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.

SaintHazard wrote:I'm not saying the Tau codex doesn't have useless choices, every codex has useless choices, but I still say there's no one single awesome way to run Tau.

And to the folks saying leave them on the shelf, hush. I don't rag on your army of choice, hands off mine.

Crisis suits with missle pods. Easily included in any quasi-competitive tau list.

SaintHazard wrote:I'm not saying the Tau codex doesn't have useless choices, every codex has useless choices, but I still say there's no one single awesome way to run Tau.

And to the folks saying leave them on the shelf, hush. I don't rag on your army of choice, hands off mine.

I play Orls, Dark Angels, and Dark Eldar - I know all about useless choices.

I couldn't resist the shot at Tau, sorry. It just burns me that GW had a great new army with alot of potential and threw it down the drain. When Tau first came out I was really excited and got into them - and then I played with them and realized that they would never be a competitive army. Sure they were fun to play but they never could make an "take-all-comers" list.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I'm not saying the Tau codex doesn't have useless choices, every codex has useless choices, but I still say there's no one single awesome way to run Tau.

And to the folks saying leave them on the shelf, hush. I don't rag on your army of choice, hands off mine.

Crisis suits with missle pods. Easily included in any quasi-competitive tau list.

Yes, but that's just one example of one unit. We're talking about specific army lists that are the only "good" army list out of a codex, not just a specific unit/wargear choice.

Or are we? Did I misunderstand Melissia's post entirely?

Vrakk wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I'm not saying the Tau codex doesn't have useless choices, every codex has useless choices, but I still say there's no one single awesome way to run Tau.

And to the folks saying leave them on the shelf, hush. I don't rag on your army of choice, hands off mine.

I play Orls, Dark Angels, and Dark Eldar - I know all about useless choices.

I couldn't resist the shot at Tau, sorry. It just burns me that GW had a great new army with alot of potential and threw it down the drain. When Tau first came out I was really excited and got into them - and then I played with them and realized that they would never be a competitive army. Sure they were fun to play but they never could make an "take-all-comers" list.

Fair enough. I happen to think I play them relatively well, though. Then again, I play friendly games, not tournaments, so I can't really give you definites.

Well I don't give a damn. I have Melissia on ignore for a reason.

Crisis suits as a unit, a damned good, flexible unit.

sniperjolly wrote:Well, it WAS qualified with "arguably"

Yes. Besides, the codex DOES have just a few outstanding units, and then a few "okay" units, then a few really bad units (Space Pope anyone?). So it qualifies in a sense, but the Tau codex does have more options than older books. I blame third edition.

Melissia wrote:Define "organic" lists? Is an organic list something one builds oneself? If so, then why does one assume an Organic list has to differ that much from "internet" lists, whatever that might be?

Very good point. I have never actually looked at online army lists, but may build my army very similarly to some of them. As a predominantly CSM player there are certain units that you use, and others you tend not to. I think it would not be coincidental at all to see similar lists.

As I see it, a "Net-list" is one that is built, not from experience of play, but with dropping stats into a math-hammer program and then touted as "the best" list for that army. Usually there is little if any actual style of play issued with the list, just the numbers.... 'this unit will do this with this many wounds......' A list constructed from taking the best average for rolls and then some net-expert saying it is 'competitive' based on the math hammer results.

On the other hand, a list built from personal experience that evolves over time will account for the types of games you tend to play, your playing strengths and weaknesses, and the most common army lists you tend to face. There's simply a lot to be said for doing stuff, learning, doing different stuff and learning some more.

Net lists are a product of internet fads, mathhammer (of varying quality) and lists geared towards winning tournament style games, based on assumptions about the other types of armies that are most common at tournaments. Taking such a list into your local club can find wildly varying results.

A net list can be a decent place to start if a player is really unsure, but it only goes so far. If anything they can be actively harmful because a kid can get it into his head that his net list is objectively best, and he becomes unwilling to change it up to account for the deficiencies he’s facing each game.

