with Catpeeler and Sebster, with a side of Monster Rain. I think Sebster and Catpeeler have identified the issues with the list, and why it is frustrating for opponents.

It does change the nature of the game being played, and because it is a list which focuses on overwhelming your opponent’s ability to handle medium-armor vehicles, it does create a bit of a rock/paper/scissors situation. It’s not entirely surprising that your opponents were frustrated. If they brought scissors against your rock, it’s a bad situation for them. Even if it wasn’t an RPS situation, the change to the nature of the game may have been one that they were not adequately able to adapt to, and/or one that they didn’t find as enjoyable as a “regular” game where both players are trying to achieve the same goals.

That said, like Monster Rain I’d personally be interested in playing against it. I think it’d be a neat change of pace, and I like the idea of the challenge. I strongly suspect that if you bring this to tournaments you will encounter more people like us who DO find it interesting, at least to try out. However, given the way the list changes the terms of the game, and the RPS situations you do sometimes get with a spam list, you are also likely to encounter other players who react negatively to it.

To the OP: Play your list.

As long as there is nothing illegal about the list, there is no reason to stop playing it simply because it is effective. This is a game in which two players try to beat each other. I would feel cheated if I won against someone who wasn't trying, and I think it is at least as enlightening to lose, if not more so, as it is to win.

I see no problem with this list. It has a huge flaw: it cannot score objectives, which means that the only way it can win is tabling the opponent. To me, anyone who calls someone playing this list a jerk clearly doesn't understand the premise. In writing this list, you are taking a risk based on the fact that if an enemy does manage to hold the board and score an objective, you will lose regardless of how many units you have left or how "almost dead" the enemy player is. To me, this is a perfectly valid way to play the game that poses a unique and very different kind of challenge to the other player than a standard scoring list.

Fluff wise, this is a really interesting list that plays to the Blood Angels mindset. They're a bunch of raging vampires and anyone who stands in their way is basically toast. The Death Company aren't particularly concerned with objectives or strategy or whatever--they want to die fighting and take as many of the Emperor's enemies with them as possible. This list simply takes that idea to its logical extreme, which is what the 40k universe is all about.

This list is great. Keep playing it!