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 was guilty of building Magic decks back in the day card-for-card, off the internet. I never felt that when I won a game, that 'I' won the game. It was really someone else's idea, that could be used effectively by any competent player. I feel the same about 40k, I would never feel comfortable with reading through a codex, waiting a few weeks, and then jumping on the internet to see what the best lists were for that codex. I want to make a unique idea my own. Right now I'm trying to make vehicle-less webway portal dark eldar work, but it's extremely difficult. If I can figure out the optimum list and strategy, though, it will certainly be my own and may just take a few players by surprise. I don't get upset with players who build their lists from the internet, but I do get upset when I see almost every DE list posted on Dakka followed with replies such as 'you have to take 3 ravagers'.

You just need better Tournaments. My FLGS usually runs pretty basic tournies, but every so often they'll have, shall we say, interesting ones. Such as a Doubles Tourney at 3/4 usual points, or the upcoming tourney, where you're only allowed to bring Infantry units (this includes Artillery). I'm rather looking forward to seeing how that one goes, though I'll not be able to participate in it, having very, very few infantry models.

Flavius Infernus wrote:I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

I used to be a fluffy bunny player, but now I proudly play netlists at tournaments. I even make it a point sometimes to play pure netlists, exactly as designed by the original Internet powergamer with no variations, to see how they work. I also always make it a point to tell my opponents where on the Internet I got my source lists. The games I look forward to at tournaments are the games against the best players and/or most optimized powergame lists out there. The challenge is the fun part for me.

But I don't go around bashing people who would rather play a different way.

I have no problem with this. I actually appreciate that you give credit to others. I played against a guy that always used internet list, and tried to claim that he thought it up. That was the biggest problem I had with him.

Just run what you like. I've only ever thought badly of Netlists when people seem to think they 'have' to use them, because they're 'better'. No. If you like the style of a netlist, then play it. If you like a different sort of list, play that! I actually use Kan Wall strategies for some of my play, though I use Battlewagon Bash for others, and a bit of Footslogging thrown in for good measure. I'd be okay with playing any single sort of netlist, but I rather prefer playing a unique, me-list.

i actually tried googling "ubberpowerfulspeshmarinearmyofawesomenessssss" .....

the only thing that came back was a link to this thread oddley. so since your term does not exist acording to the all powerful and all knowing uber internet, it invalidates the statement.

as for the cookie cutter thing.... well yea that happens. if something is proven to be effective and work, people will use it. especially if they are using an army list that has failed them. ie: "how come my tau keep loosing? - oh.... its because im using x, y z units .... everyone says A, B C units are better so ill try those instead... hey look i won! yay!" = repeat.

this also makes it easier to plan my tourney lists. if i go to a local tournament im pretty sure of what ill see, and of course could plan an army to take advantage of the weakness of such cookie cutter lists. the added benefit of not following form throws off the opponents plans when they dont see my expected Q T G setup of a particular army.

Let me just say that players who look down on WAAC players are just as bad as WAAC players looking down on other plaers because they're not competitive enough.

I can both play to win and have fun with my friends without compromising one over the other. And I can do that without bashing other people.

Flavius Infernus wrote:I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

I used to be a fluffy bunny player, but now I proudly play netlists at tournaments. I even make it a point sometimes to play pure netlists, exactly as designed by the original Internet powergamer with no variations, to see how they work. I also always make it a point to tell my opponents where on the Internet I got my source lists. The games I look forward to at tournaments are the games against the best players and/or most optimized powergame lists out there. The challenge is the fun part for me.

But I don't go around bashing people who would rather play a different way.

That was my intent yes. Ofcourse Despite reading from the age of 2 my reading ability has been called into question due to an interpretation of a reply it seems. Wonder if rules interpretation arguments also get that when someone makes a call other than what you believe it to mean? Oh well, I suppose every thread has to have one....