And yet, people still accuse lists which are personally produced as being "net lists". That might be how you define it, but quite a few people seem to define "net list" as "anything I don't like"

Well, as I fairly new player, I looked at a lot of lists on the net for ideas on how to build my IG army. The sheer number of option in the IG codex, along with a general lack of understanding of what my opponents could possibly field, left me feeling a bit overwhelmed! So, my list has plasma and melta vets, a Manticore, and a Vendetta.

That being said, I feel like my list is still "organic," as I started with a blank list in Army Builder and built it up from there, instead of simply copying and pasting something. I am constantly tweaking it (I'm up to Mk. IV of my 2,000 pt list!). As a result, I know exactly what is in it, and I feel in that it is "mine" in every sense of the word despite the internet inspirations behind it.

What, how dare you look up information on the internets, don't you know they're all just powergaming devils who suck at the game?!?!?

But seriously, don't worry about it. Personally, I would say that the "organic vs inorganic" distinction was invented by people who have a desperate desire to feel better than everyone else. Not the kind of person you should pay that much attention to.

It's been my experience with the Chaos Codex that if you start with an organic list, and then toss out stuff as it doesn't work out every game, you will eventually be left with just DPs, PMs, Berzerkers, and Obliterators. This probably looks like some sort of "net list" out there, I'm sure, but it would be arrived to organically.

Some codexes simply do not have good internal balance, and there _is_ a subset of best-value units, at least for each slot. There is a synergy argument to be made, of course, but getting that synergy is generally a no-brainer.

I also suspect that "net list" is often more of a pejorative description than really meaning "I downloaded this list from the web and printed it out, no changes". A list that spams mechmeltavets (TM), three Vendettas, and three Manticores isn't really rocket science to develop, but they are certainly units that offer a substantially better return on points than most other stuff in the IG codex.

The fact of the matter is your opponent will never know from where your list originated until you open your mouth. It's entirely possible that given the same limited choices from your codex and the same limited number of points you have to play with, that you and some completely random dude posting on BoLS could come up with the exact same list all the way down to wargear.
Regardless, the basic flaw is not with the choice of using a list written by someone else, its the belief that the list itself will win you the game.

I find most people can be categorized to lie along a scale of "reliant on others" to "completely autonomous." Gamers that rely on the tactics, skills, and weapons of others have exploitable weaknesses; the most dangerous being predictability and an inability to cope on the fly. The most effective way to compete with anyone is to engage them on every level you can while trying to work every angle you can to tip things in your favor. This game, like most things in life, is not a measure of intelligence or strength, but a measure of how engaged you are with what is going on right in front of you.

Alot of you are misleading.

1) Using a net list absolutely doesn't mean that you are any worse at the game then the person next to you. Obtuse people may say that, but it doesn't make it true.

2) 'Net lists are NOT created off of mathhammering results. Net lists ARE created after people use them, alot. They're slightly altered each time you see them, though they're basically always the same, and for good reason. They consist of optimal units, and are edited to peoples tastes, because they know what works. The only time I could imagine someone saying "using a net list" as remotely true, is... well never. No one "uses" a net list... because it is just that. The internet, a list that people have used, and tempered... it has some of the best choices in the codex, when they work well together.

The above is in rant-form, since I guess I wandered off at the end there... but you get the point.

Except for the lists that ARE created using statistics tables, which end up being largely useless in practical application, but it's a square-rectangle situation in that not all "net lists" are created in such a way.

SaintHazard wrote:Except for the lists that ARE created using statistics tables, which end up being largely useless in practical application, but it's a square-rectangle situation in that not all "net lists" are created in such a way.

No net lists are created that way.

Unless of course you have an absurdly loose definition of "net list"...

With my current IG list i posted my original ideas on here to get some advice on what it needs? is that organic or net? i came up with the base of everything.

Netlist is just a term sore losers use in a pejorative fashion after getting stomped by a well constructed army list ran by a good player.