Perhaps it's a bit of a compliment to the earlier poster that when he looked at other lists on the net he found them to be close if not exact to his own for efficentcy and I certainly think that discussing where you read x list or y tactioc is a great way to spread word of sites and have communities grow And kudos to the necron player who smiles and has fun each game win or lose.

What I'm more thinking of though is, how many people go more for I'd like to break the mould approach and make an unusual list work, either by tweaking, tactics or other ways. Legal within the game system ofcourse .
Now everything may come to numbers (picking a more survivable unit with close/melee range abilities only over a long range but fragile unit) and I recognise that the game has many imbalances which will also limit selections. And lets face it it's not 40k specific the whole thing can be applied to any wargaming system, but with variables in the game being your own tactics why not try now and again?

Or am I interpreting things the wrong way again with the written word being prone to that

I just put whatever looks kool into my army.....we have fun

Vermillion wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

I used to be a fluffy bunny player, but now I proudly play netlists at tournaments. I even make it a point sometimes to play pure netlists, exactly as designed by the original Internet powergamer with no variations, to see how they work. I also always make it a point to tell my opponents where on the Internet I got my source lists. The games I look forward to at tournaments are the games against the best players and/or most optimized powergame lists out there. The challenge is the fun part for me.

But I don't go around bashing people who would rather play a different way.

That was my intent yes. Ofcourse Despite reading from the age of 2 my reading ability has been called into question due to an interpretation of a reply it seems. Wonder if rules interpretation arguments also get that when someone makes a call other than what you believe it to mean? Oh well, I suppose every thread has to have one....

Perhaps it's a bit of a compliment to the earlier poster that when he looked at other lists on the net he found them to be close if not exact to his own for efficentcy and I certainly think that discussing where you read x list or y tactioc is a great way to spread word of sites and have communities grow And kudos to the necron player who smiles and has fun each game win or lose.

What I'm more thinking of though is, how many people go more for I'd like to break the mould approach and make an unusual list work, either by tweaking, tactics or other ways. Legal within the game system ofcourse .
Now everything may come to numbers (picking a more survivable unit with close/melee range abilities only over a long range but fragile unit) and I recognise that the game has many imbalances which will also limit selections. And lets face it it's not 40k specific the whole thing can be applied to any wargaming system, but with variables in the game being your own tactics why not try now and again?

Or am I interpreting things the wrong way again with the written word being prone to that

I think most people do to some degree. For instance I built a DE army that uses reavers despite the fact from the internet blogs you get the idea that they are over costed and suck. I find them fun and an interesting choice presented to my opponent. Bunch up to protect yourself or spread out and die. I have a chaos army built around Emp Children that is pooh-poohed as being a waste and have done quite well with it.

For me the point of arguement/frustration is when you get a new codex and the writer is almost hitting you over the head with, " Well you have 18 options but there is the 1 option that I have insanely undercosted in comparison to the others..." Admittedly there will be mistakes from time to time but it seems like the mistakes are becoming the norm with every codex.

Vermillion wrote:
That was my intent yes. Ofcourse Despite reading from the age of 2 my reading ability has been called into question due to an interpretation of a reply it seems. Wonder if rules interpretation arguments also get that when someone makes a call other than what you believe it to mean? Oh well, I suppose every thread has to have one....

Reading ability =/= reading comprehension. For example, you can read this sentence without really understanding what it means. And you didn't understand the meaning of my last post.

I mean, if I have been pronouncing "lore" as "lo-reh" since I was born, does that make it right? No.

I LIKE to play different stuff in a list but often my lists look very similar. I usually play lots of speeders, a few scouts, etc. However i almost never play exactly the same list. It helps to keep my foes on their toes. they never know exactly what i am bringing. You know if people at your store are that predictable that they field the same thing every time, then try tailoring your army list to beat whatever they play. if it works and they say something, just smile and say "yup, you play the same thing every time, so ... maybe if you changed your list up once in a while ..."

The whole reason that i play the lsit that i do is because it seems like it might be fun etc. dont worry about loosing. Thats part of playing any game. anyone who is so set on winning probably should take a step back from the game.

sennacherib wrote:I LIKE to play different stuff in a list but often my lists look very similar. I usually play lots of speeders, a few scouts, etc. However i almost never play exactly the same list. It helps to keep my foes on their toes. they never know exactly what i am bringing. You know if people at your store are that predictable that they field the same thing every time, then try tailoring your army list to beat whatever they play. if it works and they say something, just smile and say "yup, you play the same thing every time, so ... maybe if you changed your list up once in a while ..."

The whole reason that i play the lsit that i do is because it seems like it might be fun etc. dont worry about loosing. Thats part of playing any game. anyone who is so set on winning probably should take a step back from the game.

I really like your style there. My usual way of building lists is looking at the models, grabbing a few I like to start with and going from there. Only reason I don't have a nurgle WoC contingent just now is the time it would take to convert stuff up for it :(

Really there are just different ways of playing. I personally like to garner as much power from what I play, I do this in every game, ( look for the optimum combinations) this is what brings me enjoyment.

That being said that is not the only way to play, nor is it the best way to play, there are simply different styles, and ways of playing. Which ever one brings you more enjoyment ( as long as it is with in the rules of course) you should pursue.

The only issue is when someone asserts that there way is greater than anther's. If you find fluffy armies "uncompetitive" then don't play that list. If you find "Competitive" or "net-lists" boring then don't play them. However, no one should look down on anyone else simply because you think you play army men with rules the right way. That's just silly and childish.

Let me start by saying I am not a tournament heavy player. I play at my FLGS as often as I can and love playing new players, armies, lists, etc.

I think 40K at his core, and any table top wargame for that matter, is a game of match-ups. Personally, I have as much fun making lists as i do actually playing. From my experiences thus far, when there is a will, there is a way.

Sadly, I must admit that my CSM aren't that competitive in tourney play these days. But, through experinece, mostly against IG and nids. I've found ways to defeat mech-guard and nid swarms. It's gotten to the point where some of the "competitive" players won't play their "competition" list against me because the matchup is so bad for them. Now, if i took that anti-guard list to tournament, I aint gonna do too hot, but if its elimination style, and I draw a mech-guard player in the first round (which is very possible), he's going home unhappy.

I'm not to saying that netlist players aren't thinkers, you still have to make the right moves once the models hit the table. And yes, some lists match up better overall than others. But everyone has a weakness, and having what it takes to both uncover and, more importantly, exploit that weakness. Is a huge, and, for me, fun aspect of the game.

I'm done ranting now. Thank you for your time.

Edited for redundancy.

If you find yourself having a rough time fighting cookie cutter always remember that's what you have cheese for.

Every codex has the ability to produce cheddar for the most dire of occaisions.

Even the Tau can use cheese with things like the Positional Relay and 15 Piranha/9 Broadside spam.

Cheese is the best way to counter cookie cutter since most cookie cutter lists are meant to be allcomers and not strong against one overwhelming aspect.

I agree. this is why i think peopel liek playing me.. i have a few set lists but every week bring anew fun list. people usually pick the fun list cause its random might beork gunline, might be all artillary/have guns, might be meganobs on foot, might be maxed out bikes with wazdakka... just a long as it is all different and fresh , i never use the same fun list twice

I avoid cookie cutter lists. Not because I'm opposed to WAAC but because it makes the game to easy.

It's not much of an accomplishment if you can beat a necron list with your tooled up rhino spam list.

But taking an uncompetitive list and beating melta spam or a kan wall, with it makes the victory that much more enjoyable.

I play IG, and I was slightly disappointed with the new codex. I got all sorts of cool new stuff, but my army isn't the underdog it used to be.