They cant seem to accept they might not be the best so grasp for straws to explain away the loss. "Oh hes just some noob with a netlist ..." etc

kill dem stunties wrote:Netlist is just a term sore losers use in a pejorative fashion after getting stomped by a well constructed army list ran by a good player.


They cant seem to accept they might not be the best so grasp for straws to explain away the loss. "Oh hes just some noob with a netlist ..." etc

I think most people would say that the one getting stomped is the noob with a netlist.

Unless they're the one being stomped, in which case their opponent is obviously using one.

I can only say that you should never ever use a "netlist" that originates from GWs official pages (or WD) other than that use whatever you feel more comfortable with.

M.

Vrakk wrote:One awesome choice for Tau?

Leave them on the shelf.

Fantastic!!

I used a "Fritz list *Harlequins* at my first tournament, spanked with it, and got called "Fake Fritz" for awhile. It wasnt "the SAME" list, as I tweaked it here and there, but basically it was his list. Took me getting my donkey handed to me for a few months with DE to overcome that nickname!

I think internet lists have their place as a starting point for your list. But using pure internet lists can get you into trouble because they AREN'T yours. You have an inherently better knowledge of a list you wrote and what it can do and what you expect from it because YOU wrote it. I wrote an article on Capture and Control dealing with the idea of list building. Check it out. Capture and Control: New Player 101: List Building and Synergy

Jeez, a good thread until all the Tau bashing, again


SaintHazard wrote:
I'm not saying the Tau codex doesn't have useless choices, every codex has useless choices, but I still say there's no one single awesome way to run Tau.

And to the folks saying leave them on the shelf, hush. I don't rag on your army of choice, hands off mine.

+1


BTW, I play Tau in tournaments and do just fine with them off the shelf and on the gaming table.

Too many people are making games into jobs... It first happened with Magic, then D&D minis, now Warhammer in our FLGS. While experimentation is expensive, it is part of the game. My buddy who plays Black Templars uses the same army list from game-to-game, even though he built/painted units he doesn't use anymore.

Screw the net lists! They don't know who/what/when/where your army is fighting, and every army is usually a reflection of the player himself!

Adopt, adapt, and improve!

I only look at net lists for ideas on things to tweek in my army, adding more oblits in replacement of defilers for example. More tank killing is helpful as bezerkers mixed with defilers is lots of infantry killing but not so much on tank popping. Oblits fit that role nicely and after a few test runs I see the difference. Now for Chaos Bikers...that is a home brew choice I've grown to enjoy over time.

Home grown lists I think help build better players than simply grabbing something off the 'Net. It allows one to get used to what kind of tactics they will regularly employ and adapt to that, my CC nature: see Berzerker spam and CC units, where as net lists just slap down a 'ok here is a game winner GO' and the results the person might get could be better but there is no satisfaction of knowing you built this list through sweat and blood and created something wonderful.

It's like a baby but plastic and just as sticky.

Yes! I admit, I have looked on the net to see what people have played recently, but I don;t use the typical build for my army, not out of obstinence, but out of the fit of my army.

Melissia wrote:Unless they're the one being stomped, in which case their opponent is obviously using one.

I can't think of a single instance of this, in my experience. The reason you're usually getting stomped is because you're playing someone better than you at the game or its just the simple fact that everyone loses occasionally, sometimes spectacularly.

The problem here is immaturity and social ineptitude, not any kind of list building. It is my humble opinion that a certain few people might have more fun in this hobby if they didn't spend so much time wallowing in excessively negative forum trolling.

I can. It's happened to me. But then they were right in a sense, it was a net list. Because I made it personally and I posted it on the net.

I just cme back to the game after a ten year break. Th first thing I did after deciding on my army was to pop over here to read every Eldar list posted since the new Codex came out, and read all the commentary about them. It was all very informative, and gave me enough information to let me competently build my own list that doesn't resemble any of them. But I wouldn't have known some of the important things that I do now if I hadn't had a chance to read them all. In particular, the commentary is very useful.