I travel alot so I dont really get put to sleep by cookie cutter list. Most of the time it is a variant of a net list, which I have no problem playing against. My most recent tournament the only cookie cutter list I played against was dashofpepper using his venom spam list and it was a good game, I guess what I am saying is if you constantly play different people who use different cookie cutter list its not that big of a deal. I can see a problem if your playing the same list over and over again which would be a problem even if it wasnt a net list.

The most fun game i ever played was against IG. My opponent was one of my best friends and we're constantly throwing new nuances at each other. One day I came in with a list completly designed for anti-armor. Meltaguns, infiltrators and deep strikers everywhere. my IG opponent showed me his list featuring 13 Lascannons, no vehicles, and I think a power blob as well. i had to put the largest pieces of available terrain on the field just to avoid being tabled by turn 2 and luckily forced a draw.

Edited for spelling and grammar

Ive been playing orks for awhile now. When i go to tournaments Ill take the best list I can think of, which will often have internet ideas in it, but if its not a tournament ill use whatever seems fun. I made a list recently based off of the last two Mad Max movies. But to answer the OP question, Yes. The internet lists and same old same old stuff gets very boring very fast. Maybe its because most of my friends have basically went through their codex with a sharpie and marked out everything that the web tells them is bad. Its so annoying

Just a thought - maybe we should start a few forum lists by codex and ask people to submit their most competitive lists. I am somewhat curious to see the amount of variation we will see. I think the stronger codexes will have the most variation while the weaker ones will end up with small variance but basically the same lists.

I have to say something about that chess analogy, with the St. George defense... It doesn't work against a good player with perfect knowledge of the game, but at most levels competitive play, how often do you play against somebody that good? Even against top players that opening has won (not even champions know every obscure opening and the perfect reaction to it), and even if they do know that opening, it is possible to force them into a game where they aren't comfortable, where they can make fatal mistakes. I've won with that opening, and I'm fairly terrible at chess, because the "better" players didn't have the right answers to it.

Now St. George is one of the better known "bad" openings, so isn't a good one to go with to surprise an experienced player, but there are other openings that can win just out of surprise factor. Will you beat a grandmaster of chess with them? Probably not, but you aren't going to beat him playing his game either.

How this translates to other games? In MTG, a rogue deck is one that is a surprise deck in an event, often tailored to beat the most expected opponents (or even meant to beat the expected top 8, and relying on luck and skill to get there). Some of them are even well known, and often dismissed, making their surprise factor when they win even higher. Do they require greater luck in pairings? Yes, because their bad matchups are usually quite horrid (otherwise it would be the default number 1 or 2 deck), but they are betting they won't face those matchups (often because of byes, or unpopularity of their hard counters). Do they require greater skill to play? Yes, since they often have less than 50 percent rating against other decks, you need to be able to milk every playskill/build advantage you can muster.

How does this work in 40k? You can bring an unexpected army to a paper rock scissors event, one that beats rock, has a winable (but tough) game vs paper, and hopes to not face scissors. An example? Bringing WH to an event where you expect IG, marines, and DE as being the major players, hopefully with not much DE... A good sisters player with a good list can beat IG (melta mech spam vs melta mech spam, but sisters have faith, flames, and power armor). They can also beat marine players (tougher, depending on which book, but doable). They lose generally against DE, unless they induct a full guard platoon, and even then its not a good matchup (speed + range).

Where this type of thing doesn't work well with 40k is many people bring poor builds of their army, they play them poorly, or the rogue builds are a little too predictable (most of them are in mono or 2 build codexes, like tau, WH, eldar, and chaos daemons) and aren't unexpected.

Of course, this also doesn't take out the whole cookie cutter argument, as most of the main builds, and even the rogue builds are well known. But with 16 army books (yes, many of them are marines), and usually 2-3 main builds out of each (some only have one, others have many), that makes for a rather diverse field of playable armies. So why do most events only have 3 main armies, and a smattering of others? Well, some are just easier to run, some are just cheaper to buy (yes, this is a factor), and some only have niche uses and are meant to correct out of whack environments (punish inbred metagames). Then there is the fact most events are too small to get a real sampling of the field. And most events that are large are fluff fests with wacky missions and/or comp (nothing wrong with this, fun is good, but not helpful for data purposes).

I love balance, efficiency and flexibility and I HATE gimmicks. So I end up playing a lot of lists that either are net lists I got from websites or I make my own lists that could easily be mistaken for a net list. Certain web sites put up some pretty balanced take all comers lists where you have all the tools you need to take on most anything and enough built in redundancy that you can take some hits and keep on rolling. Thats the kind of army thats ideal for me. I like to flex my 40k muscle on the board by good strategic play and win and loose by my own in game decisions. I tell people EXACTLY what to expect from my army and even ways to beat it (I often warn people if they are about to make a bad move in friendly games). I simply don't feel like I won fairly if I win because my opponent didn't know my HQ had "insert ridiculous piece of war gear here" or because he got bum rushed by out flankers or deep strikers or whatever. When I first started playing I hated loosing because of some weird and unfamiliar strategy that my opponent kept to himself until it he sprung it on me, especially since they wouldn't play with the same list again because they know it wouldn't work twice. I've been playing long enough now that pulling one over on me is pretty rare and if you want to win you better bring your A game and a mean list.

Flavius Infernus wrote:I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

Whatever would give you that idea? There are new threads bashing competitive players and their lists every day. I guess it helps some people to get over a bad game they dropped to somebody.

I tend to spam. Mostly as a defense mechanism and to avoid mis-deployment. If I have 6 x tacticals all outfitted with a flamer and multi-melta, I know what they are capable of and I don't have to flail myself for deploying the anti-infantry squad on the wrong side of the board. I have 6x units that are there for the same purpose and probably have 3 x supporting units that are going to cover for the weaknesses of my predominant choice. My favorite army going back to 3rd edition consisted of 5 razorbacks each with a 5-man squad with a flamer and a heavy bolter, 3 squadrons of 2 speeders with heavy bolter and then 3 dakka predators and 1 chaplain. It worked and I had all the answers I needed in the army. Sure I could have gone fancy with one-off preds or MM speeders but I knew what I had and knew what it was capable of. So over time, the lists have changed but the basic philosophy of keeping the army simple applies.

I really hate the term WAAC. It implies that there are 'costs' in playing to win, as if you can't possibly have fun and play to win at the same time. When applied to lists, it's even more meaningless. The fact is that some people who play this game are d-bags. Playing against a d-bag is going to suck, whether they are playing a netlist or a fluffy homebrewed list. They are the kind of people who will take their tournament list in a friendly game up against your random Kroot / Stingwing list and then laugh about how they smashed your face in. Similarly, playing against a fun person will be fun regardless of what kind of list they bring.

The people are the problem, not the lists.

augustus5 wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

Whatever would give you that idea? There are new threads bashing competitive players and their lists every day. I guess it helps some people to get over a bad game they dropped to somebody.

Actually since the time when I posted that comment, this thread has turned out to be very civil and not at all bashy.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Stephen Jay Gould wrote in his baseball essays about the way that game systems evolve, and he said a lot of stuff, but one thing he said I always think of whenever this discussion comes up. Briefly, Gould pointed out that the longer a system of rules is in place, the fewer successful strategies there are.

Because players have had time to figure out all the most successful strategies, and any deviation from the best strategies causes a loss of efficiency, you tend to see fewer and fewer strategies actually being used in play.

-In chess, nobody except a novice does a reversed St. George opening with the black pieces, because everybody knows how to exploit the weakness that it opens up. There's a huge number of possible openings in chess, but you pretty much always see one of a small number of standard openings because the game has been around so long that everybody understands the weaknesses of alternative openings.
-In U.S. football when I was a kid, you used to see pro players throwing laterals all the time. Now that everybody figured out that laterals aren't smart because they create a huge chance for a turnover without significant gain, no pro player ever throws a lateral.
-In soccer, everybody knows that defenders should stand right on the line when the other team has a goal kick. You're allowed to stand in other places, but everybody does it the same because standing somewhere else decreases the defensive efficiency of your team.

So it's the same with 40K. The longer a rules edition or codex is in existence, the more time players have to figure out the most efficient builds, and so you see fewer and fewer variations of those effective builds. It's permissible to play other builds, but in tournament environments where players are striving for the most efficiency, most deviations from the maxed out builds actually introduce weaknesses.

Very occasionally someone will come up with a new way of doing things that actually represents a new maximally-efficient build--like the 2004 Red Sox using sabermetrics to overhaul their player selection and gameplay strats in a way that let them win the championship. I think a lot of the contentious discussions in the Dakka tactics forum--like the ones about footdar and Draigowing lists--are really arguments about whether or not the variant builds represent a viable new strategy in this same kind of way.

And then, of course, if it does turn out to work, everybody jumps on the new bandwagon with the same effective strategies and you get a new equilibrium. Everybody in baseball uses sabermetrics now, and the Red Sox weren't able to keep winning using the same methods.

And finally, eventually the system itself changes, a new edition comes out, and the scramble to find the new most-effective strategies goes through another cycle.

I think the Internet accellerates the cycle, but I don't think it's something that can be avoided in the tournament circuit. There are alternatives to tournament play, though, if you don't like it.

Who *IS* the genius who wrote this?

It was like drinking Blue Label Johnny Walker for my eyes. Except that my eyes didn't get wet. But if I had been drinking Blue label and had read this, my eyes would have gotten wet. And the words would have been jumbled.

Well written.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread bashing competitive players and lists. But I guess it's too much to ask that we should have a civil discussion on this topic?

Whatever would give you that idea? There are new threads bashing competitive players and their lists every day. I guess it helps some people to get over a bad game they dropped to somebody.

Actually since the time when I posted that comment, this thread has turned out to be very civil and not at all bashy.

Something I'm glad about as it was never intended to be that way. More my curiosity about do these lists just become boring and predictable . I like the idea of post your most competitive lists to see which variations we see across the codices, would be an interesting experiment, but on the other side the most unlikely lists that people do well with and how they do it would be an interesting one too.

I will start off with saying I am a WAAC player, (with the exception of rogue trader, of course) but I also play in a very competitive venue. if you don’t roll in with some wicked crazy list you might as well be walking home early. I won’t get in to the details, I know I’m not the only player on dakka that play in this setting.

with that said this type of game play is left in tournaments. Most of our pick up games are “fun”, and less stressful. The player that walks around looking for pick ups with there TWC or leaf blower don’t get that many games. I will be the first to say I love my IG, it wins me tournaments and pays for my little plastic men. But I hate playing them, its boring to just point n’ shoot so I reserve my “ubberpowerfulspeshmarin(or guard in this case)armyofawesomenesssss” list to when the stakes are high. And play my not so powerful lists when I really don’t care if I win or loose and just want to have fun. Remember you learn more when you loose then when you win.

One point I want to make, its not uncommon to see these lists posted all over all the war gamming forums for critic looking for holes and ways to make them stronger. After a few pages of posts and army rebuilds is left a list that looks like it fell of the back of the stupid bus, and couldn’t hold water if it wanted to. You may remember a poll that was made about a week ago on how many tournaments people on dakka attend, I was shocked to see that less then 50% of players here play 2 or more tournaments a year. (and forgive my percentages I couldn’t find the thread to quote) and something like 10% or so really play competitively. I only bring this up to state how important it is to learn your codex, do your own play teasing and see what works. If you build your lists based only off forums and “cookie cuter lists” you are going to have a very hard time and only frustrate yourself and those you play.